qt按钮禁用和激活禁用

Most user experience designers will be familiar with Jackob Nielsen’s 10 usability heuristics. They are widely cited and a great set of broad rules of thumb to follow when designing user interfaces.

大多数用户体验设计师将熟悉Jackob Nielsen的10种可用性启发式方法。在设计用户界面时，它们被广泛引用，并遵循大量广泛的经验法则。

Heuristic number five is error prevention:

启发式数字五是错误预防：

‘Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place.’
“比好的错误消息更好的是精心设计，它可以从根本上防止问题的发生。”

Sounds sensible right? Well not always, sometimes it is better to let users make errors and give appropriate feedback. Let’s bring the disabled button on forms to the floor.

听起来很合理吧？并非总是如此，有时最好让用户犯错误并提供适当的反馈。让我们将表单上的禁用按钮放到地板上。

We will start by setting the scene: you are designing a form that has several required fields. You indicate this clearly on the form so hopefully most users will notice. You are striving to create a better user experience. Thinking about error prevention you decide to disable the ‘submit’ button until the user has completed the form preventing them from making an error by submitting an incomplete form. All good? Well no.

我们将从设置场景开始：您正在设计一个具有几个必填字段的表单。您在表格上清楚地指出了这一点，希望大多数用户会注意到。您正在努力创造更好的用户体验。考虑到错误预防，您决定禁用“提交”按钮，直到用户填写完该表单以防止他们通过提交不完整的表单而出错为止。都好？好吧

禁用按钮是一种反模式 (Disabling buttons is an anti-pattern)

When we disable a button on a form we are often disabling the call-to-action. Yes, that thing on the page we trying to encourage users to click to proceed with their journey.

当我们禁用表单上的按钮时，我们通常会禁用号召性用语。是的，我们试图鼓励用户单击页面上的该内容以继续他们的旅程。

Worse still when a user clicks on the call-to-action hoping to continue through the process nothing happens. They don’t proceed as expected and there is no feedback or error message. They are stuck and it’s frustrating. It might even make them feel stupid or confused.

更糟糕的是，当用户单击号召性用语以希望继续执行该过程时，什么也没有发生。它们没有按预期进行，没有反馈或错误消息。他们被卡住了，这令人沮丧。这甚至可能使他们感到愚蠢或困惑。

Disabled buttons also look strange and are often hard to read. Most fail to meet color contrast guidelines. Inexperienced users will not necessarily recognise the button as disabled and think ‘why does this look different?’

禁用的按钮看起来也很奇怪，通常很难阅读。大多数不符合颜色对比准则。没有经验的用户不一定会将该按钮识别为已禁用，并会想“为什么这看起来有所不同？”

It is not just frustrating, disabled buttons can exclude people with disabilities or those using mobiles. If a user can only see part of the form they may arrive at the end thinking they have filled in all the required fields only to find they are unable to submit the form because of a disabled button. There is no feedback telling them what is wrong.

不仅令人沮丧，禁用的按钮还可以排除残疾人或使用手机的人。如果用户只能看到表单的一部分，他们可能会以为他们已经填写了所有必填字段而到达最后，只是发现他们由于禁用了按钮而无法提交表单。没有反馈告诉他们出了什么问题。

是否有禁用按钮的情况？ (Is there ever a case for disabling buttons?)

Disabled buttons may have a place in complex web applications. They can be useful to indicate to a user ‘you can’t do this’. But they don’t tell the user why. If it is implicit from the experience why the button is disabled then perhaps they are useful. A more thought-through UI can often remove the need to use disabled buttons.

禁用的按钮可能在复杂的Web应用程序中占有一席之地。它们可能有助于向用户指示“您不能这样做”。但是他们没有告诉用户原因。如果从经验中隐含了为什么禁用按钮，那么也许它们很有用。经过深思熟虑的UI通常可以消除使用禁用按钮的需要。

However, they shouldn’t be used to prevent users from making errors in forms. They often don’t prevent errors. To help users you should provide well written and appropriate feedback. But, you should ask: what value am I adding by having a disabled button vs not showing anything? The same goes for any disabled interaction element.

但是，不应使用它们来防止用户在表单中出错。他们通常不会防止错误。为了帮助用户，您应该提供书面和适当的反馈。但是，您应该问：通过禁用按钮而不显示任何内容，我可以增加什么价值？任何禁用的交互元素也是如此。

In short, disabled buttons have no place as the call to action on forms. Provide helpful error messages instead. It is also important not to blindly follow rules or patterns laid down by others. Jakob Neilson’s key point is that careful design prevents users from making errors. Using disabled buttons is not careful or useful most of the time.

简而言之，禁用的按钮在表单上没有作为号召性用语的位置。而是提供有用的错误消息。同样重要的是，不要盲目遵循别人制定的规则或模式。 Jakob Neilson的重点是精心设计可以防止用户犯错误。在大多数情况下，使用禁用的按钮并不小心或无用。