Configuration Suppression Terminology

owen_sparks

Hi folks am I the only one that finds the configuration check-boxes counter-intuitive?

For something ticked we are stating "YES I want to NOT CANCEL doing something."

Wouldn't either "Enable" or "Suppress" be a simpler?

I've taken to calling them the "Yes we are having no bananas" boxes.

Cheers,

Owen S.

MBartlett21

I also find the labels are fairly long compared to how long it is actually needed for the checkbox

owen_sparks

MBartlett21 said:

I also find the labels are fairly long compared to how long it is actually needed for the checkbox

Good point. How about just "On" for the header and rotate the feature name 90deg? 🤣

MBartlett21

brucebartlett

Yes! I have to think, right to go left, right to go left, right to go left every time

john_mcclary

Yes! I have to think, right to go left, right to go left, right to go left every time

We call that a Michigan left around here


Funny how in SW it was "Check to NOT Use" but it kinda made sense as usually you will want everything on, except for the unique cases when you don't. 


Although Onshape does make sense if you just look at the pretty colors.
White is "Off"
Blue is "On"

So visually it make more sense, but the usage of the word "suppressed" makes it tricky, as you tend to read to quick and forget there is an "un" prefix

ilya_baran

We thought a fair amount about this (that's not to say we got it perfectly right).  Our thinking was very much "we want a check-mark when it's on and an empty box when it's suppressed" and we didn't want to introduce a new term like "enabled" or "on" that didn't necessarily scream "suppression".

owen_sparks

ilya_baran said:

We thought a fair amount about this (that's not to say we got it perfectly right).  Our thinking was very much "we want a check-mark when it's on and an empty box when it's suppressed" and we didn't want to introduce a new term like "enabled" or "on" that didn't necessarily scream "suppression".

Thanks @ilya_baran, I understand where you're coming from, but personally I don't like it.

I had a ski instructor put it this way.  You don't tell someone what not to do.  In his case this was "don't lean back" as that puts the term "lean back" in the student's mind.  Instead always tell them what you do want them to do, in his case "lean forward".  Another example is credit card machines that say "Don't remove card".  A rushed reader understands a couple of the words at a quick glance and removes the card...  Better would be "LEAVE CARD IN MACHINE" that then changes clearly to "REMOVE CARD NOW" when done.  

Back to our instance; most of that label says SUPPRESS with a couple of other little letters at the front.  So tick for suppress, right?

Upon further thinking I'd still like to rotate the feature name text 90 deg, to reduce "death by scrolling", but I'd also just kill the "unsuppressed" header completely.  As you say a ticked checkbox to indicate enabled feels pretty natural,  so that frees up some more space...

Cheers,

Owen S.

Cris_Bowers

I'm guilty of always checking the box when I want something suppressed as well. The reason is probably due to years of using other software where "Suppress" is the action to take. I think this was done because default state is generally unsupressed so you would take no action. Using the "Suppress" header is asking do you want to take this action and if so check the box. As an alternative, a list box with a "U" for unsuppressed and "S" for suppressed would be an acceptable solution if one is needed. Then change the header name to Suppression State.

andrew_kleinert

ilya_baran said:

We thought a fair amount about this (that's not to say we got it perfectly right).  Our thinking was very much "we want a check-mark when it's on and an empty box when it's suppressed" and we didn't want to introduce a new term like "enabled" or "on" that didn't necessarily scream "suppression".

+1 for existing behaviour.

I admit that I did get a tad confused when I first learnt about configurations and thinking about it ... but "thinking about it" was the wrong thing to do.  When I turned the brain off it flowed a treat.

john_mcclary said:

Although Onshape does make sense if you just look at the pretty colors.
White is "Off"
Blue is "On"

Totally this!

owen_sparks said:

Hi folks am I the only one that finds the configuration check-boxes counter-intuitive?

For something ticked we are stating "YES I want to NOT CANCEL doing something."

Wouldn't either "Enable" or "Suppress" be a simpler?

I've taken to calling them the "Yes we are having no bananas" boxes.

Cheers,

Owen S.

It's probably a bit of a limitation of the English language.

We can freely toss around opposite terms like "open" / "closed" without being confused by double-negatives.  ie: to have a checkbox that indicates that something is not opened, then there is a choice between:

(1) Label it "Not opened" which would confuse people in the way you have described.
(2) Label it "Closed" which avoids all confusion.

But when opposite terms are formed using a negative prefix like "suppressed" / "unsuppressed" then it can lead to this double negative confusion.  All the more so because traditionally in English a double negative is a positive ("I am not unhappy") but slang forms make it a greater negative ("I dunno nothing") as does the influence from other languages like Spanish ("Yo tengo nada" / "Yo no tengo nada" are both negatives)

Maybe instead of using the term "Unsuppressed", it could have been rendered as "Suppressed" instead?  That's probably more confusing. 

This is probably one of those situations where the best solution was the least worst option!

lucas_johnson222

owen_sparks said:

MBartlett21 said:

I also find the labels are fairly long compared to how long it is actually needed for the checkbox

Good point. How about just "On" for the header and rotate the feature name 90deg? 🤣

I completely agree, I would vote for "On" to simplify and shorten things. Thanks!