Button changing it's text & action. Good or terrible? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InDoes changing behaviour of a link depending on which mouse button is clicked affects usability?Is 'crazy' good?changing text on user mouseoverDesktop application problem: how to present a new option without confusing existing usersDealing with overlaps in dynamically changing positionsIs it a good idea to use a Floating Action Button for non-actions?Using a registered trademark in an action buttonShould I use a button for an often used value in combination with a text field?With link and button side by side, and the link is the more important action, how can I SHOW that it's the more important and frequent action?Improving button state by only changing colours
What is the most effective way of iterating a std::vector and why?
Do these rules for Critical Successes and Critical Failures seem Fair?
Am I thawing this London Broil safely?
A poker game description that does not feel gimmicky
How come people say “Would of”?
Resizing object distorts it (Illustrator CC 2018)
Right tool to dig six foot holes?
Did Section 31 appear in Star Trek: The Next Generation?
Why can Shazam fly?
How can I autofill dates in Excel excluding Sunday?
Aging parents with no investments
What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation
One word riddle: Vowel in the middle
How to deal with fear of taking dependencies
How to manage monthly salary
Multiply Two Integer Polynomials
Did Scotland spend $250,000 for the slogan "Welcome to Scotland"?
Why didn't the Event Horizon Telescope team mention Sagittarius A*?
Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"
What tool would a Roman-age civilization have for the breaking of silver and other metals into dust?
What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?
Why was M87 targetted for the Event Horizon Telescope instead of Sagittarius A*?
Time travel alters history but people keep saying nothing's changed
Why did Acorn's A3000 have red function keys?
Button changing it's text & action. Good or terrible?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InDoes changing behaviour of a link depending on which mouse button is clicked affects usability?Is 'crazy' good?changing text on user mouseoverDesktop application problem: how to present a new option without confusing existing usersDealing with overlaps in dynamically changing positionsIs it a good idea to use a Floating Action Button for non-actions?Using a registered trademark in an action buttonShould I use a button for an often used value in combination with a text field?With link and button side by side, and the link is the more important action, how can I SHOW that it's the more important and frequent action?Improving button state by only changing colours
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
After the user Registers for an event (he goes to cart and pays, etc.) the next time he visits the page, the event for which he registered now shows a less emphasized Unregister button, which does the exact opposite of what it did until the event was purchased.
Is it a good practice to have the same button change it's function or is it bad and confusing?
Update:
If it helps anyone, I went with this layout:
usability interaction-design layout design-patterns information-design
asked 8 hours ago
Dennis NovacDennis Novac
1444
add a comment |
After the user Registers for an event (he goes to cart and pays, etc.) the next time he visits the page, the event for which he registered now shows a less emphasized Unregister button, which does the exact opposite of what it did until the event was purchased.
Is it a good practice to have the same button change it's function or is it bad and confusing?
Update:
If it helps anyone, I went with this layout:
usability interaction-design layout design-patterns information-design
asked 8 hours ago
Dennis NovacDennis Novac
1444
add a comment |
After the user Registers for an event (he goes to cart and pays, etc.) the next time he visits the page, the event for which he registered now shows a less emphasized Unregister button, which does the exact opposite of what it did until the event was purchased.
Is it a good practice to have the same button change it's function or is it bad and confusing?
Update:
If it helps anyone, I went with this layout:
usability interaction-design layout design-patterns information-design
asked 8 hours ago
Dennis NovacDennis Novac
1444
After the user Registers for an event (he goes to cart and pays, etc.) the next time he visits the page, the event for which he registered now shows a less emphasized Unregister button, which does the exact opposite of what it did until the event was purchased.
Is it a good practice to have the same button change it's function or is it bad and confusing?
Update:
If it helps anyone, I went with this layout:
usability interaction-design layout design-patterns information-design
usability interaction-design layout design-patterns information-design
asked 8 hours ago
Dennis NovacDennis Novac
1444
asked 8 hours ago
Dennis NovacDennis Novac
1444
edited 5 hours ago
Dennis Novac
asked 8 hours ago
Dennis NovacDennis Novac
1444
asked 8 hours ago
Dennis NovacDennis Novac
1444
asked 8 hours ago
Dennis NovacDennis Novac
1444
1444
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
You can change the button to reflect the only available action, but separate the display of state.
In your example, you replace the button label with the only available action: that of reverting (unregistering).
Where it starts to get a little confusing is you have a checkmark icon next to the button label.
One approach is to separate them. Emphasize the state 'You are attending' from the action.
Since the primary action when scanning the list is Register, you can make the Unregister button more subtle.
Depending on the business goals, if you need to deemphasize the act of unregistering, you can perhaps make a subtle link.
