Edit multiple items: Strange checkbox effect

[vanderdecker]

I added a custom checkbox to Bookpedia to have a simple "read?" field. It looks fine when adding entries, but if I edit multiple entries, I get two checkboxes (only the second appears to do anything). For some reason, the "Signed" checkbox also has that. A bug, or is there some obscure purpose to this?

[sjk]

This confused me until thinking about how all items in the Edit Multiple Entries window have a checkbox that's automatically enabled after modifying an item. It's the same with dual checkbox items; the first will be automatically enabled if the second is manually enabled/disabled, indicating there's been a change. In other words, the only or first checkbox is an item value change indicator flag. At least that's how I make use of it; I'm not sure what reason there might be for manually checking it.

[Conor]

I'm not sure what reason there might be for manually checking it.

To empty a field, in the case of the checkboxes to uncheck the box. If the checkbox was not available you would then not be able to edit mixed values selections. There would be no way for The Pedia to know that you wanted to uncheck all boxes, if the selection you chose did not have all boxes checked for a particular field to begin with.

I do agree that visually the double checkbox is a bit odd, and will look at the possibility of having a different style for one of the checkboxes.

[sjk]

Thanks for the explanation. I think it makes sense, even though I've never explicitly (un)checked the first/only checkbox when editing values for multiple entries as a way to clear them. It's also possible to clear fields that contain values but display empty in Edit Multiple Entries by entering, then deleting, some dummy data. Or check, then uncheck, the second checkbox for those item types.

I don't see any case where the first/only checkbox will be checked until 1) implicitly, after value modification or 2) explicitly, to clear field values. That multi-purposed checkbox seems less confusing now. And I like the idea of making double checkbox different styles.

It would also be quite useful to have some visual indicator of mixed values for populated/enabled fields to differentiate them from ones that are actually empty/disabled and significantly reduce current uncertainty of what the result of explicitly checking the first checkbox will be, if any, for certain fields. In the image vanderdecker posted, only the Format field appears to have a value even though several others (but which ones?) likely do.

[vanderdecker]

OK, got it. As sjk said, a clue that there are mixed values would have helped.

Isn't the standard to have a hyphen in the box to indicate mixed checked/unchecked?

[sjk]

Isn't the standard to have a hyphen in the box to indicate mixed checked/unchecked?

That's what it usually indicates to me.

Which gets me thinking, the way boxes can be explicitly checked to clear field values in 'pedia software might seem backwards. Checking typically means setting; unchecking means unsetting. Are there different non-empty/unset field statuses that either a hyphen or check in those boxes could indicate? And can there be predictable behavior whenever any box is clicked starting from each empty/hyphened/checked state? I'm wondering if and how the current dual-state checkbox could be improved with a tri-state one.

[Conor]

Isn't the standard to have a hyphen in the box to indicate mixed checked/unchecked?

It is the standard to use a hyphen to indicate a mixed state. But I think to use it in this case (to indicate that values are present but differ for the field) would cause confusion. As the first check box in essence just signifies whether it will (or not) update the field.

You both have interesting points that it'd be nice to see more information provided by the interface as to what items are completely blank and which ones are not shown due to being mixed. You can even go further and have all the mixed value show up as the tooltip for the field. I have added these suggestions into an enhancement for the multiple edit. Thank you.

[sjk]

It is the standard to use a hyphen to indicate a mixed state. But I think to use it in this case (to indicate that values are present but differ for the field) would cause confusion.

Perhaps it would.

As the first check box in essence just signifies whether it will (or not) update the field.

The case when it's checked, automatically or manually, if a field value will be cleared seems counterintuitive to me. Also, after editing a value the box will be automatically checked but manually unchecking it doesn't revert to the pre-edited value even though the edit will be ignored.

The combination of automatic and manual box behavior/usage, as both an action initiator and indicator, had been a source of confusion before discussion in this topic and sufficient testing helped me understand it.

You both have interesting points that it'd be nice to see more information provided by the interface as to what items are completely blank and which ones are not shown due to being mixed. You can even go further and have all the mixed value show up as the tooltip for the field.

I'm generally in favor of help tags (tooltips). Here, maybe separate ones to display "hidden" field values and for the first box?

I have added these suggestions into an enhancement for the multiple edit. Thank you.

Another multi-item issue I hope can be improved is how a single entry's details are displayed when multiple entries are selected, like I mentioned elsewhere.

Thanks, Conor!