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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
