-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 108
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Multiline Field Enhancements #809
Comments
Hi, good to see I am not the only one working with multiline. Regarding 1 and 3):
Regarding 2): |
Thanks for your comments on improving MultiLine. @acicovic Regarding your points. 1 - make sense to me, I can look into it. Hope this help clarify about MulltiLine Input field. Let me know your thoughts. |
Hi guys, thank you for your valuable time and input, I really appreciate it. Apologies for the long post! 1@PhilippGrashoff Regarding this point, a + button on top is indeed better than current situation although it still adds a burden. So does the repeated tab and enter to add new rows. I get your point regarding tabstops although in my experience not many users go for the tab key in order to focus buttons. In contrast, many users accustomed to data entry programs using datagrid or spreadsheet type controls use tabs to add new rows to their table or go to the next line (although they are admittedly mostly desktop apps). So I propose to implement this as an option so everyone can decide what's best in their specific scenario. Perhaps we could go even further and be able to specify another key combo (for example ctrl+enter) for adding new lines while keeping tab functionality. But for now, just a simple on/off switch for special tab mode would be enough for me. This option should be off by default, this way nothing breaks and everybody gets the behavior they want. Would you be OK with this? 2 + 3@ibelar I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the server, but I'll have to think about it and I understand that it's a limited use case. @PhilippGrashoff you are right about having the old input and I like how you approached this with the new record on top, and perhaps this could be a solution. But according to @ibelar, 3 is implemented this way so the user can see the row addition at the bottom (which is logical). Perhaps we can do something like "when toolbar on top add new entry on top, when toolbar on bottom, add new entry on bottom. @ibelar do you think that this would be OK? this way new entry is always near the new button and user can see the new record. 4@ibelar OK, no problem. My proposal wasn't to discard the current system anyway, just to add the button as well because I find it more user friendly. This is not a dealbraker anyway so we can leave as is and reconsider it if more people ask for it, or add it as an on/off option. 5@ibelar OK, agreed Thank you for all the work, this is great stuff! |
Item 1 was implemented in PR #816 (Add option to create new line entry when tabbing out of last record) |
PR welcomed, this feature request is too broad and stale. |
Hi guys, I have started using the Multiline control and it is useful. I think that there are several enhancements that could be made in order to improve its user experience. Most of those could be added as an option. Sorry for the long post but I think those are important.
Why: Currently the control is hard to use if I want to add 40 entries. We have to go to the + button on the bottom right and press it 40 times. But as the button moves, it is hard to use.~~
Details: When user presses tab in the last column of the last row, open up a new line automatically, equivalent to pressing the + button.
2. Add-only modeWhy: One of the excellent use cases for Multiline is mass insertion of records. When user does a mass insert, they might not be interested in seeing existing records. In fact, showing records on that scenario could be cumbersome (user needs to go to the end of the list etc).Details: Give the option to not display the existing records in the Multiline for add-only mode.(retiring suggestion 2 as it would not be good for usability according to @ibelar and @PhilippGrashoff)
3. Toolbar and button position enhancements
Why: Currently the toolbar moves up or down when we add/delete, having to move the mouse up/down for consequent operations. Buttons at the bottom right end of the screen might not be very user friendly in some cases (for example large monitors).
Details: Give the option to have the toolbar on the top (no more toolbar moving) and to align the buttons on the left instead of the right.
4. Improve delete experience
Why: Current implementation is ideal for deleting most of the dataset (which is usually rare), but In all other cases it is a bit tiring requiring extra clicks and mouse movements. For example if I want to delete something at the start of a long list, I have to click the checkbox and then scroll all the way down to press the delete button.
Details: Add a delete button on each row that will allow the user to delete the specific record with a single click, right on the spot.
5. Start with a blank line option
Why: In most cases users will add data to the Multiline, so going to click the + button in those cases is an extra step.
Details: Add an option to start the Multiline with an empty row when it gets rendered
6. Add minimum rows option
Why: In some cases you want to enforce the number of minimum records. Will allow us to implement ContainsOne/HasOne using Multiline.
Details: Add an option for minimum rows like we have for maximum rows right now.
7. @PhilippGrashoff MultiLine suggestion for controls within MultiLine to behave as regular ATK UI controls : Multiline must use regular UI/PHP controls #810
Closing
I think that those enhancements will very much increase the user friendliness of the control as well as its use cases, by giving more capabilities to developers and a more user friendly control for users. Is anyone willing to tackle any of those? @ibelar you're the obvious candidate but I know this might be a lot. For me the most important would be item 1. From an ATK standpoint, I think that 6 makes sense as important functionality.
Related issues/PRs:
#784, #754, #816, #810
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: