The radiobuttons were sold out





  • Maybe the options aren't mutually exclusive.



  • So what happens if you check one and then the other?



  • @Gurth said:

    So what happens if you check one and then the other?
     

    Microsoft got such confusing results that they gave up and stopped releasing new DirectX SDKs entirely. 



  • You won't have to worry about this anymore - DirecX SDK as a stand-alone product has been discontinued.



  • You've never seen a radio button with no default value that starts out with no selection made? You, sir, are TRWTF.  Come back when you've checked both boxes at once.



  • Did OP accidentally his post?



  • @renewest said:

    Maybe the options aren't mutually exclusive.

    It clearly says please select ONE of the following options to proceed.



  • @mott555 said:

    Did OP accidentally his post?

    More likely your company is purposefully tinypic.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @mott555 said:
    Did OP accidentally his post?

    More likely your company is purposefully tinypic.

     

    Hmm, it works now. Maybe tinypic was down earlier.

    I've seen this anti-pattern a lot lately. Displaying checkboxes but having them function as radio buttons. Our company is leading a graduate-directed project for the local university and the grad students keep trying to do this as well, and they always have so much extra code to enforce the mutually-exclusive nature. And I've been shopping for a new vehicle and a number of web sites I've encountered (dealer sites and insurance sites) seem to work the same way. I can't understand what is causing people to do this.



  • @mott555 said:

    I've seen this anti-pattern a lot lately. Displaying checkboxes but having them function as radio buttons.

    I've encountered the reverse: seeing two radio buttons marked "yes" and "no" where a simple checkbox would have done.

    Granted, they may have done it to future-proof against later options, but at the time they did it because it didn't occur to them to use a checkbox.



  • @Cassidy said:

    I've encountered the reverse: seeing two radio buttons marked "yes" and "no" where a simple checkbox would have done.

    This is actually useful, if you want to force the user to actually CHOOSE, as opposed to let him "accidentally" leave the checkbox alone and have a default option thrust at him...



  • @ekolis said:

    @Cassidy said:
    I've encountered the reverse: seeing two radio buttons marked "yes" and "no" where a simple checkbox would have done.

    This is actually useful, if you want to force the user to actually CHOOSE, as opposed to let him "accidentally" leave the checkbox alone and have a default option thrust at him...

    I guess in the current Windows/web situation where you can have a set of radios, all deselected. Some OSes don't allow that. (For example, Mac Classic didn't allow that-- in which case to accomplish your goal you'd need both a checkbox to enable the radios, and the two radios.)

    BTW, a few years ago Safari would automatically select the first radio in a set if you didn't bother defining a default option. Not sure if it still does that, but keep that in mind. It broke a lot of JavaScript from idiot programmers who never bothered to test their websites on all browsers.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    BTW, a few years ago Safari would automatically select the first radio in a set if you didn't bother defining a default option. Not sure if it still does that

    Because your comment made me curious, I made up a quick test document, and no, it doesn't. Both radio buttons are unselected when the file is loaded or refreshed.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    BTW, a few years ago Safari would automatically select the first radio in a set if you didn't bother defining a default option. Not sure if it still does that, but keep that in mind. It broke a lot of JavaScript from idiot programmers who never bothered to test their websites on all browsers.

    Wasn't that because, at least at one time, the spec said you weren't allowed to have a radio button group without a default choice? (Yes, I'm too lazy to look that up right now.)



  • @kilroo said:

    Wasn't that because, at least at one time, the spec said you weren't allowed to have a radio button group without a default choice? (Yes, I'm too lazy to look that up right now.)

    Wouldn't surprise me if that was still true.

    That was the original design, after-all. Relatively speaking, radio sets without a default are brand-spanking-new.

    And, as a guy who grew up on Mac Classic, seeing them still bugs the shit out of me.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    (For example, Mac Classic didn't allow that-- in which case to accomplish your goal you'd need both a checkbox to enable the radios, and the two radios.)
    As interesting as the idea of 1 checkbox + 2 radios sounds, couldn't you just add a third radio, the default, saying "I still haven't picked an option, don't let me continue yet" ?



  • @Zecc said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    (For example, Mac Classic didn't allow that-- in which case to accomplish your goal you'd need both a checkbox to enable the radios, and the two radios.)
    As interesting as the idea of 1 checkbox + 2 radios sounds, couldn't you just add a third radio, the default, saying "I still haven't picked an option, don't let me continue yet" ?

