Should I have a disabled button or no button at all, if the user doesn't have sufficient privileges for the action?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;

up vote
43
down vote

favorite

6

Would like to get an advice on whether a disabled button is better than no button for a certain UI.

Basically, the regular (experienced) users can either comment on an issue or close it, the users with restricted access (such as inexperienced developers) can only comment on the issue.

In this case, there's no way to edit the access restriction directly inside the app, as it fetches information from a separate service. And it is very unlikely that the restricted user will be granted access to the action by simply inquiring it.

Is it worth it to display a disabled button even though the user cannot press it or do anything to enable it, or is it kinder to him/her to just not show the "Close" button at all?

PS There's also a chance that they're using the app with a different team where they do have an access to the "Close" action, in that case I'm afraid hiding the button altogether when they don't have rights might confuse them when they navigate from one team to another.

Any advices or thoughts will be appreciated, thank you!

gui-design buttons actions disable

share|improve this question

edited 18 hours ago

muru

1032

asked 2 days ago

Ana Kash

31825

New contributor

Ana Kash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  8
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  How do experienced users learn that the close button exists, and how do they get access to it? I think those would be the deciding factors.
  – DoctorDestructo
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  If the functionality is only available to two website developers (Shhh!) then there is no benefit in letting others know about it. If there is a reasonable population of users who can use it, and it doesn't overly clutter the UI, then I'd go with Pectoralis Major: show it disabled with an appropriate tooltip. Regarding clutter: when you wind up with 30 buttons and no more than six are enabled for any given user then a different design is in order.
  – HABO
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "is it kinder" Is the goal to be kind or is the goal to be clear and intuitive?
  – Mast
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  8
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Something slightly different: When I look at your screenshot, "close" is the primary button, even when you want to disable it in some situations (and seems to encourage commenting instead). So currently your UX is communicating the wrong primary action and disabling a primary button will make the users believe they did not fill in all required forms or something similar, because a primary is the action you do after filling in the form (or similar actions). So you probably should first swap the close and comment buttons. This may make the rest of your question easier to decide as well.
  – allo
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Thank you all for the suggestions. The close is the primary button, it is the main action for users to take. The mode where you don't have privilleges to use it is mostly for just browsing the issues. It is definetely not a secret functionality though, right now in other parts of application we do use the disabled button with the tooltip but I was wondering if there's a better way of doing it. Guess not at this point! Again thank you all.
  – Ana Kash
  22 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 8 more comments

up vote
43
down vote

favorite

6

Would like to get an advice on whether a disabled button is better than no button for a certain UI.

Basically, the regular (experienced) users can either comment on an issue or close it, the users with restricted access (such as inexperienced developers) can only comment on the issue.

In this case, there's no way to edit the access restriction directly inside the app, as it fetches information from a separate service. And it is very unlikely that the restricted user will be granted access to the action by simply inquiring it.

Is it worth it to display a disabled button even though the user cannot press it or do anything to enable it, or is it kinder to him/her to just not show the "Close" button at all?

PS There's also a chance that they're using the app with a different team where they do have an access to the "Close" action, in that case I'm afraid hiding the button altogether when they don't have rights might confuse them when they navigate from one team to another.

Any advices or thoughts will be appreciated, thank you!

gui-design buttons actions disable

share|improve this question

edited 18 hours ago

muru

1032

asked 2 days ago

Ana Kash

31825

New contributor

Ana Kash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  8
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  How do experienced users learn that the close button exists, and how do they get access to it? I think those would be the deciding factors.
  – DoctorDestructo
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  If the functionality is only available to two website developers (Shhh!) then there is no benefit in letting others know about it. If there is a reasonable population of users who can use it, and it doesn't overly clutter the UI, then I'd go with Pectoralis Major: show it disabled with an appropriate tooltip. Regarding clutter: when you wind up with 30 buttons and no more than six are enabled for any given user then a different design is in order.
  – HABO
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "is it kinder" Is the goal to be kind or is the goal to be clear and intuitive?
  – Mast
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  8
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Something slightly different: When I look at your screenshot, "close" is the primary button, even when you want to disable it in some situations (and seems to encourage commenting instead). So currently your UX is communicating the wrong primary action and disabling a primary button will make the users believe they did not fill in all required forms or something similar, because a primary is the action you do after filling in the form (or similar actions). So you probably should first swap the close and comment buttons. This may make the rest of your question easier to decide as well.
  – allo
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Thank you all for the suggestions. The close is the primary button, it is the main action for users to take. The mode where you don't have privilleges to use it is mostly for just browsing the issues. It is definetely not a secret functionality though, right now in other parts of application we do use the disabled button with the tooltip but I was wondering if there's a better way of doing it. Guess not at this point! Again thank you all.
  – Ana Kash
  22 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 8 more comments

up vote
43
down vote

favorite

6

up vote
43
down vote

favorite

6

6

Would like to get an advice on whether a disabled button is better than no button for a certain UI.

Basically, the regular (experienced) users can either comment on an issue or close it, the users with restricted access (such as inexperienced developers) can only comment on the issue.

In this case, there's no way to edit the access restriction directly inside the app, as it fetches information from a separate service. And it is very unlikely that the restricted user will be granted access to the action by simply inquiring it.

Is it worth it to display a disabled button even though the user cannot press it or do anything to enable it, or is it kinder to him/her to just not show the "Close" button at all?

PS There's also a chance that they're using the app with a different team where they do have an access to the "Close" action, in that case I'm afraid hiding the button altogether when they don't have rights might confuse them when they navigate from one team to another.

Any advices or thoughts will be appreciated, thank you!

gui-design buttons actions disable

share|improve this question

edited 18 hours ago

muru

1032

asked 2 days ago

Ana Kash

31825

New contributor

Ana Kash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

Would like to get an advice on whether a disabled button is better than no button for a certain UI.

Basically, the regular (experienced) users can either comment on an issue or close it, the users with restricted access (such as inexperienced developers) can only comment on the issue.

In this case, there's no way to edit the access restriction directly inside the app, as it fetches information from a separate service. And it is very unlikely that the restricted user will be granted access to the action by simply inquiring it.

Is it worth it to display a disabled button even though the user cannot press it or do anything to enable it, or is it kinder to him/her to just not show the "Close" button at all?

PS There's also a chance that they're using the app with a different team where they do have an access to the "Close" action, in that case I'm afraid hiding the button altogether when they don't have rights might confuse them when they navigate from one team to another.

Any advices or thoughts will be appreciated, thank you!

gui-design buttons actions disable

gui-design buttons actions disable

share|improve this question

edited 18 hours ago

muru

1032

asked 2 days ago

Ana Kash

31825

New contributor

Ana Kash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

edited 18 hours ago

muru

1032

asked 2 days ago

Ana Kash

31825

New contributor

Ana Kash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

share|improve this question

edited 18 hours ago

muru

1032

edited 18 hours ago

muru

1032

edited 18 hours ago

muru

1032

1032

asked 2 days ago

Ana Kash

31825

New contributor

Ana Kash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked 2 days ago

Ana Kash

31825

asked 2 days ago

Ana Kash

31825

31825

New contributor

Ana Kash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

New contributor

Ana Kash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

Ana Kash is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  8
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  How do experienced users learn that the close button exists, and how do they get access to it? I think those would be the deciding factors.
  – DoctorDestructo
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  If the functionality is only available to two website developers (Shhh!) then there is no benefit in letting others know about it. If there is a reasonable population of users who can use it, and it doesn't overly clutter the UI, then I'd go with Pectoralis Major: show it disabled with an appropriate tooltip. Regarding clutter: when you wind up with 30 buttons and no more than six are enabled for any given user then a different design is in order.
  – HABO
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "is it kinder" Is the goal to be kind or is the goal to be clear and intuitive?
  – Mast
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  8
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Something slightly different: When I look at your screenshot, "close" is the primary button, even when you want to disable it in some situations (and seems to encourage commenting instead). So currently your UX is communicating the wrong primary action and disabling a primary button will make the users believe they did not fill in all required forms or something similar, because a primary is the action you do after filling in the form (or similar actions). So you probably should first swap the close and comment buttons. This may make the rest of your question easier to decide as well.
  – allo
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Thank you all for the suggestions. The close is the primary button, it is the main action for users to take. The mode where you don't have privilleges to use it is mostly for just browsing the issues. It is definetely not a secret functionality though, right now in other parts of application we do use the disabled button with the tooltip but I was wondering if there's a better way of doing it. Guess not at this point! Again thank you all.
  – Ana Kash
  22 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 8 more comments

• 
  
  
  

  
  8
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  How do experienced users learn that the close button exists, and how do they get access to it? I think those would be the deciding factors.
  – DoctorDestructo
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  If the functionality is only available to two website developers (Shhh!) then there is no benefit in letting others know about it. If there is a reasonable population of users who can use it, and it doesn't overly clutter the UI, then I'd go with Pectoralis Major: show it disabled with an appropriate tooltip. Regarding clutter: when you wind up with 30 buttons and no more than six are enabled for any given user then a different design is in order.
  – HABO
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "is it kinder" Is the goal to be kind or is the goal to be clear and intuitive?
  – Mast
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  8
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Something slightly different: When I look at your screenshot, "close" is the primary button, even when you want to disable it in some situations (and seems to encourage commenting instead). So currently your UX is communicating the wrong primary action and disabling a primary button will make the users believe they did not fill in all required forms or something similar, because a primary is the action you do after filling in the form (or similar actions). So you probably should first swap the close and comment buttons. This may make the rest of your question easier to decide as well.
  – allo
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Thank you all for the suggestions. The close is the primary button, it is the main action for users to take. The mode where you don't have privilleges to use it is mostly for just browsing the issues. It is definetely not a secret functionality though, right now in other parts of application we do use the disabled button with the tooltip but I was wondering if there's a better way of doing it. Guess not at this point! Again thank you all.
  – Ana Kash
  22 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

