Toggle Buttons "Turn On" vs "Enable" For about a year now, we've used toggle buttons on a couple of segments of our site. We try to be very consistent in our user interfaces, always using the same blue button styles for every clickable button.    However, I've become paranoid of the intuitiveness of this button, realizing that there are two possible trains of thought.     "On is highlighted so it must be turned on"   Which is the default expectation.     "On is clickable, which means I must click it to turn it on"   A fair thought, because to perform an action, one usually clicks a blue button labeled with the action they'll be performing.    This lead to a concept, which addressed by two primary concerns. It removed the fact that the both states had the appearance of buttons, and made the blue button consistent with all our other uses.    It was then suggested to me that "On" and "Off" are more likely to make sense from a non-technical user standpoint. However to label "Off" does not describe an action, making me think it should be prefixed as "Turn Off" and "Turn On" respectively. That is, until I realized the negative connotations to those phrases.    So my question comes down to, what should I put on the button and it's counterpart?   Am I going backwards with this entire thought process by deviating from what is becoming a standard with On/Off toggles?    Update:  Based on the chosen answer bellow, plus a large number of iterations, the following is what I settled on for this use case.     It maintained consistency with other action buttons. Color identification on the state helps quickly determine the status. Strong (active) wording "Running" and "Not Running" help people understand this is the current state over "Enabled" "Disabled" in our testing. Being verbose and explicit on the action button was necessary, some people still assumed "Disable Cron" on a button meant that cron was disabled, even when it said "Running" in green lettering next to it.
Should a toggle button show its current state or the state to which it will change? I have a quick question about buttons that toggle between two states. (Think Play/Pause, or Shuffle/Regular Play.) As the title says, should the toggle show it's current state or the state to which it will transition?  I think people are used to the Play/Pause convention. But the Shuffle/Regular play might be more confusing if you show the transition state instead of current. For example, the built-in music player on the Xbox 360 does it this way: when it's in shuffle mode, it shows the icon for direct play and vice versa and it always confuses me (am I in shuffle mode or straight play).  I see it this way: Play/Pause is more like action as in begin playing or pause playing. Yes behind the scenes it is a state transition but to the user, there is an action. Whereas Shuffle/Straight Play is an option and it's best to show the current state (and possibly have only one icon and change button to show that the option is enabled/disabled). Thoughts?
Does Gentle Repose work on a Circle of Spore Druid's Fungal Infestation Ability? The Circle of Spores Druid feature Fungal Infestation states:  If a beast or humanoid that is Small or Medium dies within 10 feet of you, you can use your reaction to animate it, causing it to stand up immediately with 1 hit point. The creature uses the zombie statistics. It remains animate for 1 hour, after which time it collapses and dies.  Circle of Spore druids also gain access to the  spell, which states:  You touch a corpse or other remains. For the duration, the target is protected from decay and can’t become undead. The spell also effectively extends the time limit on raising the target from the dead, since days spent under the influence of this spell don’t count against the time limit of spells such as raise dead.  There seem to be some good arguments that they cannot work together:  First, Gentle Repose states the target cannot become undead, which would seem to preclude Gentle Repose working on a fungally infested creature that appears to be in some sense raised from the dead. Second, gentle repose states you touch a corpse or other remains - one could argue that using the zombie statistics, the fungally infested entity is neither a corpse or remains, but an undead zombie.  However, there are also some reasonable arguments that they could work together:  First, the Fungal Infestation does not say that the creature is undead or a zombie, but that it uses the statistics of a zombie, which might leave room for a RAW interpretation that the features could work together (for example, it could be considered a fungally infested corpse or fungally raised remains). Second, Gentle Repose says that it extends the time limit of raising the target from the dead and makes reference to spells like Raise Dead, which in flavour are similar to what happens with Fungal Infestation.  RAW, can a player cast gentle repose on a zombie created by Fungal Infestation? Representation of electromagnetic wave? How can I create a video file from a set of jpg images? has been solved, in XeTeX, by this code:  \def\kright#1{\leavevmode #1\kern-\XeTeXglyphbounds3 \the\XeTeXcharglyph`#1 } \def\kleft#1{\leavevmode \kern-\XeTeXglyphbounds1 \the\XeTeXcharglyph`#1 #1}   which allows me to align text more precisely to the ink by accessing the side-bearing measurements (\XeTeXglyphbounds1 and 3).  This XeTeX dependency is currently the only thing stopping me from moving to LuaTeX (mainly for microtype). Is an equivalent function available in LuaTeX, or planned?    After reading a bit more on microtype, could the equivalent effect be achieved by an appropriately-tailored set of character protrusions? That way, my move to LuaTeX might be a lot simpler. Are there Ubuntu security notices feeds for specific releases How many ways can $133$ be written as sum of only $1s$ and $2s$ Since last week I have been working on a way, how to sum $1$ and $2$ to have $133$.  So for instance we can have $133$ $1s$ or $61$ $s$2 and one and so on. Looking back to the example: if we sum: $1 + 1... + 1 = 133$ there is only one way. But for the second one there will be $131$ possible ways. And I have to do this for every possible combination. I am stuck with it and I have no idea whatsoever on how to begin.  