Multiple options vs single option UI Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar...
What is the ongoing value of the Kanban board to the developers as opposed to management
Where did Arya get these scars?
What is the best way to deal with NPC-NPC combat?
How to open locks without disable device?
Error: Syntax error. Missing ')' for CASE Statement
How do I check if a string is entirely made of the same substring?
Passing args from the bash script to the function in the script
Is Electric Central Heating worth it if using Solar Panels?
How to keep bees out of canned beverages?
Is Diceware more secure than a long passphrase?
Book with legacy programming code on a space ship that the main character hacks to escape
Does Mathematica have an implementation of the Poisson Binomial Distribution?
Implementing 3DES algorithm in Java: is my code secure?
Why didn't the Space Shuttle bounce back into space as many times as possible so as to lose a lot of kinetic energy up there?
How to translate "red flag" into Spanish?
Why did C use the -> operator instead of reusing the . operator?
finding a tangent line to a parabola
PIC mathematical operations weird problem
What's the difference between using dependency injection with a container and using a service locator?
Map material from china not allowed to leave the country
Why does the Cisco show run command not show the full version, while the show version command does?
Is Bran literally the world's memory?
A Paper Record is What I Hamper
What's parked in Mil Moscow helicopter plant?
Multiple options vs single option UI
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Why is it impossible to deselect HTML “radio” inputs?creating a switch for two optionsDeviating from the check-mark conventionChoice with a Radio button groupDo users understand this hybrid checkbox/radio control?Checkboxes or Radio buttons: Only one or zero choicesDisplay hierarchy of mutually exclusive optionsHow to design a form with lots of possible valuesDo non-technical users understand radio vs checkbox?Checkboxes, Radio Buttons, and Mobile Development
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
On the dashboard we are building we got 2 sets of options users can pick:
Multiple options (checkboxes)
and single options (radio buttons behavior)
while the look of the components is similar, their uses are different.
In usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product.
But, my designer colleagues argued that the components should look different and users have to understand if its a checkbox or a radio box from the first glance.
My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load.
Any thoughts or inputs?
usability gui-design interaction-design checkboxes radio-buttons
add a comment |
On the dashboard we are building we got 2 sets of options users can pick:
Multiple options (checkboxes)
and single options (radio buttons behavior)
while the look of the components is similar, their uses are different.
In usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product.
But, my designer colleagues argued that the components should look different and users have to understand if its a checkbox or a radio box from the first glance.
My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load.
Any thoughts or inputs?
usability gui-design interaction-design checkboxes radio-buttons
1
If you go with this approach, it becomes crucial to make sure it's clear when only one option is allowed vs. multiple. For instance, your example has two selections made for the field "Age", which I wouldn't have expected to be possible. One way to make this clear without changing your elements is adding some help text like "Choose all that apply"
– nvioli
8 hours ago
2
Those gray options look more like they're disabled, rather than deselected.
– 200_success
7 hours ago
"My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load." - Consistency with common patterns (global consistency) is more important than a single control design for both, even (particularly) if it behaves differently. I would also argue that if you're worried about cognitive load, then this is not going to achieve that reduction. "or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product." - did this require intervention to achieve? Did you test for hesitancy/etc vs control group version using normative design?
– taswyn
2 hours ago
add a comment |
On the dashboard we are building we got 2 sets of options users can pick:
Multiple options (checkboxes)
and single options (radio buttons behavior)
while the look of the components is similar, their uses are different.
In usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product.
But, my designer colleagues argued that the components should look different and users have to understand if its a checkbox or a radio box from the first glance.
My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load.
Any thoughts or inputs?
usability gui-design interaction-design checkboxes radio-buttons
On the dashboard we are building we got 2 sets of options users can pick:
Multiple options (checkboxes)
and single options (radio buttons behavior)
while the look of the components is similar, their uses are different.
In usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product.
But, my designer colleagues argued that the components should look different and users have to understand if its a checkbox or a radio box from the first glance.
My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load.
Any thoughts or inputs?
usability gui-design interaction-design checkboxes radio-buttons
usability gui-design interaction-design checkboxes radio-buttons
asked 17 hours ago
Deniz ErdalDeniz Erdal
1,0972817
1,0972817
1
If you go with this approach, it becomes crucial to make sure it's clear when only one option is allowed vs. multiple. For instance, your example has two selections made for the field "Age", which I wouldn't have expected to be possible. One way to make this clear without changing your elements is adding some help text like "Choose all that apply"
– nvioli
8 hours ago
2
Those gray options look more like they're disabled, rather than deselected.
