|
web
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Did we lose the RadioCheck property on menuitemsToolStripMenuItems do not have a RadioCheck property.
Is this feature not available with the new StripMenu or is it just that I haven't found out how? Hard to believe they dropped such a nice feature. Is it still available some how? thanks When searching the help doc in VS2005 it appears that it can only do the simplest search. That is, no RegExpressions or more then one word or searching previous results. Is that the way it is or am I missing something? " academic" <acade***@a-znet.com> wrote in message VB 2005 has a Checked = True/False property.news:uqt3RowOGHA.1124@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > ToolStripMenuItems do not have a RadioCheck property. > > Is this feature not available with the new StripMenu or is it just that I > haven't found out how? > > Hard to believe they dropped such a nice feature. > > Is it still available some how? But I want the little ball to indicate it's a radio button.
From what I read I'll have to draw it myself. thanks "Homer J Simpson" <nob***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:6BoMf.5385$Cp4.1820@edtnps90...Show quoteHide quote > > " academic" <acade***@a-znet.com> wrote in message > news:uqt3RowOGHA.1124@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > >> ToolStripMenuItems do not have a RadioCheck property. >> >> Is this feature not available with the new StripMenu or is it just that I >> haven't found out how? >> >> Hard to believe they dropped such a nice feature. >> >> Is it still available some how? > > VB 2005 has a Checked = True/False property. > > > > " academic" <acade***@a-znet.com> wrote in message Don't remember that being there. IIRC, you fake it with software so as you news:eZRvW%23xOGHA.3276@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > But I want the little ball to indicate it's a radio button. > From what I read I'll have to draw it myself. check one item it unchecks the others.
http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/UpgradeToMenuStrip.asp#xx1361774xx
"Homer J Simpson" <nob***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:u6qMf.5412$Cp4.967@edtnps90...Show quoteHide quote > > " academic" <acade***@a-znet.com> wrote in message > news:eZRvW%23xOGHA.3276@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > >> But I want the little ball to indicate it's a radio button. >> From what I read I'll have to draw it myself. > > Don't remember that being there. IIRC, you fake it with software so as you > check one item it unchecks the others. > > Homer, User Interface Conventions call for mutually exclusive checkmarks on
a menu to be rendered as a Radio "dot" or "ball." WindowsForms normal menus had the RadioCheck option which caused checkmarks to be rendered as a dot.... though they (WindowsForms' normal menus) didn't actually "enforce" the mutual exclusivity of the checks like a real set of radio buttons, they did support the glyph (via the RadioCheck property). With the "new" ToolStripMenuItems I guess you're supposed to convey this mutual exclusivity using images. If you look at the View menu in Microsoft Word you'd see what I mean (Normal, Page Layout, etc etc are mutually exclusive). Still, the ToolstripMenuItem supports a regular built-in checkmark so it's retarded that it doesn't support a RadioCheck property as well. It's just one example of something I call "the little things" that matter. There's no Unit Test for follow-through failures like this. It's just one example of the general decline of quality of certain aspects of MS software. Every day I run into something in Visual Studio 2005 or Office 2003 that makes me want to tear my hair out..... it wasn't so with VS2003 or Office 2002. "Homer J Simpson" <nob***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:u6qMf.5412$Cp4.967@edtnps90...Show quoteHide quote > > " academic" <acade***@a-znet.com> wrote in message > news:eZRvW%23xOGHA.3276@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > >> But I want the little ball to indicate it's a radio button. >> From what I read I'll have to draw it myself. > > Don't remember that being there. IIRC, you fake it with software so as you > check one item it unchecks the others. > >
Show quote
Hide quote
