v16.1 - Project Integrity Check Dialog message Incorrect!

[Paolo F Cantoni]

The new v16.1 Project Integrity Check Dialog with the new Button is much more usable than the v16.0 one!   
However, if NO checks are selected, the message presented on pressing [Go] should NOT be "No Problems found"; it should be "NO Checks were selected".  It is spurious and potentially problematic (perhaps severely) to suggest there are NO problems when NO checks have been made! 

Reported,
Paolo

[qwerty]

It's like getting your kids out of bed after jelling a whole lot of time and the you see them with t-shirt put on the wrong side. They are awake at least. But you know there's more trouble coming on.

q.

[Geert Bellekens]

I think the "Go" button should be disabled until at least one check has been selected

Geert

[Paolo F Cantoni]

I think the "Go" button should be disabled until at least one check has been selected.

Geert

"Sargeant!  Shoot that man; he's making sense!"

The right way to create a UI!

Paolo

[Sunshine]

Good suggestions guys. But wouldn't it be better to have all the checks ticked by default to save the user from having to select them each time. This way it reduces risk of repetitive strain injury. Like it was before. I mean how often do users want to do zero or one test? I always perform all the tests as I want to test the integrity fully.

[qwerty]

I have not looked in any of V16 (only when V17 will be released). However, what Sunshine said is the pure truth. Who wants to disable a check? And for which reason? I want to run an integrity check. Doing that partial will leave inconsistencies. That list just sounds like one of the many genius ideas the IT department came up with while smoking bug reports. (Just kidding, you know?)

q.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Good suggestions, guys. But wouldn't it be better to have all the checks ticked by default to save the user from having to select them each time? This way, it reduces the risk of repetitive strain injury. Like it was before. I mean, how often do users want to do zero or one test? I always perform all the tests to fully test the integrity.

If you look below, Sunshine (I sound like a cockney villain! ), you'll see Sparx have already dismissed that idea.

Given that, the current button is the best we're likely to get.  Although the ability to have a default " sticky " setting would be preferable (and better for users).

That having been said, it is becoming increasingly clear that the PIC is not a true integrity check (Eve has confirmed this), and so we're heading towards creating our own set of queries to confirm internal consistency (and remove anomalies).

We could even create the set here!

Paolo

[Sunshine]

Good suggestions, guys. But wouldn't it be better to have all the checks ticked by default to save the user from having to select them each time? This way, it reduces the risk of repetitive strain injury. Like it was before. I mean, how often do users want to do zero or one test? I always perform all the tests to fully test the integrity.

If you look below, Sunshine (I sound like a cockney villain! ), you'll see Sparx have already dismissed that idea.

Given that, the current button is the best we're likely to get.  Although the ability to have a default " sticky " setting would be preferable (and better for users).

That having been said, it is becoming increasingly clear that the PIC is not a true integrity check (Eve has confirmed this), and so we're heading towards creating our own set of queries to confirm internal consistency (and remove anomalies).

We could even create the set here!

Paolo

What not a true integrity check? Awe that's just getting better and better - NOT!.