– 200_success
7 hours ago
"My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load." - Consistency with common patterns (global consistency) is more important than a single control design for both, even (particularly) if it behaves differently. I would also argue that if you're worried about cognitive load, then this is not going to achieve that reduction. "or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product." - did this require intervention to achieve? Did you test for hesitancy/etc vs control group version using normative design?
– taswyn
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
If you go with this approach, it becomes crucial to make sure it's clear when only one option is allowed vs. multiple. For instance, your example has two selections made for the field "Age", which I wouldn't have expected to be possible. One way to make this clear without changing your elements is adding some help text like "Choose all that apply"
– nvioli
8 hours ago
2
Those gray options look more like they're disabled, rather than deselected.
– 200_success
7 hours ago
"My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load." - Consistency with common patterns (global consistency) is more important than a single control design for both, even (particularly) if it behaves differently. I would also argue that if you're worried about cognitive load, then this is not going to achieve that reduction. "or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product." - did this require intervention to achieve? Did you test for hesitancy/etc vs control group version using normative design?
– taswyn
2 hours ago
1
1
If you go with this approach, it becomes crucial to make sure it's clear when only one option is allowed vs. multiple. For instance, your example has two selections made for the field "Age", which I wouldn't have expected to be possible. One way to make this clear without changing your elements is adding some help text like "Choose all that apply"
– nvioli
8 hours ago
If you go with this approach, it becomes crucial to make sure it's clear when only one option is allowed vs. multiple. For instance, your example has two selections made for the field "Age", which I wouldn't have expected to be possible. One way to make this clear without changing your elements is adding some help text like "Choose all that apply"
– nvioli
8 hours ago
2
2
Those gray options look more like they're disabled, rather than deselected.
– 200_success
7 hours ago
Those gray options look more like they're disabled, rather than deselected.
– 200_success
7 hours ago
"My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load." - Consistency with common patterns (global consistency) is more important than a single control design for both, even (particularly) if it behaves differently. I would also argue that if you're worried about cognitive load, then this is not going to achieve that reduction. "or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product." - did this require intervention to achieve? Did you test for hesitancy/etc vs control group version using normative design?
– taswyn
2 hours ago
"My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load." - Consistency with common patterns (global consistency) is more important than a single control design for both, even (particularly) if it behaves differently. I would also argue that if you're worried about cognitive load, then this is not going to achieve that reduction. "or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product." - did this require intervention to achieve? Did you test for hesitancy/etc vs control group version using normative design?
– taswyn
2 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
You don't need to make different appearances for these components.
Your case is similar to well-known toggles in a toolbar of text processors like Word.
These font settings toggles act like checkboxes:
And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:
Note, they look identically and it doesn't produce any confusion or difficulties because in our mental model (user's view of how the system should work) we understand that a piece of text can be bold, underlined and cursive simultaneously so we expect that respective toggles should act like checkboxes. And we understand that text can't be right and left aligned simultaneously so it's not a surprise for us that alignment controls act like radio buttons. We know that and we don't need extra reminders about that.
You wrote that in usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties. I think that means that the behaviour of the components matches the user's mental model i.e. users understand and expect that they can choose several age-ranges and only one view (lists or thumbnails).
I took the example of Word's toggles from A. Cooper's "About Face 3. The Essentials of Interaction Design". He wrote about it as an example of a more graphical and more space efficient approach to the checkbox or radio buttons (see Chapter 21: Controls, Check boxes (p. 443) and Radio buttons (p. 446)). And also Cooper didn't say anything like these two types of toggles must look differently.
New contributor
add a comment |
It depends. How often do your users see this form / section / settings?
Frequently used, long session applications give users a chance to remember how controls work, especially frequently used ones.
Part of this has to do with Application Posture.
A sovereign application is a program that monopolizes the user's attention for long periods of time.
Google docs and Microsoft Word are great examples of Sovereign Posture Applications: Users spend long periods of time manipulating documents.
The target users are usually intermediates, who encounter these controls repeatedly over long use.
Certain controls that appear the same but behave differently don't pose too much difficulty after repeated prolonged exposure.
Most of us have become accustomed to the toolbar, as pointed out by another post:
Another example is OmniFocus, the task management application.
The inspector panel displays details for repeated and scheduled events. It has a multiselect toggle showing which days of the week to include an event. It has the same effect as checkboxes:
The mental model for events is clearer to begin with, which probably helps in using these controls:
Events have:
- Start dates
- End dates
- Frequencies
- Repetition
For example, it's clear to me that I can go to Karate class Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday. I can select multiple days as I need to.