"CMM" <cmm@nospam.com> wrote in message What are you going to do? I've given up caring - I just try to keep up as news:eWbeXn3OGHA.648@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > Homer, User Interface Conventions call for mutually exclusive checkmarks > on a menu to be rendered as a Radio "dot" or "ball." WindowsForms normal > menus had the RadioCheck option which caused checkmarks to be rendered as > a dot.... though they (WindowsForms' normal menus) didn't actually > "enforce" the mutual exclusivity of the checks like a real set of radio > buttons, they did support the glyph (via the RadioCheck property). > > With the "new" ToolStripMenuItems I guess you're supposed to convey this > mutual exclusivity using images. If you look at the View menu in Microsoft > Word you'd see what I mean (Normal, Page Layout, etc etc are mutually > exclusive). Still, the ToolstripMenuItem supports a regular built-in > checkmark so it's retarded that it doesn't support a RadioCheck property > as well. It's just one example of something I call "the little things" > that matter. > > There's no Unit Test for follow-through failures like this. It's just one > example of the general decline of quality of certain aspects of MS > software. Every day I run into something in Visual Studio 2005 or Office > 2003 that makes me want to tear my hair out..... it wasn't so with VS2003 > or Office 2002. best I can. Who thought that learning Algol 68 and Cobol on main frames with punch cards would wind up like this? Oh well. I used to think that Microsoft had the best QA, possibly computer savvy nuns with brass edged rulers and a bad attitude. But it seems to have slipped. It does seem to me that they have finally made the documentation similar to Unix man pages - OCIAK. I had a warm fuzzy feeling for MS after seeing their great work in putting
out .NET 1.0 and 1.1. But Visual Studio 2005, Office 2003, and lack-of-focus server hodgepodge offerings have really ticked me off in the last 1.5 years. I don't think I can take another Acronym... I'll suffocate. I personally think MS has gotten too big. They need to take a step back and reevaluate the quality of their stuff.... not just its feature-set. And the Marketing Dept needs to be reigned in... Marketing should be at the disposal of the other teams... not the other way around. "Homer J Simpson" <nob***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:kTGMf.7041$Cp4.6927@edtnps90...Show quoteHide quote > > "CMM" <cmm@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:eWbeXn3OGHA.648@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > >> Homer, User Interface Conventions call for mutually exclusive checkmarks >> on a menu to be rendered as a Radio "dot" or "ball." WindowsForms normal >> menus had the RadioCheck option which caused checkmarks to be rendered as >> a dot.... though they (WindowsForms' normal menus) didn't actually >> "enforce" the mutual exclusivity of the checks like a real set of radio >> buttons, they did support the glyph (via the RadioCheck property). >> >> With the "new" ToolStripMenuItems I guess you're supposed to convey this >> mutual exclusivity using images. If you look at the View menu in >> Microsoft Word you'd see what I mean (Normal, Page Layout, etc etc are >> mutually exclusive). Still, the ToolstripMenuItem supports a regular >> built-in checkmark so it's retarded that it doesn't support a RadioCheck >> property as well. It's just one example of something I call "the little >> things" that matter. >> >> There's no Unit Test for follow-through failures like this. It's just one >> example of the general decline of quality of certain aspects of MS >> software. Every day I run into something in Visual Studio 2005 or Office >> 2003 that makes me want to tear my hair out..... it wasn't so with VS2003 >> or Office 2002. > > What are you going to do? I've given up caring - I just try to keep up as > best I can. Who thought that learning Algol 68 and Cobol on main frames > with punch cards would wind up like this? Oh well. > > I used to think that Microsoft had the best QA, possibly computer savvy > nuns with brass edged rulers and a bad attitude. But it seems to have > slipped. It does seem to me that they have finally made the documentation > similar to Unix man pages - OCIAK. > > > Whew! I thought I was the only one irked by the removal of native support
for radio button-style menu items in VS05. I think I did the same thing you did when I first discovered the feature loss, looked around at other MS applications to see how they represented a mutually exclusive list of selectable menu items. Your example (MS Word's use of menu item images) is an OK way to go I guess, but in most cases I don't have a team of artists I can call on to create custom images for each one of my mutually exclusive options. Microsoft should allow me to create a "quick-and-dirty" implementation of radio button-style menu items without having to resort to using menu images or customizing a control. What really gets me about this is that the principle of a mutually exclusive set of options is at the heart of the Windows GUI. If for some reason you had to explain the Windows GUI standard in a paragraph or less, there'd surely be something in there about radio buttons. Along with stuff like text boxes, check boxes, list boxes, and combo boxes, radio buttons