8

8

How do experienced users learn that the close button exists, and how do they get access to it? I think those would be the deciding factors.
– DoctorDestructo
2 days ago

How do experienced users learn that the close button exists, and how do they get access to it? I think those would be the deciding factors.
– DoctorDestructo
2 days ago

4

4

If the functionality is only available to two website developers (Shhh!) then there is no benefit in letting others know about it. If there is a reasonable population of users who can use it, and it doesn't overly clutter the UI, then I'd go with Pectoralis Major: show it disabled with an appropriate tooltip. Regarding clutter: when you wind up with 30 buttons and no more than six are enabled for any given user then a different design is in order.
– HABO
2 days ago

If the functionality is only available to two website developers (Shhh!) then there is no benefit in letting others know about it. If there is a reasonable population of users who can use it, and it doesn't overly clutter the UI, then I'd go with Pectoralis Major: show it disabled with an appropriate tooltip. Regarding clutter: when you wind up with 30 buttons and no more than six are enabled for any given user then a different design is in order.
– HABO
2 days ago

"is it kinder" Is the goal to be kind or is the goal to be clear and intuitive?
– Mast
2 days ago

"is it kinder" Is the goal to be kind or is the goal to be clear and intuitive?
– Mast
2 days ago

8

8

Something slightly different: When I look at your screenshot, "close" is the primary button, even when you want to disable it in some situations (and seems to encourage commenting instead). So currently your UX is communicating the wrong primary action and disabling a primary button will make the users believe they did not fill in all required forms or something similar, because a primary is the action you do after filling in the form (or similar actions). So you probably should first swap the close and comment buttons. This may make the rest of your question easier to decide as well.
– allo
yesterday

Something slightly different: When I look at your screenshot, "close" is the primary button, even when you want to disable it in some situations (and seems to encourage commenting instead). So currently your UX is communicating the wrong primary action and disabling a primary button will make the users believe they did not fill in all required forms or something similar, because a primary is the action you do after filling in the form (or similar actions). So you probably should first swap the close and comment buttons. This may make the rest of your question easier to decide as well.
– allo
yesterday

Thank you all for the suggestions. The close is the primary button, it is the main action for users to take. The mode where you don't have privilleges to use it is mostly for just browsing the issues. It is definetely not a secret functionality though, right now in other parts of application we do use the disabled button with the tooltip but I was wondering if there's a better way of doing it. Guess not at this point! Again thank you all.
– Ana Kash
22 hours ago

Thank you all for the suggestions. The close is the primary button, it is the main action for users to take. The mode where you don't have privilleges to use it is mostly for just browsing the issues. It is definetely not a secret functionality though, right now in other parts of application we do use the disabled button with the tooltip but I was wondering if there's a better way of doing it. Guess not at this point! Again thank you all.
– Ana Kash
22 hours ago

 | 
show 8 more comments

6 Answers
6

active

oldest

votes

up vote
100
down vote



accepted

I suggest displaying the button in its disabled state and adding a tooltip explaining why it is disabled and how users can get the permissions to use this action.

Not displaying the button:

Users will search for this option and will maybe think they don't see it and therefore may spend time looking for it, possibly refreshing the page, restarting the browser, etc.

Displaying the button in its disabled state and explaining why it's disabled:

"Oh, I don't have permissions, but now I know how to get them or whom to speak to."

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Levano

314313

answered 2 days ago

Pectoralis Major

9,11741833

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Adding on to your response, I was thinking the same thing, and another reason why this would be good is because it could even lead to motivating the inexperienced user to earn that privilege
  – Philip RH
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think it's important to explain why it's disabled. If you show the button in its disabled state with no explanation, there can be confusion as to why it is disabled. Have mouseover text (or some other way to notify the user) that the user needs more reputation or permissions to use the button (whatever the case may be).
  – Doc
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  The OP mentions that users are "very unlikely" to be granted permissions. Disabling an control that the user cannot take any actions to enable is only going to cause confusion, even with explanatory text/tooltips/etc.
  – asgallant
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @asgallant I only see where the OP says "And it is very unlikely that the restricted user will be granted access to the action by simply inquiring it." Which is VERY different from saying it's very unlikely to be granted permissions period. I took that to mean that if they don't have permissions already, it's unlikely they will get them when they ask. OP also said that people without permissions will possibly HAVE permissions in another group. I also disagree that disabling something they can't get would be confusing. It is fairly standard on MANY sites. They may get annoyed though
  – user118926
  22 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
50
down vote

From your description, I think the answer is pretty clear. I get your concerns about some users' expectations but this button shouldn't be shown for a few reasons.

A disabled button will only generate negative cognitive load for everybody.

Users will look at the button and think about what it does, how it's disabled, and how to enable it. You're saying the users can't enable it so it will be a question they can't answer or will be negative.

It's not a disabled button because it can't be enabled.

A disabled button indicates to users that there is an action they can take to enable it. By your description, this button can't be enabled. Don't show users a button that can't be used or enabled to be used.

It's a poor way to communicate

The things you want to try to communicate through this disabled button should just be communicated in plain text or through the UI. If there are different levels of control, show the users that and inform them which level they're on.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

moot

2,4941710

• 
  
  
  

  
  10
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  As explored already by Pectorialis, hiding the button actually increases negative cognitive load. As it is now, it is immediately clear that the Comment feature exists, and where it is, and that it is not available in the current session. By hiding it you lose all three pieces of information for basically no gain. This is not always the case, but in this case it is true.
  – Lightness Races in Orbit
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I upvoted this answer because i think this can be true on some really packed sites where a lot of information is displayed. In the case of the OP i think not displaying the button increases cognitive load, a good example i have is when our team first started using Jira (Project Management tool), we wanted to close our sprint but the person logged in did not see the option, we were 5 people in the room and all 5 of us started to search for the button, refreshed the site etc. Until the team leader entered the room and logged in just to see the "close sprint" button we all thought we are dumb.
  – Pectoralis Major
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  From a lot of web experience this answer is what you should NOT do. People will expect the button and hiding it only confuses them. By showing it disabled and providing a title or tooltip on why it is disabled will help users understand. Dont hide it.
  – JonH
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  LightnessRacesinOrbit you're assuming there's no other way to communicate this to users except disabling a button. Look at all the thought and analysis you're putting into this button's state and you're saying that's not cognitive load? pectoralis i get that concern but anything like that should be simply and plainly explained in the UI. In your story, your solution would be to have every single user cognitively consume that button every time they use the site so that the 5 users at that one unique situation would wonder where that button is.
  – moot
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "A disabled button indicates to users that there is an action they can take to enable it." That's a bizarre reaction. If I'm in an airport and see a locked door, my reaction isn't "Gee, there must be some action I can take to get the key." I don't sit around generating "cognitive load" wondering what's behind the door, how it's locked, and how I can unlock it. When I go to the self-checkout at a grocery store and see a "log in as clerk" option, I don't go up to a store employee and ask how I can get permission to log in as a clerk.
  – Acccumulation
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 14 more comments

up vote
24
down vote

Is user likely to be aware of functionality?
Can an inexperienced user gain experience and then get the close privilege?

If yes, hide the button.

A button is extremely interactive element of a page. Consider these examples-

1. In Facebook, if you open a post in which you can only share, like and comments option are not displayed at all. Even though one can send a friend request and then like the post (once request is accepted).




2. In StackOverflow, if I do not have comment privilege yet, there is no comment option present.




3. A disabled button works well for empty inputs, i.e., until you have not written sufficient content, button is disabled. Or login button is disabled until captcha is filled. Or even for meetings, a button to join should be shown, but disabled until before 15 minutes. Here, user can come at designated time to join the meeting.

Simply put, showing a disabled button means there should be a way to enable it.
This is how me, or anyone expects them. A button disabled because of privileges should not be shown, because user cannot do anything to enable it.

In all the examples, user expects to get the button enabled after well defined specified time or action. In your case, user does not seem to have any well defined action to get the button enabled.

You can show text as 'You do not have close privilege yet.' It satisfies the curiosity of user, without motivating him to try for something he has no control over i.e. getting privilege.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

psinaught

3413

New contributor

psinaught is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Your example is exactly why hiding things in Facebook is so infuriating. Why can you share something some times, and not at other times? In these cases, share button is hidden when you can't share - but why?!?!?! When in a group, admin can turn off comments. In this case, comment links are gone, but a title shows why it's gone. Very little of what is in facebook is disabled, creating an inconsistent and very annoying interface causing one to have to google the reason a feature is gone.
  – Wigwam
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Wigwam Yes, sometimes it is infuriating. As I said, user is likely to be aware of close issue feature. He knows that an issue can be closed. But showing a disabled button does not serve any purpose. Imagine you look at a list of issues, with two buttons on each- comment and close, with close disabled in multiple issues. You will find it a little more difficult to find issues which you can close. You have to look whether button is disabled or not, instead of whether button is there or not. Also, a disabled button should not be clickable, means you have to add a popover on hover to explain the
  – psinaught
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  (**continuation from my previous comment.) reason. Now popovers are not good for mobile. And instead of a button and popover, simply adding a text displaying reason is more effective. It shows a possible action, the fact that user cannot take the action as well as why, all without user having to click or hover a disabled button.
  – psinaught
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
5
down vote

One massive reason for disabling (with explanation) the button rather than hiding it which has not been mentioned explicitly is that an experienced user will at some point end up using an inexperienced user's account alongside them.

I commonly have a similar issue with a product we use internally that hides an admin button when being used by people with lower privileges. When training the new user or helping them complete their tasks I am sitting with them at their desk using their account and can't find the button to do what I need to. Having the button there but disabled would remind me that I'm using someone else's account who doesn't have access to the action that I want to complete so I need to log in as my own user to fix their issue.

