This gets messiest imo when it's a toggleable button like thing, or an unclear link. Buttons seem good candidates for "trigger an action", checkboxes instead suit "this is the state".
I think checkboxes is 'the state to be if I click save'. I don't generally expect checkbox to change the state instantly if I don't click 'submit' or something similar.
I remembered that some sites use a small spinner on the edge of textarea or something similar to indicate "I am uploading your text to cloud / I am saving your text to disk".
I think it's a good design that tell users your changes are persisted "now" ?
And this can be probably applied to all options that take effects instantly.
Good idea about small save indicator on every change.
Another idea:
When you start typing textarea visually changes style to indicate editing. Once you leave it it changes style back to indicate that this new content is written.
Optionally additionally while editing small X icon might show up and clicking it might cancel the change instead of saving it.
Interesting, I don't look at the same way - which is another reminder to me why good UX design is hard as my own interpretation of something as simple as a checkbox isn't universal.
On a similar note, I find it hard when I don't know if I need to save or submit.
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.
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.
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].
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"
Most comments are in favour of the former, but we've been trained by every media player UI to understand that a button with a pause symbol means that the media is currently playing.
It's worth noting that physical media players (VCRs, CD players, Tape players) usually have separate play and pause buttons. The Winamp default skin did also. Most of us were trained to expect that before contemporary media players started showing up.
I think it's also worth noting that it is usually very obvious what state a media player is in, so it makes sense we would have different expectations from that UI vs one where we aren't sure of the current state.
Tape players have it because buttons were used to physically actuate controls of the deck.
It was easier to have "stop" be mechanics to disengage head, "play" to engage head" and "pause" being just on/off switch for the motor than trying to merge play/pause into 1.
> Most of us were trained to expect that before contemporary media players started showing up.
CD players started getting play/pause precisely because they didn't need to. Most VCRs also had digital controls (coz moving mechanisms via push of button would be harder with big tapes and heads) and they also did often have play/pause integrated.
Some opted for copying tape 1:1, some merged play/pause into one button, it certainly wasnt that all of them had separate pause.
> It's worth noting that physical media players (VCRs, CD players, Tape players) usually have separate play and pause buttons.
Anecdotally (in UK&EU) every old tape, CD, or VCR player I ever had combined play and pause on a single button, even devices where there was no screen to show current state it was just the norm that the same button toggles the current state.
Media players should have a "playing" indicator that is separate from the play/pause control. Not just because of the ambiguity between state and action, but also because there is difference between the requested state and the actual state!
A media player can be in the "user wants to play" state and not be playing, because buffering is taking place. This is a very common state, yet all the media players I've seen have an ambiguous or confusing display during this state.
> a pause symbol means that the media is currently playing
Except when it isn't playing. It get confusing/frustrating when dealing with low volume, buggy software like the Iphone Podcasts app or Bluetooth. Then you think, oh, maybe it's in a paused state.
If it's a switch, I don't understand why it can't be represented as a switch:
Fnurbification disabled
O
|
Fnurbification enabled
Of course, UX design metaphors based on actual mechanical devices aren't cool anymore, but a brave enough soul can ignore coolness in favour of functionality.
The UK and many ex-colonies that also maintain plug/outlet switches seem to generally use down for on, while the US/Canada/Central Europe often use up for on.
Especially annoying are the posh toggles, unnecessarily popular in some European countries (e.g. CH) that don’t have any physical indicator of on-off status.
It’s fine for multi-way switches, and probably even better than confounded switches, but as I mentioned they’re unnecessarily common which in this case means that they’re often used (at least in some settings in CH) for single-switch setups as well. For instance, my apartment had around 8-10 push switches of this type, with only 1 that was a three-way switch.
Here in USA, single-gang switches have "on" and "off" embossed on the switch, so the state is shown based on the position (oriented up is on). Multi-gang switches have no embossing.
Sometimes it can even be either way, because there are two switches and toggling one of them toggles the light in any case; they essentially act as a XOR circuit and are most commonly seen in corridors.
The apartment I live in has switches that turn the light on in its down position in some rooms and switches that turn the light of in its up position in other rooms. Fun!
Yeah, I've lived with dual switches my whole life. Hallway in my childhood home, the two entrances to my kitchen now. Also my bathroom switch is left/right. I had no idea "up is on/off" was even a thing until someone referenced it a few years ago (in my 30s).
It depends entirely on how they were mounted/wired and if the person doing it cared. Where I live the inconsistency is real, even inside a single home, though most people seem to not care. In my own home I fixed everything which was in the subjectively wrong position, it was trivial to do.
Yes. An electrician re-wiring my kitchen had three adjacent switches differently up / down when all off. He happily redid them when asked, but clearly himself didn't care about the consistency.
The analogous case being a horizontal circuit laying on a table with the crossbar switch up in the air causing an open circuit & being down closing it.
First, checkboxes and toggles are not buttons, so that's a slightly deceptive way to describe it. If you use "checkbox" instead, it's immediately clear who's right:
> and the people who think the [checkbox/toggle] should show what state it will change to when activated
These people are wrong. The simplest thing should be the default and this adds extra indirection (projecting future state from current state), therefore it's not the simplest, therefore it's wrong.
Unless of course you mean something strange by "activated".
Three, apparently: there are the people (such as me) who think the button should "show" what it does when you click it. It shouldn't indicate anything else (except it's enabled/disabled state, i.e. whether you are allowed to click it). Button text should be constant. If you need an indicator, that should be another widget.
It's very easy to reconcile. If you have to have inverse logic in UI (which is wrong, but designers gonna design despise logic or usability), you can just have "Enable"/"Disable" but use other hint showing the current state, say paint the disabled ones red and enabled ones green .
the people who think the button should show what state it is in.
and the people who think the button should show what state it will change to when activated.