> I did think about the ui aspects of this and all the points you raise. > The stack in question is very clearly defined in the application as one > where all the information on it is display only and cannot be changed in > any way. There are clearly labelled buttons on the stack that are used to > change/add/delete data, functions which use different stacks to do their > jobs. > > In spite of all that, I share your concerns. Using the autohilite property > was a very easy way out of the original question but perhaps the image > approach might be better and not a lot more work if I use a behavior > script. If I make it look sufficiently different form a normal checkbox > with no hilite just a symbol of some sort to indicate true or false, that > might be the best solution.
If the user is never going to interact with the "display only" stack, and they *know* it's display only then you should feel free to use a checkbox (IMHO) since you wouldn't be in a position of confusing the user… I wasn't sure until your last post that this was the case, hence the finger-wagging. ;-D Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software, Inc. Email: k...@sonsothunder.com Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