This example emphasizes the current state 'Attending' so it's clear at a glance.
This also uses distinct language to more clearly differentiate state from action.
answered 7 hours ago
Mike MMike M
11.8k12534
Even though having Unregister as small and subtle as possible would be great for business goals, it just doesn't fit the overall view and idea of the page. Probably will use this version: prntscr.com/na9sd2
– Dennis Novac
5 hours ago
@DennisNovac Thanks for the feedback... Button / action size is just a graphic suggestion. The main emphasis I wanted to impart is clarity between state and action.
– Mike M
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Do not "less emphasize" it!
These are two different buttons with two different functionalities that are EQUALLY important.
There is nothing wrong with having the "Unregister" button replacing the "Register" button, but do not "less emphasize" it.
I actually got confused when I saw the greyed out "Unregister" button with a check-mark next to it. Only after I further read your question I understood why this button looks like that.
Recommendations:
- Show something like "Already registered" label (with the check-mark maybe) for users who are already registered and coming back to revisits the page.
- Display the "Unregister" button in blue just like the "Register" button and remove the check-mark that you added next to "Unregister".
I understand that you are trying to discourage Unregistering buy less-emphasizing the button, but that made it very confusing.
UPDATE:
I just noticed Mike's answer (I think it was posted a couple minutes before mine). I echo his idea: "Depending on the business goals, if you need to deemphasize the act of unregistering, you can perhaps make a subtle link".
END OF UPDATE
answered 7 hours ago
Mo'athMo'ath
655213
2
Well I don't see anything that horrible about making a button less noticeable, in case you want users to use it less often. Am I missing something?
– Dennis Novac
5 hours ago
1
Yes, it is not wrong to make a button less noticeable, but not the way it is done in your question. It is confusing. The button looks disabled and the check-mark made it even more confusing. The reason I added the update section in my answer was to express that I like the idea of using the subtle link as a good way to less emphasize the option. However, making it confusing and hard to achieve is wrong.
– Mo'ath
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "102"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fux.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f124994%2fbutton-changing-its-text-action-good-or-terrible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You can change the button to reflect the only available action, but separate the display of state.
In your example, you replace the button label with the only available action: that of reverting (unregistering).
Where it starts to get a little confusing is you have a checkmark icon next to the button label.
One approach is to separate them. Emphasize the state 'You are attending' from the action.
Since the primary action when scanning the list is Register, you can make the Unregister button more subtle.
Depending on the business goals, if you need to deemphasize the act of unregistering, you can perhaps make a subtle link.
This example emphasizes the current state 'Attending' so it's clear at a glance.
This also uses distinct language to more clearly differentiate state from action.
answered 7 hours ago
Mike MMike M
11.8k12534
Even though having Unregister as small and subtle as possible would be great for business goals, it just doesn't fit the overall view and idea of the page. Probably will use this version: prntscr.com/na9sd2
– Dennis Novac
5 hours ago
@DennisNovac Thanks for the feedback... Button / action size is just a graphic suggestion. The main emphasis I wanted to impart is clarity between state and action.
– Mike M
5 hours ago
add a comment |
You can change the button to reflect the only available action, but separate the display of state.
In your example, you replace the button label with the only available action: that of reverting (unregistering).
Where it starts to get a little confusing is you have a checkmark icon next to the button label.
One approach is to separate them. Emphasize the state 'You are attending' from the action.
Since the primary action when scanning the list is Register, you can make the Unregister button more subtle.
Depending on the business goals, if you need to deemphasize the act of unregistering, you can perhaps make a subtle link.
This example emphasizes the current state 'Attending' so it's clear at a glance.
This also uses distinct language to more clearly differentiate state from action.
answered 7 hours ago
Mike MMike M
11.8k12534
Even though having Unregister as small and subtle as possible would be great for business goals, it just doesn't fit the overall view and idea of the page. Probably will use this version: prntscr.com/na9sd2
– Dennis Novac
5 hours ago
@DennisNovac Thanks for the feedback... Button / action size is just a graphic suggestion. The main emphasis I wanted to impart is clarity between state and action.
– Mike M
5 hours ago
add a comment |
You can change the button to reflect the only available action, but separate the display of state.
In your example, you replace the button label with the only available action: that of reverting (unregistering).
Where it starts to get a little confusing is you have a checkmark icon next to the button label.
One approach is to separate them. Emphasize the state 'You are attending' from the action.
Since the primary action when scanning the list is Register, you can make the Unregister button more subtle.
Depending on the business goals, if you need to deemphasize the act of unregistering, you can perhaps make a subtle link.
This example emphasizes the current state 'Attending' so it's clear at a glance.