You might say that this is a rather edge case but as people are being on-boarded and need training from and issues resolving by more experienced users the problems will escalate. It may seem like the experienced user should know that permissions are the problem but it is a very good idea to remind them!

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

MD-Tech

24113

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Why is there a button that would have functionality useful for the tasks of those with lesser privileges that they do not have access to? Could you not provide a limited version of that functionality that still fits within the privileges they have to make their job more efficient?
  – JAB
  18 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @JAB I work in financial markets compliance, almost everything they would be able to do if they had any access to that functionality would make the firm liable for very large fines.
  – MD-Tech
  17 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So it's just a matter of administrative stuff on your end (granting permissions/setting up accounts and things) that you realize you have to set up for them as you work with them, not necessarily things that they themselves have to do? It just seems odd to have to switch over to your own account for that functionality while teaching them how they're supposed to do their own job, unless their job includes making requests to you which you then approve/fulfill.
  – JAB
  17 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @JAB its a bit of both actually. Although I'm an admin on the system so do stuff like resetting passwords and unlocking accounts, when I'm training people the issue is usually the four-eyes process that we have to go through. No-one (not even a CIO) should be able to sign off on their own trades and every trade needs to be checked and verified but I always forget which tab I'm on (I log in once and they log in once in separate tabs). I've simplified somewhat but that's the crux of it.
  – MD-Tech
  16 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

The main driving force should be user expectation.

If the button is about a functionality that a user might expect to have, it should be there and the disabled state make it clear that it is not available (a hover tooltip can explain why).

If, however, it is a functionality that the user with the reduced access rights would not expect to have or see (or maybe even doesn't realize exists), it should be hidden.

In both cases, you are doing a trade-off.

Showing the disabled button makes it clear that the functionality exists, but is disabled, but could confuse the user who is wondering why you are showing him something that he can't do - and in the case of permissions, is unlikely to ever be able to do, unlike something that is only unavailable for temporary reasons, like, say, a "next" button that becomes enabled once the current wizard page has been filled out. One more advantage of hiding is that the layout of the page is the same for everyone, aiding muscle memory for people who might switch between different accounts or permissions, if there is such a thing in your application. It also allows documentation or help pages to refer to buttons by their position, as the position is invariant.

Hiding the button keeps the interface clean and useful, showing only what is actually available. It prevents "why they show this?" and "what would it do?" wondering by the user. However, if it is functionality a user might except, it replaces it with a different kind of "where is this?" wondering.

share|improve this answer

answered 13 hours ago

Tom

1312

New contributor

Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 yes, it is all about managing user expectations, and unless you test (which you always should) then it is best to apply some common sense and allow for the greatest user needs (if it is sensible to do so).
  – Michael Lai♦
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

StackExchange shows buttons even when the user cannot take that action, and shows an advice if the user lacks the privilege to use it. In this case, the button is neither disabled nor hidden. There is, however, a motivation for SE users to gain reputation and enable buttons so it makes sense to dangle a "this is what you could win" prize in front of them and then tell them what they need to do to get it.. I guess you need to decide if such a behaviour suits you.

Also, perhaps this button can be purposed differently according to permissions, so that it's always usable. Restricted users can only [Close]. Advanced users can [Save and Close]..

share|improve this answer

answered 10 hours ago

Caius Jard

1212

New contributor

Caius Jard is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This is not strictly true. For example, I can't comment on a post if I haven't joined a site yet or I don't have enough reputation points.
  – user128216
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 good answer although it is always good to consider both examples that apply this design pattern and those that don't just to understand when it is appropriate to 'break' the rules too :)
  – Michael Lai♦
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "102"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

Ana Kash is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fux.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f120848%2fshould-i-have-a-disabled-button-or-no-button-at-all-if-the-user-doesnt-have-su%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

6 Answers
6

active

oldest

votes

6 Answers
6

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

up vote
100
down vote



accepted

I suggest displaying the button in its disabled state and adding a tooltip explaining why it is disabled and how users can get the permissions to use this action.

Not displaying the button:

Users will search for this option and will maybe think they don't see it and therefore may spend time looking for it, possibly refreshing the page, restarting the browser, etc.

Displaying the button in its disabled state and explaining why it's disabled:

"Oh, I don't have permissions, but now I know how to get them or whom to speak to."

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Levano

314313

answered 2 days ago

Pectoralis Major

9,11741833

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Adding on to your response, I was thinking the same thing, and another reason why this would be good is because it could even lead to motivating the inexperienced user to earn that privilege
  – Philip RH
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think it's important to explain why it's disabled. If you show the button in its disabled state with no explanation, there can be confusion as to why it is disabled. Have mouseover text (or some other way to notify the user) that the user needs more reputation or permissions to use the button (whatever the case may be).
  – Doc
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  The OP mentions that users are "very unlikely" to be granted permissions. Disabling an control that the user cannot take any actions to enable is only going to cause confusion, even with explanatory text/tooltips/etc.
  – asgallant
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @asgallant I only see where the OP says "And it is very unlikely that the restricted user will be granted access to the action by simply inquiring it." Which is VERY different from saying it's very unlikely to be granted permissions period. I took that to mean that if they don't have permissions already, it's unlikely they will get them when they ask. OP also said that people without permissions will possibly HAVE permissions in another group. I also disagree that disabling something they can't get would be confusing. It is fairly standard on MANY sites. They may get annoyed though
  – user118926
  22 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
100
down vote



accepted

I suggest displaying the button in its disabled state and adding a tooltip explaining why it is disabled and how users can get the permissions to use this action.

Not displaying the button:

Users will search for this option and will maybe think they don't see it and therefore may spend time looking for it, possibly refreshing the page, restarting the browser, etc.

Displaying the button in its disabled state and explaining why it's disabled:

"Oh, I don't have permissions, but now I know how to get them or whom to speak to."

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Levano

314313

answered 2 days ago

Pectoralis Major

9,11741833

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Adding on to your response, I was thinking the same thing, and another reason why this would be good is because it could even lead to motivating the inexperienced user to earn that privilege
  – Philip RH
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think it's important to explain why it's disabled. If you show the button in its disabled state with no explanation, there can be confusion as to why it is disabled. Have mouseover text (or some other way to notify the user) that the user needs more reputation or permissions to use the button (whatever the case may be).
  – Doc
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  The OP mentions that users are "very unlikely" to be granted permissions. Disabling an control that the user cannot take any actions to enable is only going to cause confusion, even with explanatory text/tooltips/etc.
  – asgallant
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @asgallant I only see where the OP says "And it is very unlikely that the restricted user will be granted access to the action by simply inquiring it." Which is VERY different from saying it's very unlikely to be granted permissions period. I took that to mean that if they don't have permissions already, it's unlikely they will get them when they ask. OP also said that people without permissions will possibly HAVE permissions in another group. I also disagree that disabling something they can't get would be confusing. It is fairly standard on MANY sites. They may get annoyed though
  – user118926
  22 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
100
down vote



accepted

up vote
100
down vote



accepted

I suggest displaying the button in its disabled state and adding a tooltip explaining why it is disabled and how users can get the permissions to use this action.

Not displaying the button:

Users will search for this option and will maybe think they don't see it and therefore may spend time looking for it, possibly refreshing the page, restarting the browser, etc.

Displaying the button in its disabled state and explaining why it's disabled:

"Oh, I don't have permissions, but now I know how to get them or whom to speak to."

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Levano

314313

answered 2 days ago

Pectoralis Major

9,11741833

I suggest displaying the button in its disabled state and adding a tooltip explaining why it is disabled and how users can get the permissions to use this action.

Not displaying the button:

Users will search for this option and will maybe think they don't see it and therefore may spend time looking for it, possibly refreshing the page, restarting the browser, etc.

Displaying the button in its disabled state and explaining why it's disabled:

"Oh, I don't have permissions, but now I know how to get them or whom to speak to."

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Levano

314313

answered 2 days ago

Pectoralis Major

9,11741833

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

Levano

314313

edited 2 days ago

Levano

314313

edited 2 days ago

Levano

314313

314313

answered 2 days ago

Pectoralis Major

9,11741833

answered 2 days ago

Pectoralis Major

9,11741833

answered 2 days ago

Pectoralis Major

9,11741833

9,11741833

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Adding on to your response, I was thinking the same thing, and another reason why this would be good is because it could even lead to motivating the inexperienced user to earn that privilege
  – Philip RH
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think it's important to explain why it's disabled. If you show the button in its disabled state with no explanation, there can be confusion as to why it is disabled. Have mouseover text (or some other way to notify the user) that the user needs more reputation or permissions to use the button (whatever the case may be).
  – Doc
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  The OP mentions that users are "very unlikely" to be granted permissions. Disabling an control that the user cannot take any actions to enable is only going to cause confusion, even with explanatory text/tooltips/etc.
  – asgallant
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @asgallant I only see where the OP says "And it is very unlikely that the restricted user will be granted access to the action by simply inquiring it." Which is VERY different from saying it's very unlikely to be granted permissions period. I took that to mean that if they don't have permissions already, it's unlikely they will get them when they ask. OP also said that people without permissions will possibly HAVE permissions in another group. I also disagree that disabling something they can't get would be confusing. It is fairly standard on MANY sites. They may get annoyed though
  – user118926
  22 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Adding on to your response, I was thinking the same thing, and another reason why this would be good is because it could even lead to motivating the inexperienced user to earn that privilege
  – Philip RH
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think it's important to explain why it's disabled. If you show the button in its disabled state with no explanation, there can be confusion as to why it is disabled. Have mouseover text (or some other way to notify the user) that the user needs more reputation or permissions to use the button (whatever the case may be).
  – Doc
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  The OP mentions that users are "very unlikely" to be granted permissions. Disabling an control that the user cannot take any actions to enable is only going to cause confusion, even with explanatory text/tooltips/etc.
  – asgallant
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @asgallant I only see where the OP says "And it is very unlikely that the restricted user will be granted access to the action by simply inquiring it." Which is VERY different from saying it's very unlikely to be granted permissions period. I took that to mean that if they don't have permissions already, it's unlikely they will get them when they ask. OP also said that people without permissions will possibly HAVE permissions in another group. I also disagree that disabling something they can't get would be confusing. It is fairly standard on MANY sites. They may get annoyed though
  – user118926
  22 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

