Green checkBOXes

Right now we have the green/purple/gray checkmarks by books in various cases. And just recently Tim turned on the Contained in/by feature for everyone.

What I'd like to ask for is for when you "have" a work because it is "Contained in" another work you actually do have in your library, you get a colored check by it like you would if the individual work was in your catalog. But I would make it a checkmark with a square colored background instead of the normal round one. This would avoid tricking you into thinking you actually have the specific work in your catalog.

There's also the other direction of putting checks next to omnibus works because you actually have all the individual components. That's a good suggestion but I fear the programming may get a bit harder on it than might be feasible.

ETA: Changing my suggestion from boxes to discs with no check. See second mockup in #4.

I would love this - count my vote in!

Yes, on the first suggestion, but no on the opposite. If I already have separate components, I don't need to know they were included in an omnibus I chose not to purchase. I probably already knew about the omnibus but opted for separate components to spread the purchase out over years or because I purchased the components before the omnibus was printed, I wouldn't have need to purchase the omnibus...

Here's a mockup:



Perhaps too subtle on the squaring...

ETA:



I'm liking this much better. Now I wish I hadn't put "box" in the subject line. :D

4: Yes, I think the squares are a little too subtle in that shot, I had to look at it twice to notice the difference.

4: What about keeping them as circles but inversing the colours? - i.e. a green tick in a circle with a green outline but no fill?

Added another image above, this time with just the circles and no actual check. I think the inversion may suffer a bit from having less of the icon being colored. Considering there are several colors, I think you want a large color area (especially for colorblind folks). I also wouldn't want to get TOO far from the original checkmark, as I'd suggest this just be a slight variant.

7: The no check version is much easier on the eyes. Your mock ups are always so useful!

edit because I was talking to myself.

This is better; also, I have a vague memory (which may be out of date) that inverted check marks are being used for something else on the site. I can't remember what, though.

Yes to 'I have this omnibus/boxset 12345 therefore I have the individual works 1, 2, 3, 4, 5'.

It's an improvement on the way Series works have been managed before.

E.g. http://www.librarything.com/series/Southern+Vampire+Mysteries

I cannot see your first examples well enough for it to make a difference - the square and circle look alike. I like the lack of check mark better although the inversion in color would work too.

Also like the second option with circle-no-checkmark. And yes, brightcopy, your mockups are very helpful, thanks for making the effort.

Not quite inverted...something new, a feature in the past couple weeks (but there's been so _many_!) is putting naked green checks (no circle)(and presumably other colors, but I haven't seen them) by books. But I can't remember what the feature is, and therefore can't figure out where to go to see a naked green check.

By 'naked' I mean, it's an actual green checkmark, as opposed to a white checkmark in a green circle. No circle at all.

Books you've requested on ER or Member Giveaway, I think.

That's it - on the Books You've Requested page, the ones you actually won have a green checkmark. Thanks, elenchus!

Aha, that is what I meant - thanks, elenchus! I knew I saw it somewhere.

That sounds useful, but unlike 1dragones I actually have bought omnibuses without realising I already have some of the books contained within or vice versa. Omnibuses don't always list the contents clearly and single editions don't always mention the series, honestly I've bought a lot books home without knowing they are part of a series - only finding out when I add them to librarything.

I like. Would be very useful, both ways around. Especially if the omnibus doesn't go by the name of one of the stories, this will indicate that you can partake in the conversation.

I'd personally prefer smaller circles for the ones that we have via containment. I don't want them to stand out more than our actual books.

I think the main limitation is that you don't want to get so small that it's difficult to tell the colors, especially on a smaller screen. The lack of checkmark says "I don't actually have it" to me.

and the shape should be different, so you don't have to wonder 'is it small or big?' when there's only one kind of checkmark on the page.

21> Well, presumably the small ones wouldn't have checkmarks in the icons. I don't think you could usefully shrink them down much more and have color AND the white checkmark. But I still think the screen size is a bit of a killer for anything smaller than the current one.

>20 brightcopy: Sure, but you could get a fair bit smaller without any risk.

>21 paulhurtley: Sorry, I was unclear; I meant smaller circles still without the checkmark.

>22 brightcopy: Are you assuming that people on small screens are zooming only the text?

22> Sure, in some cases. I'm assuming people will do all sorts of things. I'm also talking about (for example) the iPhone4 screen. Higher pixel density and small screen means 13x13 pixel icons (that's the size of the "big" checkmark ones) are probably already pretty tiny.

I don't think the main site should be designed for the iPhone, anyway. That's what the mobile site is for.

I don't, either. However, I do think when you have differing options, all things being equal, it's best to go with the one that works in the most environments.

As for the mobile site argument - surely you jest. ;)

In the kindest spirit possible, what mobile site? The http://www.LibraryThing.com/m site is, I suppose, the one to which you refer. However, it is not scalable on the iPhone Safari browser using the pinch method. I think this is due to the CSS choices made but have not done a lot of experimenting to find out.

The /m site is also a bit limited as discussed in other threads.

James

Sure, the /m site hasn't been updated in a long time. But I'd rather see the effort put into bringing it up to date than to have Tim designing the main site around the iPhone screen.

Pfft, it's being completely blown out of proportion. Do you really think avoiding icons markedly smaller than 13x13 pixels is "designing the main site around the iPhone screen"? People are getting a bit silly.

>30 brightcopy: Meh. All I care about is that the books we have via containment not stand out more in the list than the books we actually have. If shrinking the circles isn't an option, then propose something else.

Triangles!

>32 justjim: That's what I was thinking too!

Mockup with triangles would be interesting...

>4 brightcopy:
Your unchecked boxes for inferred works looks good.

I revive this tread hoping to see this implemented for descended works.

Did this thread (or another like it) lead to any site development or reasons why not? I'm late to the party (nothing new there!), but I finally got around this morning to REALLY REALLY wishing this for myself. I should have expected I was following where brightcopy, _Zoe_, jjwilson 61, et al., had been before.

Nope, nothing.

Hmmm. Bump?

Err.. You already did.