in windows explorer, any click will destroy existing checkboxes, unless it is ON the checkbox. I think I will allow selection and check state to exist in parallel and independently
your thoughts?
checkboxes
Moderators: fgagnon, nikos, Site Mods
checkboxes
I am working on checkbox selection (will replace sticky selection), but I can't decide how to make them work
in windows explorer, any click will destroy existing checkboxes, unless it is ON the checkbox. I think I will allow selection and check state to exist in parallel and independently
your thoughts?
in windows explorer, any click will destroy existing checkboxes, unless it is ON the checkbox. I think I will allow selection and check state to exist in parallel and independently
your thoughts?
Re: checkboxes
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE STICKY SELECTION!!!
Checkboxes waste space.
Are they checked with the Insert key, or only mouse operated?
If they are only mouse operated, then what way will there be, with the keyboard, of "sticking" the selection?
I only use the mouse if my kittens have taken over my desk! Then I use an on-screen keyboard anyway.
Re: checkboxes
don't worry, I won't remove sticky selection, checkboxes will be an optional alternative
Re: checkboxes
Good! Thank you.
The way you'd written it "will replace sticky selection", it appeared as if you intended to remove sticky selection.
The way you'd written it "will replace sticky selection", it appeared as if you intended to remove sticky selection.
Re: checkboxes
Please make sure that the existing mouse-based selection, with the Ctrl and Shift modifiers, continues to work. That is so ingrained, and so common among many other applications, that I'd be utterly frustrated if it did not continue to work in X2. Probably you intend this -- I just could not be sure from your description. (I too will hide checkboxes as a visual distraction and waste of space.)
Re: checkboxes
An example of checkboxes that works as I expect it to is in the YAHOO mail application.
Clicking a box toggles the checkbox.
If I check boxes, then even if I view an email and return to the list, the boxes are still checked. A parallel would be if switching to an already opened panes or tab, then returning to the first tab, the state of the checkboxes will not change.
ctrl-click does nothing different than just clicking the checkbox.
shift-click checks all boxes between the last checked box and the box just clicked.
At the top is one box to control them all which can either check all or none. Other options like "unread" won't apply to a list of files.
-------------------------
PJ in FL
Clicking a box toggles the checkbox.
If I check boxes, then even if I view an email and return to the list, the boxes are still checked. A parallel would be if switching to an already opened panes or tab, then returning to the first tab, the state of the checkboxes will not change.
ctrl-click does nothing different than just clicking the checkbox.
shift-click checks all boxes between the last checked box and the box just clicked.
At the top is one box to control them all which can either check all or none. Other options like "unread" won't apply to a list of files.
-------------------------
PJ in FL
Re: checkboxes
the way I'm doing it is checkboxes change only if you click on them or if you use one of the MARK menu commands that select en mass
there's also a way to turn selected items into ticked boxes by pressing SPACE (that's how you can do SHIFT-checkboxes)
then most of the commands that use selections, ignore the selection and only operate on checked items
I am on the fence whether to be strict or allow some simple commands like properties to still use the selection (ignore ticks)
there's also a way to turn selected items into ticked boxes by pressing SPACE (that's how you can do SHIFT-checkboxes)
then most of the commands that use selections, ignore the selection and only operate on checked items
I am on the fence whether to be strict or allow some simple commands like properties to still use the selection (ignore ticks)