2

2

Adding on to your response, I was thinking the same thing, and another reason why this would be good is because it could even lead to motivating the inexperienced user to earn that privilege
– Philip RH
2 days ago

Adding on to your response, I was thinking the same thing, and another reason why this would be good is because it could even lead to motivating the inexperienced user to earn that privilege
– Philip RH
2 days ago

4

4

I think it's important to explain why it's disabled. If you show the button in its disabled state with no explanation, there can be confusion as to why it is disabled. Have mouseover text (or some other way to notify the user) that the user needs more reputation or permissions to use the button (whatever the case may be).
– Doc
yesterday

I think it's important to explain why it's disabled. If you show the button in its disabled state with no explanation, there can be confusion as to why it is disabled. Have mouseover text (or some other way to notify the user) that the user needs more reputation or permissions to use the button (whatever the case may be).
– Doc
yesterday

6

6

The OP mentions that users are "very unlikely" to be granted permissions. Disabling an control that the user cannot take any actions to enable is only going to cause confusion, even with explanatory text/tooltips/etc.
– asgallant
yesterday

The OP mentions that users are "very unlikely" to be granted permissions. Disabling an control that the user cannot take any actions to enable is only going to cause confusion, even with explanatory text/tooltips/etc.
– asgallant
yesterday

4

4

@asgallant I only see where the OP says "And it is very unlikely that the restricted user will be granted access to the action by simply inquiring it." Which is VERY different from saying it's very unlikely to be granted permissions period. I took that to mean that if they don't have permissions already, it's unlikely they will get them when they ask. OP also said that people without permissions will possibly HAVE permissions in another group. I also disagree that disabling something they can't get would be confusing. It is fairly standard on MANY sites. They may get annoyed though
– user118926
22 hours ago

@asgallant I only see where the OP says "And it is very unlikely that the restricted user will be granted access to the action by simply inquiring it." Which is VERY different from saying it's very unlikely to be granted permissions period. I took that to mean that if they don't have permissions already, it's unlikely they will get them when they ask. OP also said that people without permissions will possibly HAVE permissions in another group. I also disagree that disabling something they can't get would be confusing. It is fairly standard on MANY sites. They may get annoyed though
– user118926
22 hours ago

add a comment | 

up vote
50
down vote

From your description, I think the answer is pretty clear. I get your concerns about some users' expectations but this button shouldn't be shown for a few reasons.

A disabled button will only generate negative cognitive load for everybody.

Users will look at the button and think about what it does, how it's disabled, and how to enable it. You're saying the users can't enable it so it will be a question they can't answer or will be negative.

It's not a disabled button because it can't be enabled.

A disabled button indicates to users that there is an action they can take to enable it. By your description, this button can't be enabled. Don't show users a button that can't be used or enabled to be used.

It's a poor way to communicate

The things you want to try to communicate through this disabled button should just be communicated in plain text or through the UI. If there are different levels of control, show the users that and inform them which level they're on.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

moot

2,4941710

• 
  
  
  

  
  10
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  As explored already by Pectorialis, hiding the button actually increases negative cognitive load. As it is now, it is immediately clear that the Comment feature exists, and where it is, and that it is not available in the current session. By hiding it you lose all three pieces of information for basically no gain. This is not always the case, but in this case it is true.
  – Lightness Races in Orbit
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I upvoted this answer because i think this can be true on some really packed sites where a lot of information is displayed. In the case of the OP i think not displaying the button increases cognitive load, a good example i have is when our team first started using Jira (Project Management tool), we wanted to close our sprint but the person logged in did not see the option, we were 5 people in the room and all 5 of us started to search for the button, refreshed the site etc. Until the team leader entered the room and logged in just to see the "close sprint" button we all thought we are dumb.
  – Pectoralis Major
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  From a lot of web experience this answer is what you should NOT do. People will expect the button and hiding it only confuses them. By showing it disabled and providing a title or tooltip on why it is disabled will help users understand. Dont hide it.
  – JonH
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  LightnessRacesinOrbit you're assuming there's no other way to communicate this to users except disabling a button. Look at all the thought and analysis you're putting into this button's state and you're saying that's not cognitive load? pectoralis i get that concern but anything like that should be simply and plainly explained in the UI. In your story, your solution would be to have every single user cognitively consume that button every time they use the site so that the 5 users at that one unique situation would wonder where that button is.
  – moot
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "A disabled button indicates to users that there is an action they can take to enable it." That's a bizarre reaction. If I'm in an airport and see a locked door, my reaction isn't "Gee, there must be some action I can take to get the key." I don't sit around generating "cognitive load" wondering what's behind the door, how it's locked, and how I can unlock it. When I go to the self-checkout at a grocery store and see a "log in as clerk" option, I don't go up to a store employee and ask how I can get permission to log in as a clerk.
  – Acccumulation
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 14 more comments

up vote
50
down vote

From your description, I think the answer is pretty clear. I get your concerns about some users' expectations but this button shouldn't be shown for a few reasons.

A disabled button will only generate negative cognitive load for everybody.

Users will look at the button and think about what it does, how it's disabled, and how to enable it. You're saying the users can't enable it so it will be a question they can't answer or will be negative.

It's not a disabled button because it can't be enabled.

A disabled button indicates to users that there is an action they can take to enable it. By your description, this button can't be enabled. Don't show users a button that can't be used or enabled to be used.

It's a poor way to communicate

The things you want to try to communicate through this disabled button should just be communicated in plain text or through the UI. If there are different levels of control, show the users that and inform them which level they're on.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

moot

2,4941710

• 
  
  
  

  
  10
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  As explored already by Pectorialis, hiding the button actually increases negative cognitive load. As it is now, it is immediately clear that the Comment feature exists, and where it is, and that it is not available in the current session. By hiding it you lose all three pieces of information for basically no gain. This is not always the case, but in this case it is true.
  – Lightness Races in Orbit
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I upvoted this answer because i think this can be true on some really packed sites where a lot of information is displayed. In the case of the OP i think not displaying the button increases cognitive load, a good example i have is when our team first started using Jira (Project Management tool), we wanted to close our sprint but the person logged in did not see the option, we were 5 people in the room and all 5 of us started to search for the button, refreshed the site etc. Until the team leader entered the room and logged in just to see the "close sprint" button we all thought we are dumb.
  – Pectoralis Major
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  From a lot of web experience this answer is what you should NOT do. People will expect the button and hiding it only confuses them. By showing it disabled and providing a title or tooltip on why it is disabled will help users understand. Dont hide it.
  – JonH
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  LightnessRacesinOrbit you're assuming there's no other way to communicate this to users except disabling a button. Look at all the thought and analysis you're putting into this button's state and you're saying that's not cognitive load? pectoralis i get that concern but anything like that should be simply and plainly explained in the UI. In your story, your solution would be to have every single user cognitively consume that button every time they use the site so that the 5 users at that one unique situation would wonder where that button is.
  – moot
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "A disabled button indicates to users that there is an action they can take to enable it." That's a bizarre reaction. If I'm in an airport and see a locked door, my reaction isn't "Gee, there must be some action I can take to get the key." I don't sit around generating "cognitive load" wondering what's behind the door, how it's locked, and how I can unlock it. When I go to the self-checkout at a grocery store and see a "log in as clerk" option, I don't go up to a store employee and ask how I can get permission to log in as a clerk.
  – Acccumulation
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 14 more comments

up vote
50
down vote

up vote
50
down vote

From your description, I think the answer is pretty clear. I get your concerns about some users' expectations but this button shouldn't be shown for a few reasons.

A disabled button will only generate negative cognitive load for everybody.

Users will look at the button and think about what it does, how it's disabled, and how to enable it. You're saying the users can't enable it so it will be a question they can't answer or will be negative.

It's not a disabled button because it can't be enabled.

A disabled button indicates to users that there is an action they can take to enable it. By your description, this button can't be enabled. Don't show users a button that can't be used or enabled to be used.

It's a poor way to communicate

The things you want to try to communicate through this disabled button should just be communicated in plain text or through the UI. If there are different levels of control, show the users that and inform them which level they're on.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

moot

2,4941710

From your description, I think the answer is pretty clear. I get your concerns about some users' expectations but this button shouldn't be shown for a few reasons.

A disabled button will only generate negative cognitive load for everybody.

Users will look at the button and think about what it does, how it's disabled, and how to enable it. You're saying the users can't enable it so it will be a question they can't answer or will be negative.

It's not a disabled button because it can't be enabled.

A disabled button indicates to users that there is an action they can take to enable it. By your description, this button can't be enabled. Don't show users a button that can't be used or enabled to be used.

