On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:30:01 GMT, Hannes Wallnöfer <hann...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > if you check "all" and then uncheck something else, then "all" will remain > > selected. That is a confusing state. > > I agree, but I think the behavior of the checkbox is as it should be, and > it's the label that is slightly misleading. The intended behavior of the > checkbox is set all other checkboxes to a unified state which can be either > "on" or "off", not to reflect the state of other checkboxes. > > So maybe the correct label would be "toggle all" rather than just "all". > Admittedly I have used the shorter "all" label to limit the length of the > already long line of checkboxes. Do you think using "toggle all" as label > would make things better? No, I don't think that "toggle all" would be better. It's the checkbox that slightly bothers me, not that checkbox's label. One minimalistic, consistent approach that comes to mind is a stateless button that inverts selection. But admittedly, your suggestion is already implemented and is _less nerdy_. Don't bother changing it; it is a nit. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18194#issuecomment-1994584561