are one of the most fundamental building blocks of any GUI interface. I just don't understand how this could have been omitted from the new menu controls. Bring back the dot! OK. I feel much better now. :-) - Mitchell S. Honnert Show quoteHide quote "CMM" <cmm@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eWbeXn3OGHA.648@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > Homer, User Interface Conventions call for mutually exclusive checkmarks > on a menu to be rendered as a Radio "dot" or "ball." WindowsForms normal > menus had the RadioCheck option which caused checkmarks to be rendered as > a dot.... though they (WindowsForms' normal menus) didn't actually > "enforce" the mutual exclusivity of the checks like a real set of radio > buttons, they did support the glyph (via the RadioCheck property). > > With the "new" ToolStripMenuItems I guess you're supposed to convey this > mutual exclusivity using images. If you look at the View menu in Microsoft > Word you'd see what I mean (Normal, Page Layout, etc etc are mutually > exclusive). Still, the ToolstripMenuItem supports a regular built-in > checkmark so it's retarded that it doesn't support a RadioCheck property > as well. It's just one example of something I call "the little things" > that matter. > > There's no Unit Test for follow-through failures like this. It's just one > example of the general decline of quality of certain aspects of MS > software. Every day I run into something in Visual Studio 2005 or Office > 2003 that makes me want to tear my hair out..... it wasn't so with VS2003 > or Office 2002. > > -- > -C. Moya > www.cmoya.com > > "Homer J Simpson" <nob***@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:u6qMf.5412$Cp4.967@edtnps90... >> >> " academic" <acade***@a-znet.com> wrote in message >> news:eZRvW%23xOGHA.3276@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> >>> But I want the little ball to indicate it's a radio button. >>> From what I read I'll have to draw it myself. >> >> Don't remember that being there. IIRC, you fake it with software so as >> you check one item it unchecks the others. >> >> > > Microsoft's recent crop of developer hires seem to come from another world
camp... possibly Unix C++ folks or something. And, MS has no master "Steve Jobs" type person overseeing the quality and consistency and aesthetics..... it's all *Marketing* that is "overseeing" stuff at at Microsoft and Radio Checks and Consistent User Interfaces is at the BOTTOM of their list. If you take a look at how Office implements SDI... even in Office 2003... you'd see what I mean. I mean it's one thing that Word implements true SDI and Excel and PowerPoint implement Fake-SDI (via "Windows In Taskbar" feature).... I'm OK with that. BUT even between them Excel and PowerPoint implement it DIFFERENTLY. If you click on the pop X close button in PowerPoint (when Windows in Taskbar setting is ON) only the current window closes (I like that... it's very SDI-like). If you do the same in Excel ALL your open documents on your taskbar close. This is RETARDED. Also, Outlook 2003 puts an icon in the tray (you have no choice) and you have the option to "Minimize to Tray." Which is great...... but if you close the main Outlook window you close the icon too. NO OTHER application in the world that makes use of the tray behaves like this. Instead the option should not be "Minimize to Tray" it should be "Allow Outlook to run in the background" and you can close the main window and still keep the tray icon along with e-mail notifications, task notifications, and calendar appointment notifications, bla bla bla. I saw in the latest Visa UI Guidelines that they were actually incorporating the Outlook way of doing the tray thing into the Guidelines. That is RETARDED. No other app behaves that way. I want MINIMIZE TO MEAN MINIMIZE. Those guys at MS are on Crack nowadays. OK. Now I feel much better too. :-) Show quoteHide quote "Mitchell S. Honnert" <n***@REMhonnertOVE.com> wrote in message news:OoxLhp8OGHA.3576@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > Whew! I thought I was the only one irked by the removal of native support > for radio button-style menu items in VS05. I think I did the same thing > you did when I first discovered the feature loss, looked around at other > MS applications to see how they represented a mutually exclusive list of > selectable menu items. Your example (MS Word's use of menu item images) > is an OK way to go I guess, but in most cases I don't have a team of > artists I can call on to create custom images for each one of my mutually > exclusive options. Microsoft should allow me to create a > "quick-and-dirty" implementation of radio button-style menu items without > having to resort to using menu images or customizing a control. > > What really gets me about this is that the principle of a mutually > exclusive set of options is at the heart of the Windows GUI. If for some > reason you had to explain the Windows GUI standard in a paragraph or less, > there'd surely be something in there about radio buttons. Along with > stuff like text boxes, check boxes, list boxes, and combo boxes, radio > buttons are one of the most fundamental building blocks of any GUI > interface. I just don't understand how this could have been omitted from > the new menu controls. Bring back the dot! > > OK. I feel much better now. :-) > > - Mitchell S. Honnert > > > "CMM" <cmm@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:eWbeXn3OGHA.648@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... >> Homer, User Interface Conventions call for mutually exclusive checkmarks >> on a menu to be rendered as a Radio "dot" or "ball." WindowsForms normal >> menus had the RadioCheck option which caused checkmarks to be rendered as >> a dot.... though they (WindowsForms' normal menus) didn't actually >> "enforce" the mutual exclusivity of the checks like a real set of radio >> buttons, they did support the glyph (via the RadioCheck property). >> >> With the "new" ToolStripMenuItems I guess you're supposed to convey this >> mutual exclusivity using images. If you look at the View menu in >> Microsoft Word you'd see what I mean (Normal, Page Layout, etc etc are >> mutually exclusive). Still, the ToolstripMenuItem supports a regular >> built-in checkmark so it's retarded that it doesn't support a RadioCheck >> property as well. It's just one example of something I call "the little >> things" that matter. >> >> There's no Unit Test for follow-through failures like this. It's just one >> example of the general decline of quality of certain aspects of MS >> software. Every day I run into something in Visual Studio 2005 or Office >> 2003 that makes me want to tear my hair out..... it wasn't so with VS2003 >> or Office 2002. >> >> -- >> -C. Moya >> www.cmoya.com >> >> "Homer J Simpson" <nob***@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:u6qMf.5412$Cp4.967@edtnps90... >>> >>> " academic" <acade***@a-znet.com> wrote in message >>> news:eZRvW%23xOGHA.3276@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>> >>>> But I want the little ball to indicate it's a radio button. >>>> From what I read I'll have to draw it myself. >>> >>> Don't remember that being there. IIRC, you fake it with software so as >>> you check one item it unchecks the others. >>> >>> >> >> > > What I take away from your post is a sense of how different the GUI's are in
MS Office apps. Which I also find quite troubling because I always assumed a uniformity of interface design was one of the major selling points of Office. If your corporate users already knew MS Word, they didn't necessarily have to be retrained to learn MS Excel or MS PowerPoint. Because the products followed the common GUI standards, if they knew one, they could catch on to the other. Perhaps I'm not a good judge because I'm on the end of the spectrum that prefers a clean, simple, "eyecandy free" interface, but I think most people would agree that keeping a uniform set of interface rules is a good idea for all Windows applications, and especially for MS's flagship application suite. - Mitchell S. Honnert Show quoteHide quote "CMM" <cmm@nospam.com> wrote in message news:%23vs%2300%23OGHA.3260@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > Microsoft's recent crop of developer hires seem to come from another world > camp... possibly Unix C++ folks or something. And, MS has no master "Steve > Jobs" type person overseeing the quality and consistency and > aesthetics..... it's all *Marketing* that is "overseeing" stuff at at > Microsoft and Radio Checks and Consistent User Interfaces is at the BOTTOM > of their list. > > If you take a look at how Office implements SDI... even in Office 2003... > you'd see what I mean. I mean it's one thing that Word implements true SDI > and Excel and PowerPoint implement Fake-SDI (via "Windows In Taskbar" > feature).... I'm OK with that. BUT even between them Excel and PowerPoint > implement it DIFFERENTLY. If you click on the pop X close button in > PowerPoint (when Windows in Taskbar setting is ON) only the current window > closes (I like that... it's very SDI-like). If you do the same in Excel > ALL your open documents on your taskbar close. This is RETARDED. > > Also, Outlook 2003 puts an icon in the tray (you have no choice) and you > have the option to "Minimize to Tray." Which is great...... but if you > close the main Outlook window you close the icon too. NO OTHER application > in the world that makes use of the tray behaves like this. Instead the > option should not be "Minimize to Tray" it should be "Allow Outlook to run > in the background" and you can close the main window and