[Qgis-developer] Changing ergonomy of the visibility of layers inside groups ?

[Matthias Kuhn]

On 11/16/2016 02:44 PM, Even Rouault wrote:
>> Another scenario would be:
>>
>> When clicking, the group toggle between unchecked, partially checked,
>> checked. At the same time it caches the state for all subitems to
>> restore the partially checked state when switching to this.
>>
>> At any time, when a subitems check state is changed, all parents
>> invalidate their cached states and override it with the new partial
>> check state. If the last remaining unchecked item is checked (and vice
>> versa) clicking the group skips the partially checked state...
>>
>> Maybe that would be more natural?
> 
> So imagine you have an initial state with a group G checked and its layers A 
> and B checked
> You click on G ==> it becomes unchecked, and A and B as well
> You click on G ==> it becomes checked, and A and B as well
> You click on A to unselect it ==> G becomes partially checked. And you save 
> current state of A and B as StatePartial
> You click on G ==> it becomes checked, and A and B as well
> You click on G ==> it becomes unchecked, and A and B as well
> You click on G ==> it becomes partially checked, and you restore StatePartial 
> (ie A is unchecked and B is checked)
> You check on A ==> it becomes checked and G as well (and clicking on G would 
> switch between all on - all off)
> You uncheck A --> G becomes partially checked
> You uncheck B --> G becomes unchecked  (and clicking on G would switch between 
> all on - all off)
> 
> Is that what you meant ? That makes sense to me.
> Besides a slightly more complicated implementation, one downside would be that 
> cycling between (partially)on state and off state of a group (with different 
> check state of its items) would require 1.5 clicks on average (1 click to go 
> from unchecked to partially checked, 2 from partially checked to unchecked) 
> instead of 1. I should check with the users if they can afford the extra half 
> click :-)

Yes, that extra (half-)click is exactly the one I'm worried about when
thinking of your use-case. Was just thinking loud :P

> 
> Thanks for your suggestions.
>