I have a CListCtrl control that has 2 columns and any number of rows. I want the user to be able to click(or maybe double-click) a "cell" and be able edit the text therein.
What I mean is that I want to be able to click and edit any of the places where it says "TEST" by clicking on the text to make it editable.
How should I go about this? I suppose I should use a mouse click event but how would I make the cell editable?
This looks like a list control in report mode, which is different from a list box. A list box doesn't support editing contents at all. You can write code entirely on your own to get the contents of a line, copy that to an edit control, display the edit control exactly where the existing content was shown, allow the user to edit, and copy data back when/if the user hits return.
A list control allows editing of one (and only one) field. If you want to support more, you have a couple of choices. One would be about like above, creating your own edit control in the right place. The obvious alternative would be to look up one of the many grid controls. CodeProject has a number of variations.
Related
In my WinAPI program I use PropertySheet for a settings dialog box. I use property sheet with pages (tabs), i.e. I use PSH_PROPSHEETPAGE flag. But the software now have too many parameters for such a type of property sheet. So I want to use PropertySheet with treeview: the treeview on the left and the page with paramerets for the currently selected item in the treeview - on the right.
How can I do this? Can my current property sheet be modified for this and how?
(using only WinAPI, no MFC)
Standard property sheet is no longer good enough for you, so you basically have two choices here. You can either design a window (modal or modeless, dialog based or not) to host all your controls in a single view, with tree view, possibly tab control as well, and showing/hiding elements to follow tree view selection. And you will move all your controls into this window.
Or instead, you can create a similar window which hosts property pages. On tree selection change you will switch property pages as if they are selected by tabs in standard property sheet. The point is that you can use your existing pages intact making this new settings windows imitating behavior of standard property sheet. This is perhaps a more complicated thing to do, but should be flexible enough to do once and accept various pages, and you don't also need to touch your existing pages code leaving it good for both standard and this custom sheet with a tree.
Both ways assume you need to do quite some work since you are giving up using a standard piece of code - the property sheet window.
I'm trying to have a feature to allow users choose two different methods of cost calculation: either they can enter a yearly cost breakdown on a datasheet (2010: $10,000, 2011: $12,000, etc) or they can enter a flat yearly cost multiplied by the number of years they select.
If I were developing another kind of web application, I'd have radio buttons to select two different options. One option would display the datasheet, and the other option would display two text fields to enter values into. However, I understand that you can't have radio buttons in Access 2010 web databases. Also, is it possible to make elements appear and disappear based on a combo box selection?
If not, perhaps I could have two different combo box options: "enter yearly cost breakdown"
or "enter flat yearly cost," which open the correct respective forms as pop-ups.
So, 1) can I have Ajax-like appearing and disappearing elements as triggered by a combo box (or ideally, radio buttons), and 2) if not, can anyone think of another clever way of doing it?
Sure, you get a nice effect by using a tab control. You can place controls and even a sub form on that tab control.
So, you build a screen like this:
Then, simple set the visible property of the second tab = No. This will hide the tab (don't change this until you built the page since it will hide it! (use property sheet to hide/un-hide during development).
Now, add some code to the after update event of the list box. Like this:
In the above, I have named the tabs PYear and PFlat.
The result is this (this is a animated gif I inserted):
Of course, you really probably could just dump the whole "list box" selection, and use a screen like this with the tabs (tabs are good UI, and users tend to grasp them quick):
So, you can hide a "set" of controls, and it really far less work and hassle then writing a bunch of JaveScript anyway. As noted, the "set" of controls you drop into each of the tabs can be sub forms, and also that of continues forms. So, the "hiding" as a set does work well in this case. I did have some format issues and found that I had to "start out" with the 2nd tab dispaled first (the first one being hidden). As noted, the listbox selecting is nice, but one could likly just go with using tabs in the first place.
I have the following set of controls.
Scenario 1:
If you select one of the first 3 radio buttons and click enter, focus will jump to the Passport Number text box. If the user selects "Other", the "Other, Please Specify" textbox is enabled and, for convenience, screen focus (the cursor is moved) to that textbox.
Scenario 2:
The "specify Other" text box is hidden until the user clicks on the Other Radio button. Upon doing so, the textbox is made visible and the cursor is placed in this textbox.
Which scenario do you feel is a better approach? Perhaps you have another variation? Please state your reasoning.
I would also appreciate it if you could make a generalized statement as to when hiding is better than disabling or vice versa, but I am also interested in this particular example.
Thanks.
Afetrthought: Perhaps, in the 2nd example, the "Please Specify" text would only appear after the user has selected the 'Other' radio button.