It's a poor way to communicate

The things you want to try to communicate through this disabled button should just be communicated in plain text or through the UI. If there are different levels of control, show the users that and inform them which level they're on.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

moot

2,4941710

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

edited 2 days ago

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

moot

2,4941710

answered 2 days ago

moot

2,4941710

answered 2 days ago

moot

2,4941710

2,4941710

• 
  
  
  

  
  10
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  As explored already by Pectorialis, hiding the button actually increases negative cognitive load. As it is now, it is immediately clear that the Comment feature exists, and where it is, and that it is not available in the current session. By hiding it you lose all three pieces of information for basically no gain. This is not always the case, but in this case it is true.
  – Lightness Races in Orbit
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I upvoted this answer because i think this can be true on some really packed sites where a lot of information is displayed. In the case of the OP i think not displaying the button increases cognitive load, a good example i have is when our team first started using Jira (Project Management tool), we wanted to close our sprint but the person logged in did not see the option, we were 5 people in the room and all 5 of us started to search for the button, refreshed the site etc. Until the team leader entered the room and logged in just to see the "close sprint" button we all thought we are dumb.
  – Pectoralis Major
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  From a lot of web experience this answer is what you should NOT do. People will expect the button and hiding it only confuses them. By showing it disabled and providing a title or tooltip on why it is disabled will help users understand. Dont hide it.
  – JonH
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  LightnessRacesinOrbit you're assuming there's no other way to communicate this to users except disabling a button. Look at all the thought and analysis you're putting into this button's state and you're saying that's not cognitive load? pectoralis i get that concern but anything like that should be simply and plainly explained in the UI. In your story, your solution would be to have every single user cognitively consume that button every time they use the site so that the 5 users at that one unique situation would wonder where that button is.
  – moot
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "A disabled button indicates to users that there is an action they can take to enable it." That's a bizarre reaction. If I'm in an airport and see a locked door, my reaction isn't "Gee, there must be some action I can take to get the key." I don't sit around generating "cognitive load" wondering what's behind the door, how it's locked, and how I can unlock it. When I go to the self-checkout at a grocery store and see a "log in as clerk" option, I don't go up to a store employee and ask how I can get permission to log in as a clerk.
  – Acccumulation
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 14 more comments

• 
  
  
  

  
  10
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  As explored already by Pectorialis, hiding the button actually increases negative cognitive load. As it is now, it is immediately clear that the Comment feature exists, and where it is, and that it is not available in the current session. By hiding it you lose all three pieces of information for basically no gain. This is not always the case, but in this case it is true.
  – Lightness Races in Orbit
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I upvoted this answer because i think this can be true on some really packed sites where a lot of information is displayed. In the case of the OP i think not displaying the button increases cognitive load, a good example i have is when our team first started using Jira (Project Management tool), we wanted to close our sprint but the person logged in did not see the option, we were 5 people in the room and all 5 of us started to search for the button, refreshed the site etc. Until the team leader entered the room and logged in just to see the "close sprint" button we all thought we are dumb.
  – Pectoralis Major
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  From a lot of web experience this answer is what you should NOT do. People will expect the button and hiding it only confuses them. By showing it disabled and providing a title or tooltip on why it is disabled will help users understand. Dont hide it.
  – JonH
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  LightnessRacesinOrbit you're assuming there's no other way to communicate this to users except disabling a button. Look at all the thought and analysis you're putting into this button's state and you're saying that's not cognitive load? pectoralis i get that concern but anything like that should be simply and plainly explained in the UI. In your story, your solution would be to have every single user cognitively consume that button every time they use the site so that the 5 users at that one unique situation would wonder where that button is.
  – moot
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "A disabled button indicates to users that there is an action they can take to enable it." That's a bizarre reaction. If I'm in an airport and see a locked door, my reaction isn't "Gee, there must be some action I can take to get the key." I don't sit around generating "cognitive load" wondering what's behind the door, how it's locked, and how I can unlock it. When I go to the self-checkout at a grocery store and see a "log in as clerk" option, I don't go up to a store employee and ask how I can get permission to log in as a clerk.
  – Acccumulation
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

10

10

As explored already by Pectorialis, hiding the button actually increases negative cognitive load. As it is now, it is immediately clear that the Comment feature exists, and where it is, and that it is not available in the current session. By hiding it you lose all three pieces of information for basically no gain. This is not always the case, but in this case it is true.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago

As explored already by Pectorialis, hiding the button actually increases negative cognitive load. As it is now, it is immediately clear that the Comment feature exists, and where it is, and that it is not available in the current session. By hiding it you lose all three pieces of information for basically no gain. This is not always the case, but in this case it is true.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago

5

5

I upvoted this answer because i think this can be true on some really packed sites where a lot of information is displayed. In the case of the OP i think not displaying the button increases cognitive load, a good example i have is when our team first started using Jira (Project Management tool), we wanted to close our sprint but the person logged in did not see the option, we were 5 people in the room and all 5 of us started to search for the button, refreshed the site etc. Until the team leader entered the room and logged in just to see the "close sprint" button we all thought we are dumb.
– Pectoralis Major
2 days ago

I upvoted this answer because i think this can be true on some really packed sites where a lot of information is displayed. In the case of the OP i think not displaying the button increases cognitive load, a good example i have is when our team first started using Jira (Project Management tool), we wanted to close our sprint but the person logged in did not see the option, we were 5 people in the room and all 5 of us started to search for the button, refreshed the site etc. Until the team leader entered the room and logged in just to see the "close sprint" button we all thought we are dumb.
– Pectoralis Major
2 days ago

4

4

From a lot of web experience this answer is what you should NOT do. People will expect the button and hiding it only confuses them. By showing it disabled and providing a title or tooltip on why it is disabled will help users understand. Dont hide it.
– JonH
2 days ago

From a lot of web experience this answer is what you should NOT do. People will expect the button and hiding it only confuses them. By showing it disabled and providing a title or tooltip on why it is disabled will help users understand. Dont hide it.
– JonH
2 days ago

4

4

LightnessRacesinOrbit you're assuming there's no other way to communicate this to users except disabling a button. Look at all the thought and analysis you're putting into this button's state and you're saying that's not cognitive load? pectoralis i get that concern but anything like that should be simply and plainly explained in the UI. In your story, your solution would be to have every single user cognitively consume that button every time they use the site so that the 5 users at that one unique situation would wonder where that button is.
– moot
2 days ago

LightnessRacesinOrbit you're assuming there's no other way to communicate this to users except disabling a button. Look at all the thought and analysis you're putting into this button's state and you're saying that's not cognitive load? pectoralis i get that concern but anything like that should be simply and plainly explained in the UI. In your story, your solution would be to have every single user cognitively consume that button every time they use the site so that the 5 users at that one unique situation would wonder where that button is.
– moot
2 days ago

4

4

"A disabled button indicates to users that there is an action they can take to enable it." That's a bizarre reaction. If I'm in an airport and see a locked door, my reaction isn't "Gee, there must be some action I can take to get the key." I don't sit around generating "cognitive load" wondering what's behind the door, how it's locked, and how I can unlock it. When I go to the self-checkout at a grocery store and see a "log in as clerk" option, I don't go up to a store employee and ask how I can get permission to log in as a clerk.
– Acccumulation
yesterday

"A disabled button indicates to users that there is an action they can take to enable it." That's a bizarre reaction. If I'm in an airport and see a locked door, my reaction isn't "Gee, there must be some action I can take to get the key." I don't sit around generating "cognitive load" wondering what's behind the door, how it's locked, and how I can unlock it. When I go to the self-checkout at a grocery store and see a "log in as clerk" option, I don't go up to a store employee and ask how I can get permission to log in as a clerk.
– Acccumulation
yesterday

 | 
show 14 more comments

up vote
24
down vote

Is user likely to be aware of functionality?
Can an inexperienced user gain experience and then get the close privilege?

If yes, hide the button.

A button is extremely interactive element of a page. Consider these examples-

1. In Facebook, if you open a post in which you can only share, like and comments option are not displayed at all. Even though one can send a friend request and then like the post (once request is accepted).




2. In StackOverflow, if I do not have comment privilege yet, there is no comment option present.




3. A disabled button works well for empty inputs, i.e., until you have not written sufficient content, button is disabled. Or login button is disabled until captcha is filled. Or even for meetings, a button to join should be shown, but disabled until before 15 minutes. Here, user can come at designated time to join the meeting.

Simply put, showing a disabled button means there should be a way to enable it.
This is how me, or anyone expects them. A button disabled because of privileges should not be shown, because user cannot do anything to enable it.

In all the examples, user expects to get the button enabled after well defined specified time or action. In your case, user does not seem to have any well defined action to get the button enabled.

You can show text as 'You do not have close privilege yet.' It satisfies the curiosity of user, without motivating him to try for something he has no control over i.e. getting privilege.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

psinaught

3413

New contributor

psinaught is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Your example is exactly why hiding things in Facebook is so infuriating. Why can you share something some times, and not at other times? In these cases, share button is hidden when you can't share - but why?!?!?! When in a group, admin can turn off comments. In this case, comment links are gone, but a title shows why it's gone. Very little of what is in facebook is disabled, creating an inconsistent and very annoying interface causing one to have to google the reason a feature is gone.
  – Wigwam
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Wigwam Yes, sometimes it is infuriating. As I said, user is likely to be aware of close issue feature. He knows that an issue can be closed. But showing a disabled button does not serve any purpose. Imagine you look at a list of issues, with two buttons on each- comment and close, with close disabled in multiple issues. You will find it a little more difficult to find issues which you can close. You have to look whether button is disabled or not, instead of whether button is there or not. Also, a disabled button should not be clickable, means you have to add a popover on hover to explain the
  – psinaught
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  (**continuation from my previous comment.) reason. Now popovers are not good for mobile. And instead of a button and popover, simply adding a text displaying reason is more effective. It shows a possible action, the fact that user cannot take the action as well as why, all without user having to click or hover a disabled button.
  – psinaught
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
24
down vote

Is user likely to be aware of functionality?
Can an inexperienced user gain experience and then get the close privilege?

If yes, hide the button.

A button is extremely interactive element of a page. Consider these examples-

1. In Facebook, if you open a post in which you can only share, like and comments option are not displayed at all. Even though one can send a friend request and then like the post (once request is accepted).




2. In StackOverflow, if I do not have comment privilege yet, there is no comment option present.




3. A disabled button works well for empty inputs, i.e., until you have not written sufficient content, button is disabled. Or login button is disabled until captcha is filled. Or even for meetings, a button to join should be shown, but disabled until before 15 minutes. Here, user can come at designated time to join the meeting.