This also uses distinct language to more clearly differentiate state from action.
answered 7 hours ago
Mike MMike M
11.8k12534
You can change the button to reflect the only available action, but separate the display of state.
In your example, you replace the button label with the only available action: that of reverting (unregistering).
Where it starts to get a little confusing is you have a checkmark icon next to the button label.
One approach is to separate them. Emphasize the state 'You are attending' from the action.
Since the primary action when scanning the list is Register, you can make the Unregister button more subtle.
Depending on the business goals, if you need to deemphasize the act of unregistering, you can perhaps make a subtle link.
This example emphasizes the current state 'Attending' so it's clear at a glance.
This also uses distinct language to more clearly differentiate state from action.
answered 7 hours ago
Mike MMike M
11.8k12534
edited 7 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
Mike MMike M
11.8k12534
answered 7 hours ago
Mike MMike M
11.8k12534
answered 7 hours ago
Mike MMike M
11.8k12534
11.8k12534
Even though having Unregister as small and subtle as possible would be great for business goals, it just doesn't fit the overall view and idea of the page. Probably will use this version: prntscr.com/na9sd2
– Dennis Novac
5 hours ago
@DennisNovac Thanks for the feedback... Button / action size is just a graphic suggestion. The main emphasis I wanted to impart is clarity between state and action.
– Mike M
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Even though having Unregister as small and subtle as possible would be great for business goals, it just doesn't fit the overall view and idea of the page. Probably will use this version: prntscr.com/na9sd2
– Dennis Novac
5 hours ago
@DennisNovac Thanks for the feedback... Button / action size is just a graphic suggestion. The main emphasis I wanted to impart is clarity between state and action.
– Mike M
5 hours ago
Even though having Unregister as small and subtle as possible would be great for business goals, it just doesn't fit the overall view and idea of the page. Probably will use this version: prntscr.com/na9sd2
– Dennis Novac
5 hours ago
Even though having Unregister as small and subtle as possible would be great for business goals, it just doesn't fit the overall view and idea of the page. Probably will use this version: prntscr.com/na9sd2
– Dennis Novac
5 hours ago
@DennisNovac Thanks for the feedback... Button / action size is just a graphic suggestion. The main emphasis I wanted to impart is clarity between state and action.
– Mike M
5 hours ago
@DennisNovac Thanks for the feedback... Button / action size is just a graphic suggestion. The main emphasis I wanted to impart is clarity between state and action.
– Mike M
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Do not "less emphasize" it!
These are two different buttons with two different functionalities that are EQUALLY important.
There is nothing wrong with having the "Unregister" button replacing the "Register" button, but do not "less emphasize" it.
I actually got confused when I saw the greyed out "Unregister" button with a check-mark next to it. Only after I further read your question I understood why this button looks like that.
Recommendations:
- Show something like "Already registered" label (with the check-mark maybe) for users who are already registered and coming back to revisits the page.
- Display the "Unregister" button in blue just like the "Register" button and remove the check-mark that you added next to "Unregister".
I understand that you are trying to discourage Unregistering buy less-emphasizing the button, but that made it very confusing.
UPDATE:
I just noticed Mike's answer (I think it was posted a couple minutes before mine). I echo his idea: "Depending on the business goals, if you need to deemphasize the act of unregistering, you can perhaps make a subtle link".
END OF UPDATE
answered 7 hours ago
Mo'athMo'ath
655213
2
Well I don't see anything that horrible about making a button less noticeable, in case you want users to use it less often. Am I missing something?
– Dennis Novac
5 hours ago
1
Yes, it is not wrong to make a button less noticeable, but not the way it is done in your question. It is confusing. The button looks disabled and the check-mark made it even more confusing. The reason I added the update section in my answer was to express that I like the idea of using the subtle link as a good way to less emphasize the option. However, making it confusing and hard to achieve is wrong.
– Mo'ath
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Do not "less emphasize" it!
These are two different buttons with two different functionalities that are EQUALLY important.
There is nothing wrong with having the "Unregister" button replacing the "Register" button, but do not "less emphasize" it.
I actually got confused when I saw the greyed out "Unregister" button with a check-mark next to it. Only after I further read your question I understood why this button looks like that.
Recommendations:
- Show something like "Already registered" label (with the check-mark maybe) for users who are already registered and coming back to revisits the page.
- Display the "Unregister" button in blue just like the "Register" button and remove the check-mark that you added next to "Unregister".
I understand that you are trying to discourage Unregistering buy less-emphasizing the button, but that made it very confusing.
UPDATE:
I just noticed Mike's answer (I think it was posted a couple minutes before mine). I echo his idea: "Depending on the business goals, if you need to deemphasize the act of unregistering, you can perhaps make a subtle link".
