5 ms·

Simple solution: change the label on action. "Flubber enabled" [toggle ON] "Flubber disabled" [toggle OFF]

IanCal 4y ago
I don't really like this as it's not clear to me until I use it that I see it's a changing label. I don't want to have to interact to discover what will happen if I do. The toggle being off means it looks like "Flubber disabled: off" or "Flubber disabled: no" but it means "Flubber disabled: yes"
dusted 4y ago
Flubber enabled [X] Flubber disabled [ ] <-- Does that mean that flubber is not disabled ? Never touch the label, and never tell state outside of the checkbox: Flubber [X] <-- Clearly, flubber is enabled. Flubber [ ] <-- Obviously, there's no flubber.
- godelski 4y ago
  Wouldn't the confusion only exist if it was Enable Flubber [X] But not when labeled Flubber Enabled [X]? To me there problem here is understanding if the toggle is displaying a state or action because English is limited. But in the past tense version that is far less confusing because it clearly expresses that this is a state and cannot be an action (i.e. "Would you like to Flubber Enabled?" doesn't work nor does "Would you like to Enabled Flubber?" but "Would you like to Enable Flubber?" does). The "ed" matters as well as the word positions. The reason being is that the second word describes the state of the first which is why you can change it. In your example it is easy to understand with the checkbox but the thread at hand is about how toggle switches' visual appearance is confusing so your example is clearly not obvious (otherwise this thread wouldn't be on the front page). The idea of toggling the label means that there are now two indicators of __state__ that should verify one another and thus reduce confusion.
- a9h74j 4y ago
  Maybe stop using necessary "preceeding" verbs and actions to indicate state, but use explicit ON or OFF to match the desired result? It is common in telling someone how to use a UX that they need to "disable" X or Y option, but, again, that is to say that the intended state is on or off.
orthoxerox 4y ago
"Flubber: disabled [__O] enabled"
- 4RealFreedom 4y ago
  I really like that. Do you know of a site that does this today?
  - Enginerrrd 4y ago
    I've definitely seen a couple of cookie toggles that worked this way. But, i can't remember which ones off-hand.
- hnburnsy 4y ago
  love it but you will see dark patterns like... "UnFlubberize:disabled [__O] enabled"
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
angoragoats 4y ago
This is the worst possible solution because you're now showing the state and the action simultaneously, arguably making it less clear about the meaning of the toggle. The ARIA guidelines for switches even have a big warning about not doing this[1]. [1] https://w3c.github.io/aria-practices/#switch https://w3c.github.io/aria-practices/#switch
fortran77 4y ago
If I saw "Flubber Disabled" with a toggle next to it that was "off", I'd turn it "on" to enable the "Flubber Disabled" feature.

I don't really like this as it's not clear to me until I use it that I see it's a changing label. I don't want to have to interact to discover what will happen if I do. The toggle being off means it looks like "Flubber disabled: off" or "Flubber disabled: no" but it means "Flubber disabled: yes"

dusted 4y ago

Flubber enabled [X] Flubber disabled [ ] <-- Does that mean that flubber is not disabled ? Never touch the label, and never tell state outside of the checkbox: Flubber [X] <-- Clearly, flubber is enabled. Flubber [ ] <-- Obviously, there's no flubber.

godelski 4y ago
Wouldn't the confusion only exist if it was Enable Flubber [X] But not when labeled Flubber Enabled [X]? To me there problem here is understanding if the toggle is displaying a state or action because English is limited. But in the past tense version that is far less confusing because it clearly expresses that this is a state and cannot be an action (i.e. "Would you like to Flubber Enabled?" doesn't work nor does "Would you like to Enabled Flubber?" but "Would you like to Enable Flubber?" does). The "ed" matters as well as the word positions. The reason being is that the second word describes the state of the first which is why you can change it. In your example it is easy to understand with the checkbox but the thread at hand is about how toggle switches' visual appearance is confusing so your example is clearly not obvious (otherwise this thread wouldn't be on the front page). The idea of toggling the label means that there are now two indicators of __state__ that should verify one another and thus reduce confusion.
a9h74j 4y ago
Maybe stop using necessary "preceeding" verbs and actions to indicate state, but use explicit ON or OFF to match the desired result? It is common in telling someone how to use a UX that they need to "disable" X or Y option, but, again, that is to say that the intended state is on or off.

orthoxerox 4y ago

"Flubber: disabled [__O] enabled"

4RealFreedom 4y ago
I really like that. Do you know of a site that does this today?
- Enginerrrd 4y ago
  I've definitely seen a couple of cookie toggles that worked this way. But, i can't remember which ones off-hand.
hnburnsy 4y ago
love it but you will see dark patterns like... "UnFlubberize:disabled [__O] enabled"

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

angoragoats 4y ago

This is the worst possible solution because you're now showing the state and the action simultaneously, arguably making it less clear about the meaning of the toggle. The ARIA guidelines for switches even have a big warning about not doing this[1]. [1] https://w3c.github.io/aria-practices/#switch https://w3c.github.io/aria-practices/#switch

fortran77 4y ago

If I saw "Flubber Disabled" with a toggle next to it that was "off", I'd turn it "on" to enable the "Flubber Disabled" feature.