By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
434,998 Members | 2,837 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 434,998 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Is there a way to link a checkbox to a radio button?

P: n/a
I have four checkboxes. I want only one of them to be checked at a
time. Any ideas?

Aug 4 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
11 Replies


P: n/a
On 4 Aug 2006 15:10:48 -0700, tr************@gmail.com wrote:
I have four checkboxes. I want only one of them to be checked at a
time. Any ideas?
You can create one Option Group and use Check Boxes instead of Radio
buttons as options.
The table field that the Option Group is bound to will have a value of
1,2,3,4, etc., instead of you having 4 different fields with a value
of -1 or 0 each.
--
Fred
Please respond only to this newsgroup.
I do not reply to personal e-mail
Aug 4 '06 #2

P: n/a
Which might well work.

But why not stick to the standards? Experienced users will just get
confused.

Emily

"fredg" <fg******@example.invalidwrote in message
news:tx*****************************@40tude.net...
On 4 Aug 2006 15:10:48 -0700, tr************@gmail.com wrote:
>I have four checkboxes. I want only one of them to be checked at a
time. Any ideas?

You can create one Option Group and use Check Boxes instead of Radio
buttons as options.
The table field that the Option Group is bound to will have a value of
1,2,3,4, etc., instead of you having 4 different fields with a value
of -1 or 0 each.
--
Fred
Please respond only to this newsgroup.
I do not reply to personal e-mail

Aug 5 '06 #3

P: n/a
four separate checkboxes on a form will look the same as a single option
group with four checkboxes instead of radio buttons - all you have to do is
set the option group control's BorderStyle property to Transparent, and
delete the control's label, and it looks exactly the same as four unrelated
checkboxes, in form view. the difference, and the advantage, is that the
checkboxes are automatically "mutually exclusive", without the need for any
programming to enforce the rule.

as for the underlying values of 1, 2, 3, 4 which are saved to the table -
the user should never see those anyway, so it shouldn't cause them any
confusion.

also, when a table has four *mutually exclusive* fields, that table is
almost certainly not normalized - the developer is putting data into
fieldnames, when s/he should use one field to hold the single value selected
from four possible choices presented to the user. the solution that fredg
suggested is fully supported by a normalized table design.

hth
"Emily Jones" <em****@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:44*********************@news.aaisp.net.uk...
Which might well work.

But why not stick to the standards? Experienced users will just get
confused.

Emily

"fredg" <fg******@example.invalidwrote in message
news:tx*****************************@40tude.net...
On 4 Aug 2006 15:10:48 -0700, tr************@gmail.com wrote:
I have four checkboxes. I want only one of them to be checked at a
time. Any ideas?
You can create one Option Group and use Check Boxes instead of Radio
buttons as options.
The table field that the Option Group is bound to will have a value of
1,2,3,4, etc., instead of you having 4 different fields with a value
of -1 or 0 each.
--
Fred
Please respond only to this newsgroup.
I do not reply to personal e-mail


Aug 5 '06 #4

P: n/a
Users 'expect', consciously or not, that radio buttons will be exclusive,
and check boxes won't.

Depart from that standard if you like. But don't complain when users say
'there's just something about it I don't like'.

I agree about the table design. Looks like it should be a field with 4
possible values. And don't we all know that one day that will become 5
possible values. Though it wasn't actually the OP that suggested that.

Emily.

"tina" <no****@address.comwrote in message
news:nJ*********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
four separate checkboxes on a form will look the same as a single option
group with four checkboxes instead of radio buttons - all you have to do
is
set the option group control's BorderStyle property to Transparent, and
delete the control's label, and it looks exactly the same as four
unrelated
checkboxes, in form view. the difference, and the advantage, is that the
checkboxes are automatically "mutually exclusive", without the need for
any
programming to enforce the rule.

as for the underlying values of 1, 2, 3, 4 which are saved to the table -
the user should never see those anyway, so it shouldn't cause them any
confusion.

also, when a table has four *mutually exclusive* fields, that table is
almost certainly not normalized - the developer is putting data into
fieldnames, when s/he should use one field to hold the single value
selected
from four possible choices presented to the user. the solution that fredg
suggested is fully supported by a normalized table design.

hth
"Emily Jones" <em****@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:44*********************@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>Which might well work.

But why not stick to the standards? Experienced users will just get
confused.

