samir, a terminally deprecated methodJun 26, 2023

Is there any benefit to this UI pattern of a checkbox toggling a set of radio buttons?

Why not just have 3 radio buttons, always visible? (no / only new / new and existing)

I would have thought that 3 radio buttons would be easier to design and I think they'd be a lot more accessible.

I mean "accessible" in the broadest sense, too. I'm sure it would help users of screen-readers but even those of us who don't use extra tools might be surprised when checking a box reveals further options.

Show threadBrandon Edling

@samir I would guess there are metrics behind how often that box (or the revealed radio buttons) are checked/toggled and they decided to keep the dialog simple.

I agree that checking a box that reveals more options isn’t great for accessibility, though.

Maybe if they implemented some visual hint that there’s something hidden…

Jun 26, 2023 at 11:36amWeb
Show threadsamir, a terminally deprecated methodJun 26, 2023
@brandon It seems to be checked by default, but @MatthewPCooke pointed out to me that the text field underneath is also only shown when the box is checked, which is making it make a lot more sense to me. https://techhub.social/@MatthewPCooke/110610311813309062
MatthewPCooke (@[email protected])

@[email protected] if you made it always on with three options, it turns 1 line you can process at a glance into 5 lines (3 options, an OOO input box and an input box title.) and you lose the ability to instantly understand that the input box is only relevant in 2 or three option boxes.

TechHub
Show threadMatthewPCookeJun 26, 2023
@samir @brandon yeah you still get some benefit/clarity from the unticking in that you can see that if you uncheck it then neither the option or the input field is relevant any more.