I find that changing the UI by hiding/showing controls can be quite jarring and confusing to the user. Go with option 1 and enable the textbox when the appropriate radio button is checked.
My initial impression is that number 1 is neater.
it allows for a clear design of the GUI (there wouldnt be inexplicable empty spaces in the input screen)
it makes the colon after the `(Please Specify)" request meaningful.
The only time I advocate hiding UI elements is when it improves the UI. If it's just 'different' rather than 'measurably better', don't do it.
Users may be put off by the fact that the "other" option seems to require that you specify something, yet the UI gives no clue that you can do that.
I would consider number 2... Hiding the text box will make it easier for the majority of people to run their eye down the page (each horizontal line creates a barrier for the eye). When someone selects 'other' a text box could fade in with the words 'please specify' in the box. The form will seem to respond to the users input.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 12 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm writing an internal-tools webapp; one of the central pages in this tool has a whole bunch of related commands the user can execute by clicking one of a number of buttons on the page, like this:
toolbar http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/1928/commands.png
Ideally, all of the buttons would fit on one line. Ordinarily I'd do this by changing each widget from a button with a (sometimes long) text label to a simple, compact icon - e.g.
button labelled "Save" http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/773/saver.png
could be replaced by a familiar disk icon:
Unfortunately, I don't think I can do this for every button on this particular page. Some of the command buttons just don't have good visual analogs - "VDS List". Or, if I needed to add another button in the future for some other kind of list, I'd need two icons that both communicate "list-ness" and which list. So, I'm still considering this option, but I don't love it.
So it's come time for me to add yet another button to this section (don't you love internal tools?). There's not enough room on that single line to fit the new button. Aside from the icon solution I already mentioned, what would be a good* way to simplify/declutter/reduce or otherwise improve this UI?
*As per Jakob Nielsen's article, I'd like to think that a dropdown menu is not the solution.
Edit: I'm not looking for input about the icon idea. I'm looking for other solutions. Sorry my example disk icon was a small one; it was just an example. I'm showing a bigger one now to hopefully be more clear.
I would add a More Link Like Google does.
See the Top Bar of Google with WeB Images Map More >>
To this more >> drop down you can add logic to add button less frequently used by user or something like that.
If you read Jef (and Aza) Raskin, you'll probably realize that icons are also not a good solution – both were pretty vocal in their dislike for them (with very few notable exceptions). For a start they're even harder to hit than tiny buttons, then their symbols can be confusing, culture-dependent and misleading. We're already good at reading text, parsing and interpreting icons is often slower.
In any case, that button bar looks like it accommodates pretty much anyone and their dog who might be using that product. You might have had some specific scenarios in mind when creating it that should be easy to do and are important. Most likely not all buttons are needed at once for such a task to complete.
Another thing is that maybe not all buttons are even useful at any single state of the application. Can you maybe branch into different sets of buttons, depending on the state. That's only possible however, if each state has clearly defined what actions can be taken. If all buttons are equally pressable regardless of state this won't do anything.
Grouping commands according to related functionality might also be an option. This doesn't have to be done with menu-like idioms, you can also put them into containers with different background color or even color the buttons themselves (just keep in mind color blindness, though). Depending on how related those individual functions are this can be a good way of speeding up interaction. It might requier some training for users to know what the colors refer to but for an in-house tool that's only used by people you know (instead of by arbitrary random ones [which is a problem Microsoft faces quite prominently]) this should pose not much of a problem.
What if you use icons and text?
For the commonly understood commands - use just an icon (like the save)
For the uncommon commands use an Icon + the text.
If you put a border around the button as a whole it should tie the icons / text together nicely and show it's still a button. You could also do some hover effects.
Since you can't do a dropdown menu (or similar techniques like clicking a button to generate a secondary menu). The best I can think of is what Prescott did or showing an area of buttons that are grouped in such a way to make it easy for the user to know which section their button should be in.
I would start by changing some of the longer labels. At a minimum, "Application Loading" could be abbreviated "App Loading." What's another (shorter) way to say "Quick File Transfer"?
You could also group the buttons into tabs (i.e. make it a ribbon). That might work particularly well if different classes of users tend to use different, non-overlapping sets of buttons.
Numerous options:
Group and labeling. Any time you have more than eight commands, you should divide the menu items into semantic groups of about four to help the user scan for the command they want. Labeling the groups also helps the scan and can make the menu more compact. For example, Instead of VDS Ping and VDS List, Have a group labeled “VDS” with “Ping” and “List” menu items. You’ve one less word to fit in (two if you put the label above it’s associated menu items when using a horizontal orientation).
