 | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | (...) Ok. I'll make my script just use those. (Or rather, just the last two; I won't bother with the -.) (...) I like it, of course. (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) The "-" choice is actually helpful in case you hit the wrong key and accidentally give input when you didn't mean to. (Or maybe, like LarryP, you don't ever make misteaks :-) But I use it at least once a day! :) (...) I thought you meant (...) (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) Yes, that's what I was going for. Obviously not too successfully. :) (25 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) If we're down to just three choices, suggest that each choice get its own submit button. That's faster even than a radio button, and WAY faster than the current drop down list. And that improves usability from a human factors perspective. Of (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Richard Franks
|
| | | | (...) That's already been asked and answered (in the depths of this thread!) - reason for not doing it is because when you use the list view (>1 post on same page) it's more efficient just to have one submit button. (...) True, but if we did it (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) the (...) reason (...) Easy fix... Different views, different UI. In the list or tree view, use radio buttons and a single submit. In the single article view, use multisubmit. ++Lar (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | (...) I think the UI should stay as consistant as possible.... (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Tradeoffs of that nature (increased speed in exchange for decreased consistency) can certainly be an improvement from an HCI POV when the UI item in question is or should be used frequently. But that's not the case here. --Todd (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) You're right. Now that we're only using one watered down dimension with a meaning such that only 1 in 10 articles deserves highlighting and one in 100 deserves spotlighting, you're absolutely right, "recommending" won't be used all that (...) (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) That's half the reason. The other half is keeping it small because it won't always be the only thing in the article footer. --Todd (25 years ago, 23-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