Emily

"fredg" <fg******@example.invalidwrote in message
news:tx*****************************@40tude.net.. .
On 4 Aug 2006 15:10:48 -0700, tr************@gmail.com wrote:

I have four checkboxes. I want only one of them to be checked at a
time. Any ideas?

You can create one Option Group and use Check Boxes instead of Radio
buttons as options.
The table field that the Option Group is bound to will have a value of
1,2,3,4, etc., instead of you having 4 different fields with a value
of -1 or 0 each.
--
Fred
Please respond only to this newsgroup.
I do not reply to personal e-mail



Aug 5 '06 #5

P: n/a
Emily Jones wrote:
Users 'expect', consciously or not, that radio buttons will be exclusive,
and check boxes won't.

Depart from that standard if you like. But don't complain when users say
'there's just something about it I don't like'.
What standard? Where can I find this?
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me
Aug 6 '06 #6

P: n/a
Tim Marshall wrote:
Emily Jones wrote:
Users 'expect', consciously or not, that radio buttons will be
exclusive, and check boxes won't.

Depart from that standard if you like. But don't complain when
users say 'there's just something about it I don't like'.

What standard? Where can I find this?
That is the standard as I understand all GUIs have ever used. Radio Buttons are
exclusive, CheckBoxes are not.

This is from the Microsoft Fundamentals of Designing User Interaction
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...html/part1.asp

Option Buttons
An option button, also referred to as a radio button, represents a single choice
within a limited set of mutually exclusive choices.

Check Boxes
A check box represents an independent or non-exclusive choice.
--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com


Aug 6 '06 #7

P: n/a
Rick Brandt wrote:
That is the standard as I understand all GUIs have ever used. Radio Buttons are
exclusive, CheckBoxes are not.

This is from the Microsoft Fundamentals of Designing User Interaction
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...html/part1.asp

Option Buttons
An option button, also referred to as a radio button, represents a single choice
within a limited set of mutually exclusive choices.

Check Boxes
A check box represents an independent or non-exclusive choice.
Thank you Rick,

But I am certain I've seen loads of paper and on line surveys in which
the requested response is "check one".
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me
Aug 6 '06 #8

P: n/a
Tim Marshall wrote:
>
Thank you Rick,

But I am certain I've seen loads of paper and on line surveys in which
the requested response is "check one".
The world is full of apps that "do it wrong". That doesn't make it correct.

http://homepage.mac.com/bradster/iarchitect/shame.htm
--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com


Aug 6 '06 #9

P: n/a
http://homepage.mac.com/bradster/iar...t/controls.htm

to be precise
"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:v7*****************@newssvr13.news.prodigy.co m...
Tim Marshall wrote:
>>
Thank you Rick,

But I am certain I've seen loads of paper and on line surveys in which
the requested response is "check one".

The world is full of apps that "do it wrong". That doesn't make it
correct.

http://homepage.mac.com/bradster/iarchitect/shame.htm
--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com


Aug 6 '06 #10

P: n/a
Rick Brandt wrote:
Tim Marshall wrote:

Thank you Rick,

But I am certain I've seen loads of paper and on line surveys in which
the requested response is "check one".

The world is full of apps that "do it wrong". That doesn't make it correct.
I think there is a difference between "general use" and "correct".
While radio buttons may be in general use where one only choice should
be made, they are not so correct as to rule out other means, including
check boxes of indicating one's sole choice.

I have never thought of the exclusivity of radio boxes as owning the
single choice option. I considered them to be conveniences for complex
situations or, of course, for those who cannot program adequately.

Would users be confused with:

Select Exterior Colour:

1. Unspecified -Check Box (Default: Checked)

2. Red -Check Box

3. White -Check Box

4. Blue -Check Box

coded so that the selection of any resulted in the de-selection of the
others?

****

Sometimes I use small continuous forms based on very small tables as
the basis for exclusive choices, updating the choice field of each
record to unchecked when one is checked, (and sometimes the default to
checked if all others are unchecked) . I suppose one could do this with
radio buttons, but on a continuous form I suspect the check box is more
intuitive.

Aug 6 '06 #11

P: n/a
Emily Jones wrote:
http://homepage.mac.com/bradster/iar...t/controls.htm
"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:v7*****************@newssvr13.news.prodigy.co m...
>>http://homepage.mac.com/bradster/iarchitect/shame.htm
Emily and Rick,

Thanks for your input on this.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me
Aug 6 '06 #12

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.