Simply put, showing a disabled button means there should be a way to enable it.
This is how me, or anyone expects them. A button disabled because of privileges should not be shown, because user cannot do anything to enable it.

In all the examples, user expects to get the button enabled after well defined specified time or action. In your case, user does not seem to have any well defined action to get the button enabled.

You can show text as 'You do not have close privilege yet.' It satisfies the curiosity of user, without motivating him to try for something he has no control over i.e. getting privilege.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

psinaught

3413

New contributor

psinaught is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Your example is exactly why hiding things in Facebook is so infuriating. Why can you share something some times, and not at other times? In these cases, share button is hidden when you can't share - but why?!?!?! When in a group, admin can turn off comments. In this case, comment links are gone, but a title shows why it's gone. Very little of what is in facebook is disabled, creating an inconsistent and very annoying interface causing one to have to google the reason a feature is gone.
  – Wigwam
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Wigwam Yes, sometimes it is infuriating. As I said, user is likely to be aware of close issue feature. He knows that an issue can be closed. But showing a disabled button does not serve any purpose. Imagine you look at a list of issues, with two buttons on each- comment and close, with close disabled in multiple issues. You will find it a little more difficult to find issues which you can close. You have to look whether button is disabled or not, instead of whether button is there or not. Also, a disabled button should not be clickable, means you have to add a popover on hover to explain the
  – psinaught
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  (**continuation from my previous comment.) reason. Now popovers are not good for mobile. And instead of a button and popover, simply adding a text displaying reason is more effective. It shows a possible action, the fact that user cannot take the action as well as why, all without user having to click or hover a disabled button.
  – psinaught
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
24
down vote

up vote
24
down vote

Is user likely to be aware of functionality?
Can an inexperienced user gain experience and then get the close privilege?

If yes, hide the button.

A button is extremely interactive element of a page. Consider these examples-

1. In Facebook, if you open a post in which you can only share, like and comments option are not displayed at all. Even though one can send a friend request and then like the post (once request is accepted).




2. In StackOverflow, if I do not have comment privilege yet, there is no comment option present.




3. A disabled button works well for empty inputs, i.e., until you have not written sufficient content, button is disabled. Or login button is disabled until captcha is filled. Or even for meetings, a button to join should be shown, but disabled until before 15 minutes. Here, user can come at designated time to join the meeting.

Simply put, showing a disabled button means there should be a way to enable it.
This is how me, or anyone expects them. A button disabled because of privileges should not be shown, because user cannot do anything to enable it.

In all the examples, user expects to get the button enabled after well defined specified time or action. In your case, user does not seem to have any well defined action to get the button enabled.

You can show text as 'You do not have close privilege yet.' It satisfies the curiosity of user, without motivating him to try for something he has no control over i.e. getting privilege.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

psinaught

3413

New contributor

psinaught is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

Is user likely to be aware of functionality?
Can an inexperienced user gain experience and then get the close privilege?

If yes, hide the button.

A button is extremely interactive element of a page. Consider these examples-

1. In Facebook, if you open a post in which you can only share, like and comments option are not displayed at all. Even though one can send a friend request and then like the post (once request is accepted).




2. In StackOverflow, if I do not have comment privilege yet, there is no comment option present.




3. A disabled button works well for empty inputs, i.e., until you have not written sufficient content, button is disabled. Or login button is disabled until captcha is filled. Or even for meetings, a button to join should be shown, but disabled until before 15 minutes. Here, user can come at designated time to join the meeting.

Simply put, showing a disabled button means there should be a way to enable it.
This is how me, or anyone expects them. A button disabled because of privileges should not be shown, because user cannot do anything to enable it.

In all the examples, user expects to get the button enabled after well defined specified time or action. In your case, user does not seem to have any well defined action to get the button enabled.

You can show text as 'You do not have close privilege yet.' It satisfies the curiosity of user, without motivating him to try for something he has no control over i.e. getting privilege.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

psinaught

3413

New contributor

psinaught is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

edited 2 days ago

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

psinaught

3413

New contributor

psinaught is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

answered 2 days ago

psinaught

3413

answered 2 days ago

psinaught

3413

3413

New contributor

psinaught is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

New contributor

psinaught is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

psinaught is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Your example is exactly why hiding things in Facebook is so infuriating. Why can you share something some times, and not at other times? In these cases, share button is hidden when you can't share - but why?!?!?! When in a group, admin can turn off comments. In this case, comment links are gone, but a title shows why it's gone. Very little of what is in facebook is disabled, creating an inconsistent and very annoying interface causing one to have to google the reason a feature is gone.
  – Wigwam
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Wigwam Yes, sometimes it is infuriating. As I said, user is likely to be aware of close issue feature. He knows that an issue can be closed. But showing a disabled button does not serve any purpose. Imagine you look at a list of issues, with two buttons on each- comment and close, with close disabled in multiple issues. You will find it a little more difficult to find issues which you can close. You have to look whether button is disabled or not, instead of whether button is there or not. Also, a disabled button should not be clickable, means you have to add a popover on hover to explain the
  – psinaught
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  (**continuation from my previous comment.) reason. Now popovers are not good for mobile. And instead of a button and popover, simply adding a text displaying reason is more effective. It shows a possible action, the fact that user cannot take the action as well as why, all without user having to click or hover a disabled button.
  – psinaught
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Your example is exactly why hiding things in Facebook is so infuriating. Why can you share something some times, and not at other times? In these cases, share button is hidden when you can't share - but why?!?!?! When in a group, admin can turn off comments. In this case, comment links are gone, but a title shows why it's gone. Very little of what is in facebook is disabled, creating an inconsistent and very annoying interface causing one to have to google the reason a feature is gone.
  – Wigwam
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Wigwam Yes, sometimes it is infuriating. As I said, user is likely to be aware of close issue feature. He knows that an issue can be closed. But showing a disabled button does not serve any purpose. Imagine you look at a list of issues, with two buttons on each- comment and close, with close disabled in multiple issues. You will find it a little more difficult to find issues which you can close. You have to look whether button is disabled or not, instead of whether button is there or not. Also, a disabled button should not be clickable, means you have to add a popover on hover to explain the
  – psinaught
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  (**continuation from my previous comment.) reason. Now popovers are not good for mobile. And instead of a button and popover, simply adding a text displaying reason is more effective. It shows a possible action, the fact that user cannot take the action as well as why, all without user having to click or hover a disabled button.
  – psinaught
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

Your example is exactly why hiding things in Facebook is so infuriating. Why can you share something some times, and not at other times? In these cases, share button is hidden when you can't share - but why?!?!?! When in a group, admin can turn off comments. In this case, comment links are gone, but a title shows why it's gone. Very little of what is in facebook is disabled, creating an inconsistent and very annoying interface causing one to have to google the reason a feature is gone.
– Wigwam
7 hours ago

Your example is exactly why hiding things in Facebook is so infuriating. Why can you share something some times, and not at other times? In these cases, share button is hidden when you can't share - but why?!?!?! When in a group, admin can turn off comments. In this case, comment links are gone, but a title shows why it's gone. Very little of what is in facebook is disabled, creating an inconsistent and very annoying interface causing one to have to google the reason a feature is gone.
– Wigwam
7 hours ago

1

1

@Wigwam Yes, sometimes it is infuriating. As I said, user is likely to be aware of close issue feature. He knows that an issue can be closed. But showing a disabled button does not serve any purpose. Imagine you look at a list of issues, with two buttons on each- comment and close, with close disabled in multiple issues. You will find it a little more difficult to find issues which you can close. You have to look whether button is disabled or not, instead of whether button is there or not. Also, a disabled button should not be clickable, means you have to add a popover on hover to explain the
– psinaught
6 hours ago

@Wigwam Yes, sometimes it is infuriating. As I said, user is likely to be aware of close issue feature. He knows that an issue can be closed. But showing a disabled button does not serve any purpose. Imagine you look at a list of issues, with two buttons on each- comment and close, with close disabled in multiple issues. You will find it a little more difficult to find issues which you can close. You have to look whether button is disabled or not, instead of whether button is there or not. Also, a disabled button should not be clickable, means you have to add a popover on hover to explain the
– psinaught
6 hours ago

(**continuation from my previous comment.) reason. Now popovers are not good for mobile. And instead of a button and popover, simply adding a text displaying reason is more effective. It shows a possible action, the fact that user cannot take the action as well as why, all without user having to click or hover a disabled button.
– psinaught
6 hours ago

(**continuation from my previous comment.) reason. Now popovers are not good for mobile. And instead of a button and popover, simply adding a text displaying reason is more effective. It shows a possible action, the fact that user cannot take the action as well as why, all without user having to click or hover a disabled button.
– psinaught
6 hours ago

add a comment | 

up vote
5
down vote

One massive reason for disabling (with explanation) the button rather than hiding it which has not been mentioned explicitly is that an experienced user will at some point end up using an inexperienced user's account alongside them.

I commonly have a similar issue with a product we use internally that hides an admin button when being used by people with lower privileges. When training the new user or helping them complete their tasks I am sitting with them at their desk using their account and can't find the button to do what I need to. Having the button there but disabled would remind me that I'm using someone else's account who doesn't have access to the action that I want to complete so I need to log in as my own user to fix their issue.

You might say that this is a rather edge case but as people are being on-boarded and need training from and issues resolving by more experienced users the problems will escalate. It may seem like the experienced user should know that permissions are the problem but it is a very good idea to remind them!