    No. You couldn't. I am God of UI. Everything I say goes. You are not allowed to have opinions. You are not allowed to que--

    Of course you could, what a stupid question. Why is this forum full of stupid questions? Stop asking stupid questions. Do what the fuck you want, don't let pundits tell you what to do, even if they're me.

    EDIT! What prompted that is 1) I'm a little crazy right now and 2) earlier on twitter I had this dumb discussion where one of my "tweeps" was like "OH NOES I gotta break out of an inner and outer loop at the same time and the code is all awkward and verbose" and I was like, "just use GOTO" and he was like, "but you can't use GOTO! if you use GOTO mysterious space aliens steal your hair! or something!" and I tried to explain the essay about "GOTO is evil" was talking about HAVING MULTIPLE JUMPS IN A SINGLE FUNCTION being evil, not using GOTO to break out of loops, because fucking-a breaking out of loops is the entire FUCKING POINT of GOTO in a modern programming language.

    Look, just because some smart person says something: 1) doesn't mean they're right, and 2) doesn't mean you actually understood their argument correctly. Yes, "goto considered harmful" is a CATCHY TITLE FOR A PRESENTATION, but you don't know what the fuck it means unless you've SEEN THE WHOLE PRESENTATION. End of lecture, go write code.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Of course you could, what a stupid question. Why is this forum full of stupid questions? Stop asking stupid questions. Do what the fuck you want, don't let pundits tell you what to do, even if they're me.

    What are you new here or something?  He wasn't actually asking you, dubmass.



  •  Y'know, most HTML slingers/GUI designers these days probably don't even remember why radio buttons are called that.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    EDIT! What prompted that is 1) I'm a little crazy right now and 2) earlier on twitter I had this dumb discussion where one of my "tweeps" was like "OH NOES I gotta break out of an inner and outer loop at the same time and the code is all awkward and verbose" and I was like, "just use GOTO" and he was like, "but you can't use GOTO! if you use GOTO mysterious space aliens steal your hair! or something!" and I tried to explain the essay about "GOTO is evil" was talking about HAVING MULTIPLE JUMPS IN A SINGLE FUNCTION being evil, not using GOTO to break out of loops, because fucking-a breaking out of loops is the entire FUCKING POINT of GOTO in a modern programming language.

    Look, just because some smart person says something: 1) doesn't mean they're right, and 2) doesn't mean you actually understood their argument correctly. Yes, "goto considered harmful" is a CATCHY TITLE FOR A PRESENTATION, but you don't know what the fuck it means unless you've SEEN THE WHOLE PRESENTATION. End of lecture, go write code.

    Sooo.. what you're saying is that we should use as many GOTOs as possible?

    I usually escape nested loops by putting them in their own function and returning, but whatever.



  • @Peraninth said:

    Do what the fuck you want
    Like ask rethorical questions which other people may (seriously or not) interpret as stupid?



  • @Zecc said:

    @Peraninth said:

    Do what the fuck you want
    Like ask rethorical questions which other people may (seriously or not) interpret as stupid?

    I don't care what anyone says, I'm not Blakey's puppet!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    earlier on twitter I had this dumb discussion where one of my "tweeps" was like "OH NOES I gotta break out of an inner and outer loop at the same time and the code is all awkward and verbose" and I was like, "just use GOTO" and he was like, "but you can't use GOTO! if you use GOTO mysterious space aliens steal your hair! or something!" and I tried to explain the essay about "GOTO is evil" was talking about HAVING MULTIPLE JUMPS IN A SINGLE FUNCTION being evil, not using GOTO to break out of loops, because fucking-a breaking out of loops is the entire FUCKING POINT of GOTO in a modern programming language.
    Depending on the language (Java comes to mind, and I think Javascript does this too) he wouldn't even have needed a goto for that. Instead, he could put a label on the loop statement and then use that label with a "break" statement to break out of it from anywhere within it, no matter how many levels of other nested loops deep.

    Nevermind that that is in effect just a "goto" in disguise... but at least it doesn't actually say "goto" in the code, so it's not evil! Right?

    That is one of the few java language features I wish they had stolen let themselves be inspired by when they were designing C#...



  • @ekolis said:

    This is actually useful, if you want to force the user to actually CHOOSE, as opposed to let him "accidentally" leave the checkbox alone and have a default option thrust at him...

    I thought about that, and figured it'd be better to have a default set to the most common option rather than no default and an exception when none are picked. I can see circumstances where this wouldn't be appropriate, but when faced with a rack of unselected radio buttons, once selected can't be undone.

    @Anonymouse said:

    Nevermind that that is in effect just a "goto" in disguise... but at least it doesn't actually say "goto" in the code, so it's not evil! Right?