One time forms, rarely accessed 'Settings' pages, and seldom encountered UI can be challenging without clear labels and/or controls.
I'm not clear on your larger context, but clear labeling is crucial for users encountering your form for the first time, or infrequently:
It seems like you're in a good place, as it has been confirmed by user testing. Keep in mind that in some contexts, you'll design for perpetual 'first timers' that are venturing into unfamiliar territory.
add a comment |
I think your designer colleagues are right.
If I now look at the options, I have straightforward an idea how I can interact with them and for what they are used.
Using the squares for checkboxes and circles for radio buttons are very old, common and recognizable for most of the users. So, it simplyfies your problem in this case.
2
In my opinion this is less visually appealing and doesn't add much value
– GrumpyCrouton
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "102"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fux.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125231%2fmultiple-options-vs-single-option-ui%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You don't need to make different appearances for these components.
Your case is similar to well-known toggles in a toolbar of text processors like Word.
These font settings toggles act like checkboxes:
And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:
Note, they look identically and it doesn't produce any confusion or difficulties because in our mental model (user's view of how the system should work) we understand that a piece of text can be bold, underlined and cursive simultaneously so we expect that respective toggles should act like checkboxes. And we understand that text can't be right and left aligned simultaneously so it's not a surprise for us that alignment controls act like radio buttons. We know that and we don't need extra reminders about that.
You wrote that in usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties. I think that means that the behaviour of the components matches the user's mental model i.e. users understand and expect that they can choose several age-ranges and only one view (lists or thumbnails).
I took the example of Word's toggles from A. Cooper's "About Face 3. The Essentials of Interaction Design". He wrote about it as an example of a more graphical and more space efficient approach to the checkbox or radio buttons (see Chapter 21: Controls, Check boxes (p. 443) and Radio buttons (p. 446)). And also Cooper didn't say anything like these two types of toggles must look differently.
New contributor
add a comment |
You don't need to make different appearances for these components.
Your case is similar to well-known toggles in a toolbar of text processors like Word.
These font settings toggles act like checkboxes:
And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:
Note, they look identically and it doesn't produce any confusion or difficulties because in our mental model (user's view of how the system should work) we understand that a piece of text can be bold, underlined and cursive simultaneously so we expect that respective toggles should act like checkboxes. And we understand that text can't be right and left aligned simultaneously so it's not a surprise for us that alignment controls act like radio buttons. We know that and we don't need extra reminders about that.
You wrote that in usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties. I think that means that the behaviour of the components matches the user's mental model i.e. users understand and expect that they can choose several age-ranges and only one view (lists or thumbnails).
I took the example of Word's toggles from A. Cooper's "About Face 3. The Essentials of Interaction Design". He wrote about it as an example of a more graphical and more space efficient approach to the checkbox or radio buttons (see Chapter 21: Controls, Check boxes (p. 443) and Radio buttons (p. 446)). And also Cooper didn't say anything like these two types of toggles must look differently.
New contributor
add a comment |
You don't need to make different appearances for these components.
Your case is similar to well-known toggles in a toolbar of text processors like Word.
These font settings toggles act like checkboxes:
And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:
Note, they look identically and it doesn't produce any confusion or difficulties because in our mental model (user's view of how the system should work) we understand that a piece of text can be bold, underlined and cursive simultaneously so we expect that respective toggles should act like checkboxes. And we understand that text can't be right and left aligned simultaneously so it's not a surprise for us that alignment controls act like radio buttons. We know that and we don't need extra reminders about that.
You wrote that in usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties. I think that means that the behaviour of the components matches the user's mental model i.e. users understand and expect that they can choose several age-ranges and only one view (lists or thumbnails).
I took the example of Word's toggles from A. Cooper's "About Face 3. The Essentials of Interaction Design". He wrote about it as an example of a more graphical and more space efficient approach to the checkbox or radio buttons (see Chapter 21: Controls, Check boxes (p. 443) and Radio buttons (p. 446)). And also Cooper didn't say anything like these two types of toggles must look differently.
New contributor
You don't need to make different appearances for these components.
Your case is similar to well-known toggles in a toolbar of text processors like Word.
These font settings toggles act like checkboxes:
And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:
Note, they look identically and it doesn't produce any confusion or difficulties because in our mental model (user's view of how the system should work) we understand that a piece of text can be bold, underlined and cursive simultaneously so we expect that respective toggles should act like checkboxes. And we understand that text can't be right and left aligned simultaneously so it's not a surprise for us that alignment controls act like radio buttons. We know that and we don't need extra reminders about that.