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

MD-Tech

24113

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Why is there a button that would have functionality useful for the tasks of those with lesser privileges that they do not have access to? Could you not provide a limited version of that functionality that still fits within the privileges they have to make their job more efficient?
  – JAB
  18 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @JAB I work in financial markets compliance, almost everything they would be able to do if they had any access to that functionality would make the firm liable for very large fines.
  – MD-Tech
  17 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So it's just a matter of administrative stuff on your end (granting permissions/setting up accounts and things) that you realize you have to set up for them as you work with them, not necessarily things that they themselves have to do? It just seems odd to have to switch over to your own account for that functionality while teaching them how they're supposed to do their own job, unless their job includes making requests to you which you then approve/fulfill.
  – JAB
  17 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @JAB its a bit of both actually. Although I'm an admin on the system so do stuff like resetting passwords and unlocking accounts, when I'm training people the issue is usually the four-eyes process that we have to go through. No-one (not even a CIO) should be able to sign off on their own trades and every trade needs to be checked and verified but I always forget which tab I'm on (I log in once and they log in once in separate tabs). I've simplified somewhat but that's the crux of it.
  – MD-Tech
  16 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
5
down vote

One massive reason for disabling (with explanation) the button rather than hiding it which has not been mentioned explicitly is that an experienced user will at some point end up using an inexperienced user's account alongside them.

I commonly have a similar issue with a product we use internally that hides an admin button when being used by people with lower privileges. When training the new user or helping them complete their tasks I am sitting with them at their desk using their account and can't find the button to do what I need to. Having the button there but disabled would remind me that I'm using someone else's account who doesn't have access to the action that I want to complete so I need to log in as my own user to fix their issue.

You might say that this is a rather edge case but as people are being on-boarded and need training from and issues resolving by more experienced users the problems will escalate. It may seem like the experienced user should know that permissions are the problem but it is a very good idea to remind them!

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

MD-Tech

24113

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Why is there a button that would have functionality useful for the tasks of those with lesser privileges that they do not have access to? Could you not provide a limited version of that functionality that still fits within the privileges they have to make their job more efficient?
  – JAB
  18 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @JAB I work in financial markets compliance, almost everything they would be able to do if they had any access to that functionality would make the firm liable for very large fines.
  – MD-Tech
  17 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So it's just a matter of administrative stuff on your end (granting permissions/setting up accounts and things) that you realize you have to set up for them as you work with them, not necessarily things that they themselves have to do? It just seems odd to have to switch over to your own account for that functionality while teaching them how they're supposed to do their own job, unless their job includes making requests to you which you then approve/fulfill.
  – JAB
  17 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @JAB its a bit of both actually. Although I'm an admin on the system so do stuff like resetting passwords and unlocking accounts, when I'm training people the issue is usually the four-eyes process that we have to go through. No-one (not even a CIO) should be able to sign off on their own trades and every trade needs to be checked and verified but I always forget which tab I'm on (I log in once and they log in once in separate tabs). I've simplified somewhat but that's the crux of it.
  – MD-Tech
  16 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
5
down vote

up vote
5
down vote

One massive reason for disabling (with explanation) the button rather than hiding it which has not been mentioned explicitly is that an experienced user will at some point end up using an inexperienced user's account alongside them.

I commonly have a similar issue with a product we use internally that hides an admin button when being used by people with lower privileges. When training the new user or helping them complete their tasks I am sitting with them at their desk using their account and can't find the button to do what I need to. Having the button there but disabled would remind me that I'm using someone else's account who doesn't have access to the action that I want to complete so I need to log in as my own user to fix their issue.

You might say that this is a rather edge case but as people are being on-boarded and need training from and issues resolving by more experienced users the problems will escalate. It may seem like the experienced user should know that permissions are the problem but it is a very good idea to remind them!

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

MD-Tech

24113

One massive reason for disabling (with explanation) the button rather than hiding it which has not been mentioned explicitly is that an experienced user will at some point end up using an inexperienced user's account alongside them.

I commonly have a similar issue with a product we use internally that hides an admin button when being used by people with lower privileges. When training the new user or helping them complete their tasks I am sitting with them at their desk using their account and can't find the button to do what I need to. Having the button there but disabled would remind me that I'm using someone else's account who doesn't have access to the action that I want to complete so I need to log in as my own user to fix their issue.

You might say that this is a rather edge case but as people are being on-boarded and need training from and issues resolving by more experienced users the problems will escalate. It may seem like the experienced user should know that permissions are the problem but it is a very good idea to remind them!

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

MD-Tech

24113

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

MD-Tech

24113

answered yesterday

MD-Tech

24113

answered yesterday

MD-Tech

24113

24113

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Why is there a button that would have functionality useful for the tasks of those with lesser privileges that they do not have access to? Could you not provide a limited version of that functionality that still fits within the privileges they have to make their job more efficient?
  – JAB
  18 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @JAB I work in financial markets compliance, almost everything they would be able to do if they had any access to that functionality would make the firm liable for very large fines.
  – MD-Tech
  17 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So it's just a matter of administrative stuff on your end (granting permissions/setting up accounts and things) that you realize you have to set up for them as you work with them, not necessarily things that they themselves have to do? It just seems odd to have to switch over to your own account for that functionality while teaching them how they're supposed to do their own job, unless their job includes making requests to you which you then approve/fulfill.
  – JAB
  17 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @JAB its a bit of both actually. Although I'm an admin on the system so do stuff like resetting passwords and unlocking accounts, when I'm training people the issue is usually the four-eyes process that we have to go through. No-one (not even a CIO) should be able to sign off on their own trades and every trade needs to be checked and verified but I always forget which tab I'm on (I log in once and they log in once in separate tabs). I've simplified somewhat but that's the crux of it.
  – MD-Tech
  16 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Why is there a button that would have functionality useful for the tasks of those with lesser privileges that they do not have access to? Could you not provide a limited version of that functionality that still fits within the privileges they have to make their job more efficient?
  – JAB
  18 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @JAB I work in financial markets compliance, almost everything they would be able to do if they had any access to that functionality would make the firm liable for very large fines.
  – MD-Tech
  17 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  So it's just a matter of administrative stuff on your end (granting permissions/setting up accounts and things) that you realize you have to set up for them as you work with them, not necessarily things that they themselves have to do? It just seems odd to have to switch over to your own account for that functionality while teaching them how they're supposed to do their own job, unless their job includes making requests to you which you then approve/fulfill.
  – JAB
  17 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @JAB its a bit of both actually. Although I'm an admin on the system so do stuff like resetting passwords and unlocking accounts, when I'm training people the issue is usually the four-eyes process that we have to go through. No-one (not even a CIO) should be able to sign off on their own trades and every trade needs to be checked and verified but I always forget which tab I'm on (I log in once and they log in once in separate tabs). I've simplified somewhat but that's the crux of it.
  – MD-Tech
  16 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

1

1

Why is there a button that would have functionality useful for the tasks of those with lesser privileges that they do not have access to? Could you not provide a limited version of that functionality that still fits within the privileges they have to make their job more efficient?
– JAB
18 hours ago

Why is there a button that would have functionality useful for the tasks of those with lesser privileges that they do not have access to? Could you not provide a limited version of that functionality that still fits within the privileges they have to make their job more efficient?
– JAB
18 hours ago

@JAB I work in financial markets compliance, almost everything they would be able to do if they had any access to that functionality would make the firm liable for very large fines.
– MD-Tech
17 hours ago

@JAB I work in financial markets compliance, almost everything they would be able to do if they had any access to that functionality would make the firm liable for very large fines.
– MD-Tech
17 hours ago

So it's just a matter of administrative stuff on your end (granting permissions/setting up accounts and things) that you realize you have to set up for them as you work with them, not necessarily things that they themselves have to do? It just seems odd to have to switch over to your own account for that functionality while teaching them how they're supposed to do their own job, unless their job includes making requests to you which you then approve/fulfill.
– JAB
17 hours ago

So it's just a matter of administrative stuff on your end (granting permissions/setting up accounts and things) that you realize you have to set up for them as you work with them, not necessarily things that they themselves have to do? It just seems odd to have to switch over to your own account for that functionality while teaching them how they're supposed to do their own job, unless their job includes making requests to you which you then approve/fulfill.
– JAB
17 hours ago

@JAB its a bit of both actually. Although I'm an admin on the system so do stuff like resetting passwords and unlocking accounts, when I'm training people the issue is usually the four-eyes process that we have to go through. No-one (not even a CIO) should be able to sign off on their own trades and every trade needs to be checked and verified but I always forget which tab I'm on (I log in once and they log in once in separate tabs). I've simplified somewhat but that's the crux of it.
– MD-Tech
16 hours ago

@JAB its a bit of both actually. Although I'm an admin on the system so do stuff like resetting passwords and unlocking accounts, when I'm training people the issue is usually the four-eyes process that we have to go through. No-one (not even a CIO) should be able to sign off on their own trades and every trade needs to be checked and verified but I always forget which tab I'm on (I log in once and they log in once in separate tabs). I've simplified somewhat but that's the crux of it.
– MD-Tech
16 hours ago

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

The main driving force should be user expectation.

If the button is about a functionality that a user might expect to have, it should be there and the disabled state make it clear that it is not available (a hover tooltip can explain why).

If, however, it is a functionality that the user with the reduced access rights would not expect to have or see (or maybe even doesn't realize exists), it should be hidden.

In both cases, you are doing a trade-off.

Showing the disabled button makes it clear that the functionality exists, but is disabled, but could confuse the user who is wondering why you are showing him something that he can't do - and in the case of permissions, is unlikely to ever be able to do, unlike something that is only unavailable for temporary reasons, like, say, a "next" button that becomes enabled once the current wizard page has been filled out. One more advantage of hiding is that the layout of the page is the same for everyone, aiding muscle memory for people who might switch between different accounts or permissions, if there is such a thing in your application. It also allows documentation or help pages to refer to buttons by their position, as the position is invariant.

