Programmers LOVE doing shit like
DISABLE_FUNCTION=TRUE

You shouldn't have absolutely no double negatives in your software, never

Programmers are always doing shit like

☐ "function A" (checking this box enables function A)
☐ "disable function B" (checking this box disables function B)
☐ "enable function C" (checking this box enables function C)

@schratze bonus points if it’s like

☐ Turn on function A

that when clicked turns into

☑ Turn off function A

what is the current state. what happens when you click on it

This is a lot like a questionnaire. And like I've said before, everyone is horrible at designing questionnaires and I should be the only person allowed to make them

@schratze
clearly such important information must be portrayed by colors only. such as green or red. or green or grey. colors that are trivially distinguishable by everyone*

*: everyone that can use our app

@charlotte @schratze or "empty space" / "filled circle that looks like a bullet point"

@charlotte @schratze
turn on "do not disturb" to turn off disturbances

@schratze that's one more reason why it bothers me.

i shouldn't have to opt out of disturbances, and now it's completely normalisedt to disturb others with disturbances meant for you, anywhere, any time.
@charlotte

@schratze imo, one important exception: important security features that should only be disabled if you really know what you're doing

but i'm sure that's not what you're talking about and in most cases you're right

@schratze cancel this action?

[Cancel] [Ok]

@f4grx @schratze @charlotte you click the button. It turns a slightly different shade of grey. It is impossible to determine if this is the checked or unchecked state. The function remains disabled in either case.

@gormster @f4grx @schratze @charlotte isn't that from the Infocom Hitchhikers game? 😁

@schratze What's bad about

Do not delete all files
[Yes] [No]

?

@schratze and that's why I use nullable booleans. It sounds like a joke but yes/no/maybe actually works wonderfully if you use null to mean "default behavior". Because then you can unambiguously use true/false as on/off.

And somewhat annoyed there is no universally-agreed UI element for that either (but there certainly have been way too many attempts to make a ternary checkbox, and they are all awful).

@virtulis @schratze enums

instead of enabled: true/false/none you just have

feature_state: enabled/disabled

@charlotte @schratze that's absolutely the worst UI as states make no sense anymore and you don't know what anything is set to

@confusomu @schratze it would be so easily solveable too because UI toolkits usually have a way to have a more detailed description in option menus

so why not

☑ Function A
When enabled, Function A will Do Stuff

@schratze then you also get buttons labeled "A On" which indicates A is enabled, pressing it disables A, and "A On" which indicates pressing it enables A, hence A is off

@anselmschueler @schratze

only *who* can prevent forest fires?

@burnitdown @schratze idk what that means but the even worse version of this is a toggle switch labelled "disable X" that, when you enable it, disabling X, changes text to "enable X"

@anselmschueler @schratze

that's kind of what my Simpsons reference is about.

there is an episode in one of the first eight seasons where there's a glass case with Smokey the Bear in it, at some tourist attraction, and a voice box asks "Only *who* can prevent forest fires?", so Lisa presses the only button, marked "YOU", and the voice box says "you have selected YOU, referring to ME. that is incorrect."

@burnitdown @anselmschueler lmao

@schratze no that's just a loop
Haskell doesn't even have traditional loops

@xameer are you replying to the right post or