    I'm sure if GOTO was removed, SpectateWump would use LABEL instead for his data data processing. Boo Disjker Perfect Perfects.

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Why is this forum full of stupid questions? Stop asking stupid questions.

    It is often said that the only stupid question is the unasked one. However, I'd prefer stupid questions over stupid answers. YMMV.

    @blakeyrat said:

    ...earlier on twitter I had this dumb discussion where one of my "tweeps" was like "OH NOES I gotta break out of an inner and outer loop at the same time and the code is all awkward and verbose" and I was like, "just use GOTO" and he was like, "but you can't use GOTO! if you use GOTO mysterious space aliens steal your hair! or something!" and I tried to explain the essay about "GOTO is evil" was talking about HAVING MULTIPLE JUMPS IN A SINGLE FUNCTION being evil, not using GOTO to break out of loops, because fucking-a breaking out of loops is the entire FUCKING POINT of GOTO in a modern programming language.

    Ahhh... I was missing these.[1] Glad to see you put him right on that front.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Yes, "goto considered harmful" is a CATCHY TITLE FOR A PRESENTATION, but you don't know what the fuck it means unless you've SEEN THE WHOLE PRESENTATION. End of lecture, go write code.

    Agreed. "considered harmful" != "is evil".

    [1] is there an expression for this kind of "simile-speak" or "conversation-recounting"...? I see it a lot in the younger generation.



  • @Peraninth said:

    @Zecc said:

    @Peraninth said:

    Do what the fuck you want
    Like ask rethorical questions which other people may (seriously or not) interpret as stupid?

    I don't care what anyone says, I'm not Blakey's puppet!

     

    Yes you are, the evidence is right in your post. See that most inner quote? Did you really say that?

    You have been assimilated.

     



  • @erikal said:

    @Peraninth said:

    @Zecc said:

    @Barack Obama said:

    Do what the fuck you want
    Like ask rethorical questions which other people may (seriously or not) interpret as stupid?

    I don't care what anyone says, I'm not Blakey's puppet!

     

    Yes you are, the evidence is right in your post. See that most inner quote? Did you really say that?

    You have been assimilated.

    Looks like my quoting skills have failed me. I apologize for any inconvenience.

     



  • @Cassidy said:

    [1] is there an expression for this kind of "simile-speak" or "conversation-recounting"...?

    Probably? But mostly it's just funny. Besides, it's not like its a recent invention, I've been reading it in novels all my life.

    @Cassidy said:

    I see it a lot in the younger generation.

    What does that have to do with me?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Probably? But mostly it's just funny.

    True, it does add a certain seasoning to the rant. Most enjoyable, Sir!

    @blakeyrat said:

    Besides, it's not like its a recent invention, I've been reading it in novels all my life.

    Mmm... I read the wrong books, then. I've noticed it more on TV from your side of the pond, actually, and younger-gen programs on this side.

    @blakeyrat said:

    @Cassidy said:
    I see it a lot in the younger generation.

    What does that have to do with me?

    Hmm? Oh, nothing with you. Unless you're a strong influence upon the youth of this country and one day they'll all rise up against us old fogies. Just an observation that our country's younger generation seem to recount what was said/thought/felt/imagined, rather than what actually happened.

    I wander. It happens when you get to my age, and -- oh.. a fish!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @kilroo said:
    Wasn't that because, at least at one time, the spec said you weren't allowed to have a radio button group without a default choice? (Yes, I'm too lazy to look that up right now.)

    Wouldn't surprise me if that was still true.

    That was the original design, after-all. Relatively speaking, radio sets without a default are brand-spanking-new.

    And, as a guy who grew up on Mac Classic, seeing them still bugs the shit out of me.

     

    It doesn't bother this guy who keeps having to deal with drop-down lists where the first and default item in the list is Choose One:.

     



  • @da Doctah said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    @kilroo said:
    Wasn't that because, at least at one time, the spec said you weren't allowed to have a radio button group without a default choice? (Yes, I'm too lazy to look that up right now.)

    Wouldn't surprise me if that was still true.

    That was the original design, after-all. Relatively speaking, radio sets without a default are brand-spanking-new.

    And, as a guy who grew up on Mac Classic, seeing them still bugs the shit out of me.

     

    It doesn't bother this guy who keeps having to deal with drop-down lists where the first and default item in the list is Choose One:.

     

    <select>
    <option>Choose One:</option>
    <option>-----------</option>
    <option>Yes</option>
    <option>No</option>
    </select>


  • I visited an opt-out site just yesterday where there were two checkboxes, one for "please spam me to buggery" and another with "you think this means it'll stop".

    The upper was already checked. When I checked the lower one, the upper cleared.

    When I clicked the checked one, it cleared and the other checked.

    Wha... how much javascript was required to implement square radio buttons?



  • @pkmnfrk said:





    <select>

    <option>Choose One:</option>

    <option>-----------</option>

    <option>Yes</option>

    <option>No</option>

    </select>

     

    You forgot:
    <select>

    <option>Choose One:</option>

    <option>-----SINGLE CHOICE OPTIONS------</option>

    <option>Yes</option>

    <option>No</option>

    <option>Maybe</option>


    <option>-----MULTIPLE CHOICE OPTIONS------</option>

    <option>Yes And/Or Maybe</option>

    <option>No And/Or Maybe</option>

    <option>Maybe And Yes And No</option>


    </select>

     



  • How do you get the monospace font and the proper linebreaks? I was going to do one with "Maybe" replaced with "FILE_NOT_FOUND", but I couldn't figure out how to format it...



  • @ekolis said:

    How do you get the monospace font and the proper linebreaks? I was going to do one with "Maybe" replaced with "FILE_NOT_FOUND", but I couldn't figure out how to format it...
    I'd tell you, but then you'd do it, so I won't.



  • Looks like <code></code> tags



  • Oh, that explains it - I figured code tags were supposed to be in square brackets, since this forum uses Real HTML Tags (tm) (and requires them to be added manually for linebreaks etc. if you are not using the One True Browser (tm)) - I'm actually kinda surprised that whoever wrote CS was able to get the concept of "some things in angle brackets are HTML tags, while others are custom forum tags" into his head!



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    <select>
    <option selected="selected" disabled="disabled">Choose One:</option>
    <optgroup label="Single Choice">
    <option>Yes</option>
    <option>No</option>
    <option>Maybe</option>
    </optgroup>
    <optgroup label="Multiple Choice">
    <option>Yes And/Or Maybe</option>
    <option>No And/Or Maybe</option>
    <option>Maybe And Yes And No</option>
    </optgroup>
    <option>FILE_NOT_FOUND</option>
    </select>

    OETFY

    Filed under: Over-engineered that for you.



  • @ekolis said:

    I'm actually kinda surprised that whoever wrote CS was able to get the concept of "some things in angle brackets are HTML tags, while others are custom forum tags" into his head!

    Obligatory "CS was never meant to be used" response, but I think in this case that's the fault of the editor (TinyMCE?) than CS.

    (Or maybe Alex's fault for not updating TinyMCE - I understand later ones had many of these annoying quirks ironed out. Dunno what version this is, but a number of existing quirks suggest that it's not been changed in some time.)



  • @ekolis said:

    Oh, that explains it - I figured code tags were supposed to be in square brackets, since this forum uses Real HTML Tags (tm) (and requires them to be added manually for linebreaks etc. if you are not using the One True Browser (tm)) - I'm actually kinda surprised that whoever wrote CS was able to get the concept of "some things in angle brackets are HTML tags, while others are custom forum tags" into his head!

    Code is actually a Real(tm) HTML tag.



  • @RHuckster said:

    @ekolis said:
    Oh, that explains it - I figured code tags were supposed to be in square brackets, since this forum uses Real HTML Tags (tm) (and requires them to be added manually for linebreaks etc. if you are not using the One True Browser (tm)) - I'm actually kinda surprised that whoever wrote CS was able to get the concept of "some things in angle brackets are HTML tags, while others are custom forum tags" into his head!

    Code is actually a Real(tm) HTML tag.

    <code> is for losers, real men use <pre>!



  • @Cassidy said:

    Wha... how much javascript was required to implement square radio buttons?
     

    I've just noticed my own ISP has square radio buttons on their front page, to choose whether to go into webmail or account.

    This is the complete HTML and JS code to implement square radio buttons:

                <div style="width:100px; float:left; padding:8px 0 0 24px;"><input name="loginopt" type="checkbox"  onclick="document['go']['loginopt'].checked = true; document['go']['loginopt1'].checked = false;" />Your Account</div>
    <div style="width:110px; float:left; padding-top:8px;"><input name="loginopt1" type="checkbox" checked onclick="document['go']['loginopt'].checked = false; document['go']['loginopt1'].checked = true;"/>Post Office</div>

     loginopt and loginopt1?

    There seems to be more JS tomfoolery on the submit button onclick too, instead of the form onsubmit. No-one presses enter do they?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.