Talk:Combo box

Editability

Surely a ComboBox *must* allow edit, no just *may*? 80.229.87.116 09:20, 5 July 2006

Agreed; my understanding is that a combobox is so named because it is a combination of a drop-down list and a textbox. If it doesn't allow edit, it's just a drop-down list. The mess of terminology is exacerbated by gui programming libraries (e.g. MFC) implementing drop-down lists by using the combobox class and setting the style so that the text field doesn't accept input. I propose we split this article into two articles, one for drop-down list and one for combobox.--VinceBowdren 15:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft (MFC) and Oracle (Java) use the term Combo Box to refer to both editable and non-editable drop-down lists. It is the widget builders who effectively name the widgets and define their meaning. --JHP (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Microsoft (MFC), Microsoft (Windows generally). Windows classifies drop-down lists as one of the three styles (CBS_DROPDOWNLIST) of combo box, the other two being the simple combo (CBS_SIMPLE) and drop-down combo (CBS_DROPDOWN) (both editable). Presumably there's a technical reason MS did it this way. MFC as I understand it is a thin layer over the Windows API, and thus has inherited this peculiar definition. Essentially, CComboBox is used to interface this Windows control type (COMBOBOX statement in an RC file).

But I hadn't until now heard of people using the term "combo box" to mean specifically a (non-editable) drop-down list. I wonder whether the people who do this (a) don't understand the meaning of the term (b) are actually simply referring to one as a combo box by the Windows definition, and not going into detail about the specific type thereof.

But for practical purposes, it makes most sense to use the term "combo box" to mean the editable kind (drop-down or not, which is really just a cosmetic distinction), and "drop-down list box" for a non-editable drop-down list control. — Smjg (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Keyboard usability

The incremental searching functionality in firefox is a good thing, but not original. A quick google finds it referred to as 'quicken style' - apparently it's been around for a while, and in a number of different implementations.

But more generally, do we really need all this information about keyboard shortcuts? The details are fiddle without being very significant in themselves, they differ across implementations, etc. I think it would be be better if we replaced the details with a general statement that keyboard shortcuts do exist, giving one (or maybe two) common examples. I would be even happier if there was a separate article on keyboard usability principles in gui controls. --VinceBowdren 10:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

I'm not familiar with the Mac, but that screenshot looks suspiciously like a drop-down list rather than a combobox. Anybody know more? --VinceBowdren 08:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The rendering of combobox widgets on Mac is very non-standard compared to other those of other operating systems widgets. Therefore, they really shouldn't be used as examples, especially when Mac holds such a tiny percentage of the marketplace. Replace with something from Windows or X11. 203.59.80.62 12:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Done! Matthew850 (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

A relevant information that is missing in the "Terminology" section is:

Why is "combo box" the name of that widget?

Etymological information is needed (with a proper reference). --Antonielly (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

External link: spam or not

I removed the link because user 69.204.21.166 has made no contributions other than to link to the 599cd.com site, which is always a bad sign. And looking at the page which was linked to, it claims there is a free video tutorial but it's obvious that the site's main purpose is paid-for courses, another bad sign. But what it really comes down to is that the article itself was not improved at all by adding the link; there are a few wikipedia policies about this kind of thing: Wikipedia is not a repository of links and Wikipedia is not a manual are quick summaries, and External links normally avoided gives more detail. --VinceBowdren (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a spam link. It provides a link to a very useful tutorial on creating combo boxes in Microsoft Access - the whole purpose for this article. The tutorial itself is NOT commercial in nature, IS free, and although the site itself is a for-profit site, the tutorial itself is not. Wikipedia IS improved by the addition of this link because it provides the visitor with something they would not have had otherwise - a link to a helpful video further explaining combo boxes. --Amicron —Preceding undated comment added 10:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

The video may be free, but your purpose in adding it is to generate web traffic to your for-profit website. That makes it spam. If you want to improve Wikipedia or help people, add content to the article rather than adding links to your personal website. – jaksmata 20:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You should look at WP:SPAM - particularly the sections on "External link spamming" (linkspam) and "How not to be a spammer". – jaksmata 20:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaksmata, I have reviewed that page, and I don't believe that my link is in violation. I'm not trying to blatantly sell anything to the user on that page. It's a landing page for a FREE tutorial on how to create combo boxes. I would agree with your claim that it's spam if all I was giving people was a teaser video, but that's not the case. This is a full tutorial which explains the relevant content matter in detail. How does this NOT contribute greatly to the learning experience of the reader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amicron (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, on further thought, you should disallow the link to Microsoft's site just because there happens to be advertising for other products on that page as well. Surely this is not warranted. Just because I happen to sell other tutorials on my landing page that doesn't detract from the value of the tutorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amicron (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have done nothing at Wikipedia except for promote your website. Even if you charged nothing for any of your products, you would still be a spammer, and your link would still be inappropriate. – jaksmata 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I see external links to 3rd-party sites all the time on here. Perfect example: you removed my link to my Access 101 tutorial on the "Microsoft Access" page, claiming that it was spam. It goes to a video tutorial that has NO advertising in it. There is NO advertising on that page at all. Yet, you left several other links on that page that DO go to 3rd-party sites (such as fmsinc.com) that promote other products and have advertising on them. Please explain to me how my link is any different. I am providing a VERY valuable video tutorial about the topic at hand to people WITHOUT advertising, whereas other links that are apparently acceptable DO have advertising on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amicron (talk • contribs) 19:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether there is or isn't advertising at another site is not the issue. The fact is, you are trying to use Wikipedia to promote your website. That is spam, and it is prohibited by Wikipedia. Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam.

The fmsinc links may or may not be appropriate, but doesn't excuse you from being a spammer. Frankly, I'm almost convinced that they are not appropriate. At any rate, I haven't seen any evidence that the owner of that website added the links. – jaksmata 20:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, and I agree that spam must be avoided, lest Wikipedia becomes one big billboard. However, my intentions in posting links to my tutorials is not JUST for the sake of promoting my web site. I am trying to also "give something back" to the people. This is why on the Microsoft Access article page I posted a direct link to my full video tutorial - with no advertising. Heck, if a car dealer donates a car to charity, he may be doing so to get his name out there for publicity, but he's STILL donating the car! I'm donating my video tutorial, plain and simple. So, if there are any other editors here on Wikipedia reading this discussion, I would appreciate other opinions on whether or not posting a link to my video tutorial is, indeed, spam. Again, I respectfully disagree with Jaksmata (but I appreciate the fact that we can have this debate). Here is the link I posted on the Microsoft Access page: Microsoft Access 101 Video Tutorial. This is a special URL I set up for this Wikipedia page so that it goes right to the video and doesn't display any ads. The video doesn't solicit the viewer to buy anything else. So please, let me know your opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amicron (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Start-Class? Stub?

I don't want to be a Debbie Downer or anything, but I'm very surprised that this article is not a stub. Should it be? Can anybody please tell me why it's not? Coulomb1 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)