[Design] Design + Usability, Useful + Usable

[Matthew Eernisse]

Phillip,

I'm pretty sure any person who's used to normal visual conventions for 
disabling form elements would assume a checkbox with a gray check is 
disabled. Making it a manipulable element would be a pretty big 
violation of the principle of least surprise.

You could, I suppose go with a color to match the collection.

At least on the Web side, I'm pretty sure there's no cross-browser way 
to colorize checkboxes, so you'd have to whip up some custom graphics 
for it.

But the behavior you're describing is exactly what the eyeball model does.

If you're whipping up custom graphics anyway, why not display the 
toggle-state with something even more obvious for "visibility" like an 
eyeball? Then you don't even need the "Show" label. :)


Matthew

Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> I don't see either of these drawbacks if you use a greyed-out checkmark 
> in the box, but leave the *box* enabled for clicking.  Here's the state 
> map:
> 
> * Selected (highlighted) collection: clicking the box switches between a 
> solid checkmark and a greyed checkmark (that will go away if you 
> deselect the collection)
> 
> * Unselected collections: clicking the box switches between a solid 
> checkmark and an empty box.
> 
> This is consistent and easy to predict, without requiring any new 
> symbols to be invented.  If there is a column header like "Show" over 
> the column of checkboxes, then the meaning should be apparent as soon as 
> you notice the greyed checkmark moving when you select different 
> collections.