+1 Im thinking of doing the same. Checkboxes are evil.
Another bonus to using dropdowns instead is that if you really need the user to think about whether that field should be true or false then you can add an extra empty choice that doesnt pass validation. That way they will be forced to set a value in that field whereas with a checkbox they can easily forget to tick it and submit a false value by mistake... My theory on what the w3c specs guys were thinking tends to involve them down the pub having a few too many beers and one of them saying "hey guys! Ive got an idea - wouldnt it be funny if we..." -----Original Message----- From: Viggio, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 14 June 2003 04:17 To: 'Struts Users Mailing List' Subject: [OT] FRIDAY: HTML Checkboxes SUCK!!! Is it just me?!? ;) In our last release, I replaced all of the checkboxes with YES/NO dropdowns (<select> and <options> tags using a Collection for the "YES"=true/"NO"=false mapping). The users seem to prefer this user interface (no one's complained at least) and I can still tie these to a ActionForm boolean property thanks to aforementioned Collection (via <define> tag)! We have a complex, multi-part/layer wizard workflow using the nesting tablib extensively so the code was begging for refactorings. This UI change allowed us to get rid of all of the kludgy code to support these retarded HTML checkboxes (cya ActionForm reset()). What were you thinking W3C spec gurus! Apologies if you momma worked on the HTML checkbox spec, but it's Friday the 13th and I'm flying to a warm, tropical beach tomorrow!!! - Alex p.s. I'm sure that there is a more elegant solution -- feel free to share... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