You wrote that in usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties. I think that means that the behaviour of the components matches the user's mental model i.e. users understand and expect that they can choose several age-ranges and only one view (lists or thumbnails).
I took the example of Word's toggles from A. Cooper's "About Face 3. The Essentials of Interaction Design". He wrote about it as an example of a more graphical and more space efficient approach to the checkbox or radio buttons (see Chapter 21: Controls, Check boxes (p. 443) and Radio buttons (p. 446)). And also Cooper didn't say anything like these two types of toggles must look differently.
New contributor
edited 12 hours ago
New contributor
answered 13 hours ago
LanaLana
1814
1814
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
It depends. How often do your users see this form / section / settings?
Frequently used, long session applications give users a chance to remember how controls work, especially frequently used ones.
Part of this has to do with Application Posture.
A sovereign application is a program that monopolizes the user's attention for long periods of time.
Google docs and Microsoft Word are great examples of Sovereign Posture Applications: Users spend long periods of time manipulating documents.
The target users are usually intermediates, who encounter these controls repeatedly over long use.
Certain controls that appear the same but behave differently don't pose too much difficulty after repeated prolonged exposure.
Most of us have become accustomed to the toolbar, as pointed out by another post:
Another example is OmniFocus, the task management application.
The inspector panel displays details for repeated and scheduled events. It has a multiselect toggle showing which days of the week to include an event. It has the same effect as checkboxes:
The mental model for events is clearer to begin with, which probably helps in using these controls:
Events have:
- Start dates
- End dates
- Frequencies
- Repetition
For example, it's clear to me that I can go to Karate class Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday. I can select multiple days as I need to.
One time forms, rarely accessed 'Settings' pages, and seldom encountered UI can be challenging without clear labels and/or controls.
I'm not clear on your larger context, but clear labeling is crucial for users encountering your form for the first time, or infrequently:
It seems like you're in a good place, as it has been confirmed by user testing. Keep in mind that in some contexts, you'll design for perpetual 'first timers' that are venturing into unfamiliar territory.
add a comment |
It depends. How often do your users see this form / section / settings?
Frequently used, long session applications give users a chance to remember how controls work, especially frequently used ones.
Part of this has to do with Application Posture.
A sovereign application is a program that monopolizes the user's attention for long periods of time.
Google docs and Microsoft Word are great examples of Sovereign Posture Applications: Users spend long periods of time manipulating documents.
The target users are usually intermediates, who encounter these controls repeatedly over long use.
Certain controls that appear the same but behave differently don't pose too much difficulty after repeated prolonged exposure.
Most of us have become accustomed to the toolbar, as pointed out by another post:
Another example is OmniFocus, the task management application.
The inspector panel displays details for repeated and scheduled events. It has a multiselect toggle showing which days of the week to include an event. It has the same effect as checkboxes:
The mental model for events is clearer to begin with, which probably helps in using these controls:
Events have:
- Start dates
- End dates
- Frequencies
- Repetition
For example, it's clear to me that I can go to Karate class Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday. I can select multiple days as I need to.
One time forms, rarely accessed 'Settings' pages, and seldom encountered UI can be challenging without clear labels and/or controls.
I'm not clear on your larger context, but clear labeling is crucial for users encountering your form for the first time, or infrequently:
It seems like you're in a good place, as it has been confirmed by user testing. Keep in mind that in some contexts, you'll design for perpetual 'first timers' that are venturing into unfamiliar territory.
add a comment |
It depends. How often do your users see this form / section / settings?
Frequently used, long session applications give users a chance to remember how controls work, especially frequently used ones.
Part of this has to do with Application Posture.
A sovereign application is a program that monopolizes the user's attention for long periods of time.
Google docs and Microsoft Word are great examples of Sovereign Posture Applications: Users spend long periods of time manipulating documents.
The target users are usually intermediates, who encounter these controls repeatedly over long use.
Certain controls that appear the same but behave differently don't pose too much difficulty after repeated prolonged exposure.
Most of us have become accustomed to the toolbar, as pointed out by another post:
Another example is OmniFocus, the task management application.
The inspector panel displays details for repeated and scheduled events. It has a multiselect toggle showing which days of the week to include an event. It has the same effect as checkboxes:
The mental model for events is clearer to begin with, which probably helps in using these controls:
Events have:
- Start dates
- End dates
- Frequencies
- Repetition
For example, it's clear to me that I can go to Karate class Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday. I can select multiple days as I need to.