Any ideas or methods I could use guys? Why did Dumbledore make it less difficult to get to the Sorcerer's Stone? The Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone was removed from Gringotts to be placed under the most impenetrable of protections at Hogwarts under Dumbledore's custody. But it seems clear Dumbledore took protections which could have been impenetrable, and deliberately made them less so, such that at best they would only slightly slow down anybody trying to access the Stone, rather than just plain block them.  For example, after the Devil's Snare, you have a locked door enchanted such that it cannot be opened by any charm or other means except its own assigned key. That's a great protection, potentially an impassable barrier if the key is not available.  But the key is then left right there in front of the door in the same room.  At least the key is flying around the ceiling. But there are broomsticks right there in the same room, too.  The room with the fires front and back—that could also have been a solid defense—deadly fires that cannot be passed through unless you drink very specific potions tailored to each particular fire's properties.  Except that those potions providing safety are put right there in the same room.  At least, perhaps, they're surrounded by other bottles, some of which contain poison. With no way to know which bottle is safe, that could still almost be a solid protection.  Except that a piece of paper with a logic puzzle detailing exactly which bottles are which is put on the table with them.  Dumbledore always had reasons, and those reasons were always virtuous. What was he up to, deliberately weakening the protections in this way? I am running Wireshark on my linux machine and i have simple python web server running on localhost:8080  I am capturing only local port 8080. When i open browser on localhost:8080 wireshark captures huge amount of tcp communication (as page loads with all resources) but there`s no HTTP only TCP...   Why i cannot capture HTTP on custom port ? Newton's third law does not apply to the kinetic energy formula? Here is a classic problem:     A 60kg boy and a 40kg girl are sitting in front of each other on skateboards on a frictionless horizontal surface. The boy pushes the girl and the girl gains a velocity of 0.3m/s during the 0.5s the boys hand was in contact with her. What is the boy's resulting velocity?   Considering Newton's Third Law, the best way is to find the total force applied and rearrange the formula to find the boy's speed.  Newton's Law Method:  $F = m*a$  $a=\frac{0.3m/s}{0.5s}$  $F = 40kg * 0.6m/s^2$  $F = 24N$  Therefore the boy's speed will be:   $\frac{24N}{60kg} = a$  $a = 0.4m/s^2$  $v = 0.4m/s^2 * 0.5s$  $v = 0.2m/s$  Kinetic Energy Method:  $E_{k}=\frac{1}{2}*m*v^2$ the girl's kinetic energy  $E_{k}=\frac{1}{2}*40kg*(0.3m/s)^2$  $E_{k}=1.8J$  Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction the boy should have the same amount of kinetic energy.  $E_{k}=\frac{1}{2}*60kg*(0.2m/s)^2$  $E_{k}=1.2J$  As you can see, using Newton's Third Law, the kinetic energy was not the same. So what's going on here? I thought that in this case they should both have the same amount of kinetic energy due to Newton's Law. I must be missing something since there is more energy going in one direction than the other after meeting. My book used the first method as the answer and, well, it feels wrong. If a function returns no value, with a valid return type, is it okay to for the compiler to return garbage? Atiyah-Macdonald, Exercise 5.4 I was having some trouble with the following exercise from Atiyah-Macdonald.     Let $A$ be a subring of $B$ such that $B$ is integral over $A$. Let $\mathfrak{n}$ be a maximal ideal of $B$ and let $\mathfrak{m}=\mathfrak{n} \cap A$ be the corresponding maximal ideal of $A$. Is $B_{\mathfrak{n}}$ integral over $A_{\mathfrak{m}}$?   The book gives a hint which serves as a counter-example. Consider the subring $k[x^{2}-1]$ of $k[x]$ where $k$ is a field, and let $\mathfrak{n}=(x-1)$. I am trying to show that $1/(x+1)$ could not be integral over $k[x^{2}-1]_{\mathfrak{n}^{c}}$.  I have understood why this situation serves as a counterexample. But I am essentially stuck at trying to draw a contradiction. A hint or any help would be great. How to model the curly cable part of the phone Hello. I am a beginner in Blender. I started modeling this phone and when I got to the curly cable part it was a real challenge. Could someone guide me on this. Find all integer solutions to $x^2+y^2+z^2=2xyz$ I would like to know the best way to write test methods for controller extension classes that are used by Visualforce.  What is the minimum set code that I need to cover the basic operation of the controller without taking into account any custom functionality that I might add.  Here is my example class with the test method ready to be completed.  public with sharing class myExtension{      private final Account acct;      public myExtension(ApexPages.StandardController stdController){         this.acct = (Account)stdController.getRecord();     }      public static testMethod void testmyExtension(){      } } Detecting and acting on keyboard direction keys in Java How do I tell if a regular file does not exist in Bash? group of units in a topological ring What application launchers are available for Ubuntu? How are ssl certificates verified? What is the series of steps needed to securely verify a ssl certificate?  My (very limited) understanding is that when you visit an https site, the server sends a certificate to the client (the browser) and the browser gets the certificate's issuer information from that certificate, then uses that to contact the issuerer, and somehow compares certificates for validity.     How exactly is this done?  What about the process makes it immune to man-in-the-middle attacks? What prevents some random person from setting up their own verification service to use in man-in-the-middle attacks, so everything "looks" secure? using a class defined in a c++ dll in c# code I have a dll that was written in c++, I need to use this dll in my c# code. After searching I found that using P/Invoke would give me access to the function I need, but these functions are defined with in a class and use non-static private member variables. So I need to be able to create an instance of this class to properly use the functions. How can I gain access to this class so that I can create an instance? I have been unable to find a way to do this.   I guess I should note that the c++ dll is not my code.