Skip to main content
User Experience

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

14
  • 5
    Nested checkboxes. Hell a lot of clicking. Commented May 16, 2017 at 8:43
  • 1
    This looks more like a rendering issue then intended placement, tbh. I have never befre seen checkboxes placed that way and would suspect something went terribly wrong if I ever encountered it in the wild. Plus, its redundant. Rename other+ to *any and the chackbox serves no purpose at all. Commented May 16, 2017 at 8:47
  • 1
    @PeteKirkham Deducing from the second part of the screenshot, this seems not possible. Commented May 16, 2017 at 11:07
  • 1
    @GraemeWicksted Why would you need those checkboxes for that? gender could be [Male | Female | Any]. Male/Female restrict searches, Any means the filter is not applied. If its possible that some records do not have a specified gender, and you want to only show those, you use [Male | Female | None | Any] (or "unspecified" instead of none, if you want). Those additional checkboxes just complicate the form - plus they look really out of place on the fieldset border. Commented May 16, 2017 at 14:23
  • 2
    Where did 'other' magically appear from? The OP has stated that the only valid options are 'Male' and 'Female'. Commented May 21, 2017 at 0:12