One time forms, rarely accessed 'Settings' pages, and seldom encountered UI can be challenging without clear labels and/or controls.
I'm not clear on your larger context, but clear labeling is crucial for users encountering your form for the first time, or infrequently:
It seems like you're in a good place, as it has been confirmed by user testing. Keep in mind that in some contexts, you'll design for perpetual 'first timers' that are venturing into unfamiliar territory.
It depends. How often do your users see this form / section / settings?
Frequently used, long session applications give users a chance to remember how controls work, especially frequently used ones.
Part of this has to do with Application Posture.
A sovereign application is a program that monopolizes the user's attention for long periods of time.
Google docs and Microsoft Word are great examples of Sovereign Posture Applications: Users spend long periods of time manipulating documents.
The target users are usually intermediates, who encounter these controls repeatedly over long use.
Certain controls that appear the same but behave differently don't pose too much difficulty after repeated prolonged exposure.
Most of us have become accustomed to the toolbar, as pointed out by another post:
Another example is OmniFocus, the task management application.
The inspector panel displays details for repeated and scheduled events. It has a multiselect toggle showing which days of the week to include an event. It has the same effect as checkboxes:
The mental model for events is clearer to begin with, which probably helps in using these controls:
Events have:
- Start dates
- End dates
- Frequencies
- Repetition
For example, it's clear to me that I can go to Karate class Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday. I can select multiple days as I need to.
One time forms, rarely accessed 'Settings' pages, and seldom encountered UI can be challenging without clear labels and/or controls.
I'm not clear on your larger context, but clear labeling is crucial for users encountering your form for the first time, or infrequently:
It seems like you're in a good place, as it has been confirmed by user testing. Keep in mind that in some contexts, you'll design for perpetual 'first timers' that are venturing into unfamiliar territory.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 12 hours ago
Mike MMike M
12.6k12736
12.6k12736
add a comment |
add a comment |
I think your designer colleagues are right.
If I now look at the options, I have straightforward an idea how I can interact with them and for what they are used.
Using the squares for checkboxes and circles for radio buttons are very old, common and recognizable for most of the users. So, it simplyfies your problem in this case.
2
In my opinion this is less visually appealing and doesn't add much value
– GrumpyCrouton
10 hours ago
add a comment |
I think your designer colleagues are right.
If I now look at the options, I have straightforward an idea how I can interact with them and for what they are used.
Using the squares for checkboxes and circles for radio buttons are very old, common and recognizable for most of the users. So, it simplyfies your problem in this case.
2
In my opinion this is less visually appealing and doesn't add much value
– GrumpyCrouton
10 hours ago
add a comment |
I think your designer colleagues are right.
If I now look at the options, I have straightforward an idea how I can interact with them and for what they are used.
Using the squares for checkboxes and circles for radio buttons are very old, common and recognizable for most of the users. So, it simplyfies your problem in this case.
I think your designer colleagues are right.
If I now look at the options, I have straightforward an idea how I can interact with them and for what they are used.
Using the squares for checkboxes and circles for radio buttons are very old, common and recognizable for most of the users. So, it simplyfies your problem in this case.
answered 14 hours ago
AsqanAsqan
24125
24125
2
In my opinion this is less visually appealing and doesn't add much value
– GrumpyCrouton
10 hours ago
add a comment |
2
In my opinion this is less visually appealing and doesn't add much value
– GrumpyCrouton
10 hours ago
2
2
In my opinion this is less visually appealing and doesn't add much value
– GrumpyCrouton
10 hours ago
In my opinion this is less visually appealing and doesn't add much value
– GrumpyCrouton
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to User Experience Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fux.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125231%2fmultiple-options-vs-single-option-ui%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
If you go with this approach, it becomes crucial to make sure it's clear when only one option is allowed vs. multiple. For instance, your example has two selections made for the field "Age", which I wouldn't have expected to be possible. One way to make this clear without changing your elements is adding some help text like "Choose all that apply"
– nvioli
8 hours ago
2
Those gray options look more like they're disabled, rather than deselected.
– 200_success
7 hours ago
"My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load." - Consistency with common patterns (global consistency) is more important than a single control design for both, even (particularly) if it behaves differently. I would also argue that if you're worried about cognitive load, then this is not going to achieve that reduction. "or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product." - did this require intervention to achieve? Did you test for hesitancy/etc vs control group version using normative design?
– taswyn
2 hours ago