Alastair: Even I thought it was a stretch to think the users would correctly read "process all selected" or "process EXCEPT selected" but I held out hope. The client said "I don't think so."
I did think of the 2-box solution. I've never implemented it myself yet, but I've seen it enough times and have enough samples. The problem is, it's usually demonstrated with fairly simple data sets. The list box in this app will display about 10 items of data to help them make up their minds what to process. You couldn't locate list boxes side-by-side as it's always shown in samples. It would have to be above-and-below in order to fit, and then of course you couldn't display as many rows on one screen. And there could be hundreds of rows, so too much scrolling would be involved. So far I'm holding out with a Y/N field that is updatable with on-click eeps, with images representing the values. Got a couple tiny things left to do, then I'll be happy with this solution (well, I have to demo it to the client first, and see if he likes it) Karen > Damned users! Who do they think they are not being able to click on the > right button? > > Seriously, if you are still stuck or get stuck, I think somebody else > suggested using two list boxes but, if they didn't, I'll suggest it now. > > I'm using such a set up to select multiple items from a list of over 2,500 > items. Populating the first box with them all is almost instant and I can > drag and drop to the adjacent list with the chosen item disappearing from the > first one at the same time. > > I haven't yet found a way to multiple-select but picking a few items is > fairly efficient. More than, say, a dozen or so might become tedious... > > However, it might be possible to set up something similar and be able to > right-click on whichever list is to be processed or have a ginormous button > under each with the text "Process the ABOVE list" in huge letters!! <g> > > Regards, > Alastair. > > PS: ~ If you want an explanation of how the two list boxes are manipulated > let me know - it was simple enough with two temp tables but I can't remember > the details off the top of my head (and it's getting late here). >