still keep the > tray icon along with e-mail notifications, task notifications, and > calendar appointment notifications, bla bla bla. > > I saw in the latest Visa UI Guidelines that they were actually > incorporating the Outlook way of doing the tray thing into the Guidelines. > That is RETARDED. No other app behaves that way. I want MINIMIZE TO MEAN > MINIMIZE. Those guys at MS are on Crack nowadays. > > OK. Now I feel much better too. :-) > > > -- > -C. Moya > www.cmoya.com > "Mitchell S. Honnert" <n***@REMhonnertOVE.com> wrote in message > news:OoxLhp8OGHA.3576@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >> Whew! I thought I was the only one irked by the removal of native >> support for radio button-style menu items in VS05. I think I did the >> same thing you did when I first discovered the feature loss, looked >> around at other MS applications to see how they represented a mutually >> exclusive list of selectable menu items. Your example (MS Word's use of >> menu item images) is an OK way to go I guess, but in most cases I don't >> have a team of artists I can call on to create custom images for each one >> of my mutually exclusive options. Microsoft should allow me to create a >> "quick-and-dirty" implementation of radio button-style menu items without >> having to resort to using menu images or customizing a control. >> >> What really gets me about this is that the principle of a mutually >> exclusive set of options is at the heart of the Windows GUI. If for some >> reason you had to explain the Windows GUI standard in a paragraph or >> less, there'd surely be something in there about radio buttons. Along >> with stuff like text boxes, check boxes, list boxes, and combo boxes, >> radio buttons are one of the most fundamental building blocks of any GUI >> interface. I just don't understand how this could have been omitted from >> the new menu controls. Bring back the dot! >> >> OK. I feel much better now. :-) >> >> - Mitchell S. Honnert >> >> >> "CMM" <cmm@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:eWbeXn3OGHA.648@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... >>> Homer, User Interface Conventions call for mutually exclusive checkmarks >>> on a menu to be rendered as a Radio "dot" or "ball." WindowsForms normal >>> menus had the RadioCheck option which caused checkmarks to be rendered >>> as a dot.... though they (WindowsForms' normal menus) didn't actually >>> "enforce" the mutual exclusivity of the checks like a real set of radio >>> buttons, they did support the glyph (via the RadioCheck property). >>> >>> With the "new" ToolStripMenuItems I guess you're supposed to convey this >>> mutual exclusivity using images. If you look at the View menu in >>> Microsoft Word you'd see what I mean (Normal, Page Layout, etc etc are >>> mutually exclusive). Still, the ToolstripMenuItem supports a regular >>> built-in checkmark so it's retarded that it doesn't support a RadioCheck >>> property as well. It's just one example of something I call "the little >>> things" that matter. >>> >>> There's no Unit Test for follow-through failures like this. It's just >>> one example of the general decline of quality of certain aspects of MS >>> software. Every day I run into something in Visual Studio 2005 or Office >>> 2003 that makes me want to tear my hair out..... it wasn't so with >>> VS2003 or Office 2002. >>> >>> -- >>> -C. Moya >>> www.cmoya.com >>> >>> "Homer J Simpson" <nob***@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>> news:u6qMf.5412$Cp4.967@edtnps90... >>>> >>>> " academic" <acade***@a-znet.com> wrote in message >>>> news:eZRvW%23xOGHA.3276@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>>> >>>>> But I want the little ball to indicate it's a radio button. >>>>> From what I read I'll have to draw it myself. >>>> >>>> Don't remember that being there. IIRC, you fake it with software so as >>>> you check one item it unchecks the others. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > No piece of software is perfect... and one will always find something to
gripe about. But, Microsoft has been at this for 15 years and their contribution to many aspects of computing productivity has been in the *negative* department in *recent* years. I think Windows' "golden years" peak was in the 1999 - 2001 range. While, WinXP was a much improved version of Windows 2000 (in terms of stability and hardware compatibility) the look and feel, GUI consistency, application behavior, of Windows 2000 and Office 2000 and all other 3rd party applications was just a pure joy to work with. Then WinXP comes out... and I actually like the gee-whiz UI. BUT, how come Office XP didn't have it? That was just stupid and glaring. Nor did Visual Studio 2002 or 2003- the premier development platform for WinXP. Come on. All you have to do is look at FireFox (which I'm actually not a big fan of, mind you) and then look at IE to see just how much Microsoft has STAGNATED in many areas of innovation (.NET notwithstanding). I still find it laughable that the "docked-on-the-right-side" feature of Outlook 2003 was actually marketed as a feature. I mean, come on. Show quoteHide quote "Mitchell S. Honnert" <n***@REMhonnertOVE.com> wrote in message news:O1$ZckxPGHA.2692@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > What I take away from your post is a sense of how different the GUI's are > in MS Office apps. Which I also find quite troubling because I always > assumed a uniformity of interface design was one of the major selling > points of Office. If your corporate users already knew MS Word, they > didn't necessarily have to be retrained to learn MS Excel or MS > PowerPoint. Because the products followed the common GUI standards, if > they knew one, they could catch on to the other. Perhaps I'm not a good > judge because I'm on the end of the spectrum that prefers a clean, simple, > "eyecandy free" interface, but I think most people would agree that > keeping a uniform set of interface rules is a good idea for all Windows > applications, and especially for MS's flagship application suite. > > - Mitchell S. Honnert > > > "CMM" <cmm@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:%23vs%2300%23OGHA.3260@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... >> Microsoft's recent crop of developer hires seem to come from another >> world camp... possibly Unix C++ folks or something. And, MS has no master >> "Steve Jobs" type person overseeing the quality and consistency and >> aesthetics..... it's all *Marketing* that is "overseeing" stuff at at >> Microsoft and Radio Checks and Consistent User Interfaces is at the >> BOTTOM of their list. >> >> If you take a look at how Office implements SDI... even in Office 2003... >> you'd see what I mean. I mean it's one thing that Word implements true >> SDI and Excel and PowerPoint implement Fake-SDI (via "Windows In Taskbar" >> feature).... I'm OK with that. BUT even between them Excel and PowerPoint >> implement it DIFFERENTLY. If you click on the pop X close button in >> PowerPoint (when Windows in Taskbar setting is ON) only the current >> window closes (I like that... it's very SDI-like). If you do the same in >> Excel ALL your open documents on your taskbar close. This is RETARDED. >> >> Also, Outlook 2003 puts an icon in the tray (you have no choice) and you >> have the option to "Minimize to Tray." Which is great...... but if you >> close the main Outlook window you close the icon too. NO OTHER >> application in the world that makes use of the tray behaves like this. >> Instead the option should not be "Minimize to Tray" it should be "Allow >> Outlook to run in the background" and you can close the main window and >> still keep the tray icon along with e-mail notifications, task >> notifications, and calendar appointment notifications, bla bla bla. >> >> I saw in the latest Visa UI Guidelines that they were actually >> incorporating the Outlook way of doing the tray thing into the >> Guidelines. That is RETARDED. No other app behaves that way. I want >> MINIMIZE TO MEAN MINIMIZE. Those guys at MS are on Crack nowadays. >> >> OK. Now I feel much better too. :-) >> >> >> -- >> -C. Moya >> www.cmoya.com >> "Mitchell S. Honnert" <n***@REMhonnertOVE.com> wrote in message >> news:OoxLhp8OGHA.3576@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >>> Whew! I thought I was the only one irked by the removal of native >>> support for radio button-style menu items in VS05. I think I did the >>> same thing you did when I first discovered the feature loss, looked >>> around at other MS applications to see how they represented a mutually >>> exclusive list of selectable menu items. Your example (MS Word's use of >>> menu item images) is an OK way to go I guess, but in most cases I don't >>> have a team of artists I can call on to create custom images for each >>> one of my mutually exclusive options. Microsoft should allow me to >>> create a "quick-and-dirty" implementation of radio button-style menu >>> items without having to resort to using menu images or customizing a >>> control. >>> >>> What really gets me about this is that the principle of a mutually >>> exclusive set of options is at the heart of the Windows GUI. If for >>> some reason you had to explain the Windows GUI standard in a paragraph >>> or less, there'd surely be something in there about radio buttons. >>> Along with stuff like text boxes, check boxes, list boxes, and combo >>> boxes, radio buttons are one of the most fundamental building blocks of >>> any GUI interface. I just don't understand how this could have been >>> omitted from the new menu controls. Bring back the dot! >>> >>> OK. I feel much