Pulldown menus. Nielsen is correct about avoiding the use of a dropdown menu for making commands. However, he’s clearly in favor of pulldown menus which look and behave like a menubar in a thick client app (Nielsen calls them “command” and “navigation” menus). I think you’ll find that there are several Javascript pulldown menus out there now, unlike back in 2000 when Nielsen wrote his post. You can fit 100s of commands in a menubar.
Sidebar menu. Arraying the menu items vertically and you should be able to fit 20 or more commands and you won’t have to shorten any command names to something user might not understand. If that’s not enough, consider a “menu bank” than combines the benefits of sidebar menu with the capacity of a pulldown menu.
Ribbon. If your commands fit into discrete tasks, where the user tends to stick to one task for a while, you can arrange the buttons on a tab control, with one sheet per task.
Command Overloading. Represent your data objects as selectable entities in your window and change your commands into more general operations, like Drill-down, Create, Copy, Move, Delete, and Link, that can be applied to various different classes of objects, thereby reducing your total number of commands. The user can select one or more data objects then select the desired command to act on them.
Work Area Attributes. Some of your commands may not be commands by settings or attributes. Remove them from the menu and represent them as data objects in the work area of the page (or another page, if they are rarely used) using controls like radio buttons, dropdown lists, and check boxes. This has the added benefit clearly showing the user the current setting as well as providing a means to change it.
Variants. For an internal app, you probably have formal roles and responsibilities that vary by work position. Include the user’s position in your model, and dynamically hide commands (and other controls and pages) that aren't relevant to that position.
What about a combobox and a Confirm button?
Or a simple dropdown menu?
Add a "Tools" or "Actions" menu bar, and stick rightmost 4 commands (or more) into the menu.
Would it be possible to implement a "most used" or "preferred" set of buttons (preferably for the user, but globally if necessary) and button to take you to the rest of the items if you need one of those?
You could group them (like the two 'vds' buttons) behind a single button that, when clicked pops a context menu with the individual icons.
It truly seems like what you're developing is a administration console which happens to present its UI through a web page, rather than something which I'd quantify as a web app. As such, especially given your statement that this is an internal use application, Jakob Nielson's advice regarding <select> tags being poor design need not apply.
For this particular set of assumptions, I think the better option is to imitate a system menu setup using one of the many CSS-based menuing designs possible.
Icons are terrible from a user experience stand point. A picture of a Floppy Disk doesn't un-equivocally mean SAVE. It means something to do with a Floppy Disk. A Floppy really, its 2010, SAVE on a web app means save to the server, how does a Floppy Disk even compute?
Here is an application that has had the same extremely usable interface for 10 years! And hardly any images for buttons, and it is one of the most productive applications in its category.
You know what ICONS stand for I ncomprehesible C ryptic O bfucsated N onsense S ymbol!
Also how do you internationalize an icon?
I have a datagrid with many columns. This makes it pretty wide. Now we want to add more information to the table. Aside from removing or shortening existing columns what are some ways we might be able to add additional information without adding new columnes.
The data we want to add would be one of several values. For example:
Projected
Actual
Other
For other cases when the value was an off/on or true/false we would change the color of the row. In this case that doesn't seem to be a good option.
Another thing we considered is using an icon to indicate the information.
Any other ways this could be done?
A solution i've seen implemented with grid components is to have a column chooser - some sort of popup dialog that lists the columns and you can select which ones you would like to see in the grid. You should be able to invoke this popup by triggering it from the grid, e.g. it might appear as an option when the user right clicks and causes the context menu to appear.
Can you group related information into tabs?
an overflow area? ie a number of fields underneath the table that populate based on the selected row.
or just only show the minimum needed info and the have full details in a popup when doble clicked or something..
1) Popup on row hover
2) Drop open inline in the grid with extra info on row click
One technique I've used in the past was to create a "container" type of class that has its own labels and textboxes, and you can arrange them however you want, then insert this class into a single grid column. You still have to do some tricks on binding multiple controls that are not native "grid column" controls, but should help you along. Then, you can actually have each row a single container control in a single grid column...
You can't add completely new data to a grid without reserving a column to display it. The best solution I've seen is to provide only the essential information in the grid displaying all records, and then create a drilldown view that shows all of the data for one row. The drilldown can either be a new view in the same form, a popup for an additional window, or perhaps a mouseover popup.
I've worked on systems that use all sorts of shortcuts to display every last bit of information on a single page, and I found that it just made everything more confusing and harder to use. "Oh, that little icon there means that <insert something totally unrelated to the icon picture>."