END OF UPDATE
answered 7 hours ago
Mo'athMo'ath
655213
2
Well I don't see anything that horrible about making a button less noticeable, in case you want users to use it less often. Am I missing something?
– Dennis Novac
5 hours ago
1
Yes, it is not wrong to make a button less noticeable, but not the way it is done in your question. It is confusing. The button looks disabled and the check-mark made it even more confusing. The reason I added the update section in my answer was to express that I like the idea of using the subtle link as a good way to less emphasize the option. However, making it confusing and hard to achieve is wrong.
– Mo'ath
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Do not "less emphasize" it!
These are two different buttons with two different functionalities that are EQUALLY important.
There is nothing wrong with having the "Unregister" button replacing the "Register" button, but do not "less emphasize" it.
I actually got confused when I saw the greyed out "Unregister" button with a check-mark next to it. Only after I further read your question I understood why this button looks like that.
Recommendations:
- Show something like "Already registered" label (with the check-mark maybe) for users who are already registered and coming back to revisits the page.
- Display the "Unregister" button in blue just like the "Register" button and remove the check-mark that you added next to "Unregister".
I understand that you are trying to discourage Unregistering buy less-emphasizing the button, but that made it very confusing.
UPDATE:
I just noticed Mike's answer (I think it was posted a couple minutes before mine). I echo his idea: "Depending on the business goals, if you need to deemphasize the act of unregistering, you can perhaps make a subtle link".
END OF UPDATE
answered 7 hours ago
Mo'athMo'ath
655213
Do not "less emphasize" it!
These are two different buttons with two different functionalities that are EQUALLY important.
There is nothing wrong with having the "Unregister" button replacing the "Register" button, but do not "less emphasize" it.
I actually got confused when I saw the greyed out "Unregister" button with a check-mark next to it. Only after I further read your question I understood why this button looks like that.
Recommendations:
- Show something like "Already registered" label (with the check-mark maybe) for users who are already registered and coming back to revisits the page.
- Display the "Unregister" button in blue just like the "Register" button and remove the check-mark that you added next to "Unregister".
I understand that you are trying to discourage Unregistering buy less-emphasizing the button, but that made it very confusing.
UPDATE:
I just noticed Mike's answer (I think it was posted a couple minutes before mine). I echo his idea: "Depending on the business goals, if you need to deemphasize the act of unregistering, you can perhaps make a subtle link".
END OF UPDATE
answered 7 hours ago
Mo'athMo'ath
655213
edited 7 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
Mo'athMo'ath
655213
answered 7 hours ago
Mo'athMo'ath
655213
answered 7 hours ago
Mo'athMo'ath
655213
655213
2
Well I don't see anything that horrible about making a button less noticeable, in case you want users to use it less often. Am I missing something?
– Dennis Novac
5 hours ago
1
Yes, it is not wrong to make a button less noticeable, but not the way it is done in your question. It is confusing. The button looks disabled and the check-mark made it even more confusing. The reason I added the update section in my answer was to express that I like the idea of using the subtle link as a good way to less emphasize the option. However, making it confusing and hard to achieve is wrong.
– Mo'ath
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Well I don't see anything that horrible about making a button less noticeable, in case you want users to use it less often. Am I missing something?
– Dennis Novac
5 hours ago
1
Yes, it is not wrong to make a button less noticeable, but not the way it is done in your question. It is confusing. The button looks disabled and the check-mark made it even more confusing. The reason I added the update section in my answer was to express that I like the idea of using the subtle link as a good way to less emphasize the option. However, making it confusing and hard to achieve is wrong.
– Mo'ath
4 hours ago
2
2
Well I don't see anything that horrible about making a button less noticeable, in case you want users to use it less often. Am I missing something?
– Dennis Novac
5 hours ago
Well I don't see anything that horrible about making a button less noticeable, in case you want users to use it less often. Am I missing something?
– Dennis Novac
5 hours ago
1
1
Yes, it is not wrong to make a button less noticeable, but not the way it is done in your question. It is confusing. The button looks disabled and the check-mark made it even more confusing. The reason I added the update section in my answer was to express that I like the idea of using the subtle link as a good way to less emphasize the option. However, making it confusing and hard to achieve is wrong.
– Mo'ath
4 hours ago
Yes, it is not wrong to make a button less noticeable, but not the way it is done in your question. It is confusing. The button looks disabled and the check-mark made it even more confusing. The reason I added the update section in my answer was to express that I like the idea of using the subtle link as a good way to less emphasize the option. However, making it confusing and hard to achieve is wrong.
– Mo'ath
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to User Experience Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fux.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f124994%2fbutton-changing-its-text-action-good-or-terrible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
