Checkbox Vs Radio buttons

[GC GYM]

Is there a way to make a radio button set behave like a checkbox (accept more than one item from the value list) by default, rather than the user having to remember to hold the shift key down?

Context:

If the user forgets to hold the shift key, or misses it, all existing options are replaced by the selection - oops - info lost!

Just use a checkbox set then I hear you say.....but..

I want the visual style of the radio buttons because some users get confused by the meaning of the cross in the checkbox (Am I saying yes to this option, if so why am I using a cross?)

The only solution I can think of is to set up container fields with graphics looking like ticks and scripts on each as a button etc, but then I lose the convenience of the value list...anyway I'm much too lazy to do that.

[Genx]

Well no not really, a radio button set is meant to be a radio button set... If you misuse it, don;t expect the work around to be easy -- i.e. you have to push the shift key.

[Lee Smith]

You can do this, but it amounts to using a seaprate field for each button, and one list item for each button.

HTH

Lee

[Genx]

And then they still have to hold shift to deselect :B

[Søren Dyhr]

The only solution I can think of is to set up container fields with graphics looking like ticks and scripts on each as a button etc, but then I lose the convenience of the value list...anyway I'm much too lazy to do that.

You can instead use say ZapfDingbats, in boolean formatet numberfields switching values scripted...

--sd

checkswhatever.zip

[Genx]

You may find that if you do go with soren's technique of fields with boolean values, you may save yourself some headaches in the future... Single fields are easier to deal with than checkbox sets that store lists especially in finds.

[Genx]

Using repeating fields? That's even more interesting.

[GC GYM]

Thanks everyone, that all helps. :B