better now. :-) >>> >>> - Mitchell S. Honnert >>> >>> >>> "CMM" <cmm@nospam.com> wrote in message >>> news:eWbeXn3OGHA.648@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... >>>> Homer, User Interface Conventions call for mutually exclusive >>>> checkmarks on a menu to be rendered as a Radio "dot" or "ball." >>>> WindowsForms normal menus had the RadioCheck option which caused >>>> checkmarks to be rendered as a dot.... though they (WindowsForms' >>>> normal menus) didn't actually "enforce" the mutual exclusivity of the >>>> checks like a real set of radio buttons, they did support the glyph >>>> (via the RadioCheck property). >>>> >>>> With the "new" ToolStripMenuItems I guess you're supposed to convey >>>> this mutual exclusivity using images. If you look at the View menu in >>>> Microsoft Word you'd see what I mean (Normal, Page Layout, etc etc are >>>> mutually exclusive). Still, the ToolstripMenuItem supports a regular >>>> built-in checkmark so it's retarded that it doesn't support a >>>> RadioCheck property as well. It's just one example of something I call >>>> "the little things" that matter. >>>> >>>> There's no Unit Test for follow-through failures like this. It's just >>>> one example of the general decline of quality of certain aspects of MS >>>> software. Every day I run into something in Visual Studio 2005 or >>>> Office 2003 that makes me want to tear my hair out..... it wasn't so >>>> with VS2003 or Office 2002. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -C. Moya >>>> www.cmoya.com >>>> >>>> "Homer J Simpson" <nob***@nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>> news:u6qMf.5412$Cp4.967@edtnps90... >>>>> >>>>> " academic" <acade***@a-znet.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:eZRvW%23xOGHA.3276@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >>>>> >>>>>> But I want the little ball to indicate it's a radio button. >>>>>> From what I read I'll have to draw it myself. >>>>> >>>>> Don't remember that being there. IIRC, you fake it with software so as >>>>> you check one item it unchecks the others. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
Show quote
Hide quote
"CMM" <cmm@nospam.com> schrieb: To me it seems that Office's command bars do not support mutually exclusive > Homer, User Interface Conventions call for mutually exclusive checkmarks > on a menu to be rendered as a Radio "dot" or "ball." WindowsForms normal > menus had the RadioCheck option which caused checkmarks to be rendered as > a dot.... though they (WindowsForms' normal menus) didn't actually > "enforce" the mutual exclusivity of the checks like a real set of radio > buttons, they did support the glyph (via the RadioCheck property). > > With the "new" ToolStripMenuItems I guess you're supposed to convey this > mutual exclusivity using images. If you look at the View menu in Microsoft > Word you'd see what I mean (Normal, Page Layout, etc etc are mutually > exclusive). Still, the ToolstripMenuItem supports a regular built-in > checkmark so it's retarded that it doesn't support a RadioCheck property > as well. It's just one example of something I call "the little things" > that matter. options via radio check menu items. I too believe that this is a design flaw because checkmarks and radiobuttons serve different purposes. Word 2003's 'Windows' menu uses checkmarks to indicate the currently active document. I still do not see any signs from Microsoft understanding the high-level goals of the Classic VB petition: Do not make changes only for the reason of making a change. People do not want revolutionary changes, they want a natural evolution. Revolutionary changes are an indicator of very early design stages, but Microsoft has 20+ years of experience with user interfaces. -- M S Herfried K. Wagner M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/> Thanks, I wish they provided sample code to insert the dots
"Homer J Simpson" <nob***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:u6qMf.5412$Cp4.967@edtnps90...Show quoteHide quote > > " academic" <acade***@a-znet.com> wrote in message > news:eZRvW%23xOGHA.3276@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > >> But I want the little ball to indicate it's a radio button. >> From what I read I'll have to draw it myself. > > Don't remember that being there. IIRC, you fake it with software so as you > check one item it unchecks the others. > > 
Other interesting topics
How does the community rate .NET 2005 vs. .NET 2003?
Some thoughts on VB9 Webapplications quits without matter in ASP.NET 2.0 List.Add method overwriting collectionbase? Listbox controls Ado.net to excel ? i love reflection:) academic version [2003] How to move a menu item to the left?! The variable 'GroupBox1' is either undeclared or was never assigned. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