Hiding the button keeps the interface clean and useful, showing only what is actually available. It prevents "why they show this?" and "what would it do?" wondering by the user. However, if it is functionality a user might except, it replaces it with a different kind of "where is this?" wondering.

share|improve this answer

answered 13 hours ago

Tom

1312

New contributor

Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 yes, it is all about managing user expectations, and unless you test (which you always should) then it is best to apply some common sense and allow for the greatest user needs (if it is sensible to do so).
  – Michael Lai♦
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

The main driving force should be user expectation.

If the button is about a functionality that a user might expect to have, it should be there and the disabled state make it clear that it is not available (a hover tooltip can explain why).

If, however, it is a functionality that the user with the reduced access rights would not expect to have or see (or maybe even doesn't realize exists), it should be hidden.

In both cases, you are doing a trade-off.

Showing the disabled button makes it clear that the functionality exists, but is disabled, but could confuse the user who is wondering why you are showing him something that he can't do - and in the case of permissions, is unlikely to ever be able to do, unlike something that is only unavailable for temporary reasons, like, say, a "next" button that becomes enabled once the current wizard page has been filled out. One more advantage of hiding is that the layout of the page is the same for everyone, aiding muscle memory for people who might switch between different accounts or permissions, if there is such a thing in your application. It also allows documentation or help pages to refer to buttons by their position, as the position is invariant.

Hiding the button keeps the interface clean and useful, showing only what is actually available. It prevents "why they show this?" and "what would it do?" wondering by the user. However, if it is functionality a user might except, it replaces it with a different kind of "where is this?" wondering.

share|improve this answer

answered 13 hours ago

Tom

1312

New contributor

Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 yes, it is all about managing user expectations, and unless you test (which you always should) then it is best to apply some common sense and allow for the greatest user needs (if it is sensible to do so).
  – Michael Lai♦
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
3
down vote

up vote
3
down vote

The main driving force should be user expectation.

If the button is about a functionality that a user might expect to have, it should be there and the disabled state make it clear that it is not available (a hover tooltip can explain why).

If, however, it is a functionality that the user with the reduced access rights would not expect to have or see (or maybe even doesn't realize exists), it should be hidden.

In both cases, you are doing a trade-off.

Showing the disabled button makes it clear that the functionality exists, but is disabled, but could confuse the user who is wondering why you are showing him something that he can't do - and in the case of permissions, is unlikely to ever be able to do, unlike something that is only unavailable for temporary reasons, like, say, a "next" button that becomes enabled once the current wizard page has been filled out. One more advantage of hiding is that the layout of the page is the same for everyone, aiding muscle memory for people who might switch between different accounts or permissions, if there is such a thing in your application. It also allows documentation or help pages to refer to buttons by their position, as the position is invariant.

Hiding the button keeps the interface clean and useful, showing only what is actually available. It prevents "why they show this?" and "what would it do?" wondering by the user. However, if it is functionality a user might except, it replaces it with a different kind of "where is this?" wondering.

share|improve this answer

answered 13 hours ago

Tom

1312

New contributor

Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

The main driving force should be user expectation.

If the button is about a functionality that a user might expect to have, it should be there and the disabled state make it clear that it is not available (a hover tooltip can explain why).

If, however, it is a functionality that the user with the reduced access rights would not expect to have or see (or maybe even doesn't realize exists), it should be hidden.

In both cases, you are doing a trade-off.

Showing the disabled button makes it clear that the functionality exists, but is disabled, but could confuse the user who is wondering why you are showing him something that he can't do - and in the case of permissions, is unlikely to ever be able to do, unlike something that is only unavailable for temporary reasons, like, say, a "next" button that becomes enabled once the current wizard page has been filled out. One more advantage of hiding is that the layout of the page is the same for everyone, aiding muscle memory for people who might switch between different accounts or permissions, if there is such a thing in your application. It also allows documentation or help pages to refer to buttons by their position, as the position is invariant.

Hiding the button keeps the interface clean and useful, showing only what is actually available. It prevents "why they show this?" and "what would it do?" wondering by the user. However, if it is functionality a user might except, it replaces it with a different kind of "where is this?" wondering.

share|improve this answer

answered 13 hours ago

Tom

1312

New contributor

Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered 13 hours ago

Tom

1312

New contributor

Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

answered 13 hours ago

Tom

1312

answered 13 hours ago

Tom

1312

1312

New contributor

Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

New contributor

Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 yes, it is all about managing user expectations, and unless you test (which you always should) then it is best to apply some common sense and allow for the greatest user needs (if it is sensible to do so).
  – Michael Lai♦
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 yes, it is all about managing user expectations, and unless you test (which you always should) then it is best to apply some common sense and allow for the greatest user needs (if it is sensible to do so).
  – Michael Lai♦
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

+1 yes, it is all about managing user expectations, and unless you test (which you always should) then it is best to apply some common sense and allow for the greatest user needs (if it is sensible to do so).
– Michael Lai♦
2 hours ago

+1 yes, it is all about managing user expectations, and unless you test (which you always should) then it is best to apply some common sense and allow for the greatest user needs (if it is sensible to do so).
– Michael Lai♦
2 hours ago

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

StackExchange shows buttons even when the user cannot take that action, and shows an advice if the user lacks the privilege to use it. In this case, the button is neither disabled nor hidden. There is, however, a motivation for SE users to gain reputation and enable buttons so it makes sense to dangle a "this is what you could win" prize in front of them and then tell them what they need to do to get it.. I guess you need to decide if such a behaviour suits you.

Also, perhaps this button can be purposed differently according to permissions, so that it's always usable. Restricted users can only [Close]. Advanced users can [Save and Close]..

share|improve this answer

answered 10 hours ago

Caius Jard

1212

New contributor

Caius Jard is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This is not strictly true. For example, I can't comment on a post if I haven't joined a site yet or I don't have enough reputation points.
  – user128216
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 good answer although it is always good to consider both examples that apply this design pattern and those that don't just to understand when it is appropriate to 'break' the rules too :)
  – Michael Lai♦
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

StackExchange shows buttons even when the user cannot take that action, and shows an advice if the user lacks the privilege to use it. In this case, the button is neither disabled nor hidden. There is, however, a motivation for SE users to gain reputation and enable buttons so it makes sense to dangle a "this is what you could win" prize in front of them and then tell them what they need to do to get it.. I guess you need to decide if such a behaviour suits you.

Also, perhaps this button can be purposed differently according to permissions, so that it's always usable. Restricted users can only [Close]. Advanced users can [Save and Close]..

share|improve this answer

answered 10 hours ago

Caius Jard

1212

New contributor

Caius Jard is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This is not strictly true. For example, I can't comment on a post if I haven't joined a site yet or I don't have enough reputation points.
  – user128216
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 good answer although it is always good to consider both examples that apply this design pattern and those that don't just to understand when it is appropriate to 'break' the rules too :)
  – Michael Lai♦
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
2
down vote

up vote
2
down vote

StackExchange shows buttons even when the user cannot take that action, and shows an advice if the user lacks the privilege to use it. In this case, the button is neither disabled nor hidden. There is, however, a motivation for SE users to gain reputation and enable buttons so it makes sense to dangle a "this is what you could win" prize in front of them and then tell them what they need to do to get it.. I guess you need to decide if such a behaviour suits you.

Also, perhaps this button can be purposed differently according to permissions, so that it's always usable. Restricted users can only [Close]. Advanced users can [Save and Close]..

share|improve this answer

answered 10 hours ago

Caius Jard

1212

New contributor

Caius Jard is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

StackExchange shows buttons even when the user cannot take that action, and shows an advice if the user lacks the privilege to use it. In this case, the button is neither disabled nor hidden. There is, however, a motivation for SE users to gain reputation and enable buttons so it makes sense to dangle a "this is what you could win" prize in front of them and then tell them what they need to do to get it.. I guess you need to decide if such a behaviour suits you.

Also, perhaps this button can be purposed differently according to permissions, so that it's always usable. Restricted users can only [Close]. Advanced users can [Save and Close]..

share|improve this answer

answered 10 hours ago

Caius Jard

1212

New contributor

Caius Jard is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

answered 10 hours ago

Caius Jard

1212

New contributor

Caius Jard is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

answered 10 hours ago

Caius Jard

1212

answered 10 hours ago

Caius Jard

1212

1212

New contributor

Caius Jard is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

New contributor

Caius Jard is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

Caius Jard is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This is not strictly true. For example, I can't comment on a post if I haven't joined a site yet or I don't have enough reputation points.
  – user128216
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 good answer although it is always good to consider both examples that apply this design pattern and those that don't just to understand when it is appropriate to 'break' the rules too :)
  – Michael Lai♦
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This is not strictly true. For example, I can't comment on a post if I haven't joined a site yet or I don't have enough reputation points.
  – user128216
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  +1 good answer although it is always good to consider both examples that apply this design pattern and those that don't just to understand when it is appropriate to 'break' the rules too :)
  – Michael Lai♦
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

This is not strictly true. For example, I can't comment on a post if I haven't joined a site yet or I don't have enough reputation points.
– user128216
7 hours ago

This is not strictly true. For example, I can't comment on a post if I haven't joined a site yet or I don't have enough reputation points.
– user128216
7 hours ago

+1 good answer although it is always good to consider both examples that apply this design pattern and those that don't just to understand when it is appropriate to 'break' the rules too :)
– Michael Lai♦
2 hours ago

+1 good answer although it is always good to consider both examples that apply this design pattern and those that don't just to understand when it is appropriate to 'break' the rules too :)
– Michael Lai♦
2 hours ago

add a comment | 

Ana Kash is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Ana Kash is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

Ana Kash is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

Ana Kash is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

 

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fux.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f120848%2fshould-i-have-a-disabled-button-or-no-button-at-all-if-the-user-doesnt-have-su%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name Email

Name Email

Name

Email

Name Email

Name

Email