View Issue Details
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|07367||Feature requests||Survey editing||public||2009-11-11 12:51||2022-01-11 15:21|
|Summary||07367: "Other answer" at a certain position in the list|
|Description||If you have "No answer" globally deactivated, you sometimes add an item "No answer" by hand to certain questions.|
If you then want to use "other answer", the position of "other answer" is below "No answer".
So it would be a common feature to allow "Other answer" at a certain position in the list.
The most flexible way, would be to allow a "Other answer" field behind every item in the list.
|Additional Information||A possible solution: Checkboxes behind the item list|
First idea would be to set position via checkboxes behind the item list, which would mean that the other box is displayed below this item.
The idea to allow to display a "other answers" behind every item would need additional fields beside the checkboxes.
|Tags||No tags attached.|
Alternative solution: Make the global 'No answer' option question-specific
I guess the better change would be to make the global 'no answer' option available per question. That way you can use it when you need it. This new option should only by available if question is set to be not mandatory.
Think the survey designer can take care if the "no answer" option should be used in a mandatory question. And why should the option only be shown if the question is "not mandatory"? If the question is not mandatory most survey designer wouldn't want a dedicated "no answer" option.
The multioption list question has the option for other answer / additional comment behind every single item. Wordaround is to hide certain fields via CSS to get the fields only behind certain fields. Something for radiooption list is missing. But I think that might a third solution.
A few years have passed. The feature request to allow a free text field behind certain items still stands. To allow a activation per question is ok for the automatic OtherField, but not for the item specific fields.
If you want a other field behind two items of e.g. 5 items radion button question you need to do a workaround with a few extra questions.
Perhaps consider a free format question where a few questions types could be mixed into a certain layout to mimic certain questiontypes.
Putting "None of the Above" last on a list (even after 'Other')
Was there any reason to do it that way? Other after No answer seems to be a bad idea.
If certain fields could be excluded from randomization, it would be possible to add a None of the above/No answer as an item per hand.
|In the light of 2.06 and 3.0 defining the scope what about a 'No answer' option question-specific and more that one other field in questions?|
I second this. It would be great if we could have a little more flexibility with the "other" boxes.
Ideally, there is a tick box for any answer option that will allow to display a comment field for any of the answer items, no matter were the item is positioned, 1st position, last, middle.
Often you need even more than one "other" comment box, because there might be different "others".
Since the Limesurvey developers are pretty overworked, let's start small and split this up into several issues we can implement step by step:
1. Allow the user to place the "other" options at a certain position.
2. Allowing several "other" fields:
a) For the multiple choice question this is pretty easy by using "multiple choice with comments" question type" and allowing the user to just not display the text field for certain items.
b) For the list radio question this probably means adjusting the whole question type with all side effects like adjusting
- exporting results
- importing results (VV import)
- exporting surveys/groups/questions
- importing surveys/groups/questions
So let's start with #1, then work on #2a and put 2b on the list for 2022 :-)
|For all those who want to place the "other" option at a certain position, check: http://www.limesurvey-consulting.com/how-to-re-order-the-other-option-at-a-limesurvey-survey/|
The whole Issue Community Support Voting isn't working.
c_schmitz is rejecting this feature request. Is the idea or the implementation?
That's the problem when moving the feature requests to this tool in the beginning.
A discussion thread for every feature request to define a feature request with implementation path seems to be needed to allow a voting here.
Need this feature:
The GUI should provide a other field drop-down box behind every answer-item.
Via the drop-downfield you can define what kind of other field should be used.
One line, multiple lines, numbers, numbers (integer), date, time.
See the attached screenshot for real life example.
|Seems related (but not totally) with https://framagit.org/SondagePro-LimeSurvey-plugin/moveSomeAnswers/blob/master/README.md|
|I preder a more global solution : https://bugs.limesurvey.org/view.php?id=11988|
|PS : the screenshot show more a 'List of updatable question type' : i really think it's a must have too.|
I had widen the scope of my feature request. Position of other field and more than one other field. I will follow your global solution for positioning.
|I prefer to be able to chose the position in the list for other. Sometimes there are 2 options I want below it (not relevant to me, Don't know), or even 3.|
"Allow the user to place the "other" options at a certain position"
I think this is still highly relevant and it would be a nice feature to add this. For exmaple, consider a muliple choice question, where you have different "Yes" answers that add some explanation, e.g.
Are you planning to provide some information about the results of your project?
Yes, on the project website
Yes, on public events
Yes, and that is: ________ [other option]
Sometimes you want to give the option to add something in case there is no suitable answer provided in the list. It is just easier and more convenient from my point of view to have an option to fill in the answer directly (instad of adding another list type question or text type question afterwards). And it certainly looks a bit weird if you place the "No" option before the "other" option in that example, and that is how it would look like if you wanted to implement this question in LimeSurvey right now.
|For Limesurvey 3 there is a plugin available to position the "other" free text field anywhere: https://survey-consulting.com/product/limesurvey-plugin-change-other-position|
This discussion links to the one about the other specify not working as it should over here: https://bugs.limesurvey.org/view.php?id=16157#c60756
Until this issue is fixed there is a rather elegant work-around which re-positions a short text question into the required comment box location: https://forums.limesurvey.org/forum/can-i-do-this-with-limesurvey/122927-multiple-response-other-that-can-be-ticked
Put other further up the list.txt (1,035 bytes)
Put other further up the list.txt (1,035 bytes)
This feature request is 11 years old. I would expect that a feature request is confirmed or denied. If it is confirmed, what does 11 years tell us?
Nobody needs this features? So why not just close all old features requests?
LimeSurvey is more like an survey framework for developers (which like workarounds, plugins, tweaking code) than an survey tool for end users.
If you invest in LimeSurvey and workarounds, you can lose everything in the next version of LimeSurvey. The amount of dependencies for a "simple" survey can become pretty high.
That are hidden costs which other SaaS solutions don't have. I wonder how that will work in the SaaS market in the next years and what user problems LimeSurvey wants to solve.
|12 Years have passed. How much time does it take to make a singlechoice question with four options and different other fields behind these options? This one took me 15 seconds in a different SaaS tool. No workarounds, No added scripts. No plugins. Just one interface with four clicks. Just as an inspiration for GUI and workflow.|
|@jelo, which tool is that?|
Our suggested approach:
Add new question setting: Other Position.
Dropdown. With the following options:
- At begining
- Before No Answer (show or not, according to question being mandatory and/or the global "no answer" setting)
- At end
After <answer option 1>
After <answer option 2>
Problems / Questions:
1) Should this be a general option or an advanced option?
If "General" we should add a column to the question table, which doesn't sound great to me.
2) When renedering the drodpown we should keep it in sync with the answer options section (which is now in the same screen). Also with the mandatory setting.
Alternative approaches? Thoughts?
For only «07367: "Other answer" at a certain position in the list»: QuestionTheme can do it
With 2 settings:
- a select with Begining/Before No Answer /At end/ After "Answercode"
- a string for answercode
|Yep, could work!|
Why don't we just give the option with a tick box to add the "other"-field to ANY of the answers in a multiple or single choice question? Sometimes you want more than one other field. Let's make Limesurvey as flexible as possible. Why offering this option and the next feature request is: have more than one "other" field?
Just something like: "enable other" behind each answer option / subquestion?
Well, that would require much more effort.
That's why could be better to leave it on separate requests as to prioritize them as needed.
Yeah, but why don't we do it right at the first place, than to fix a little bit just to wait another 15 years until we get more than one "other"-option in a question?
I mean, yes, having flexibility in the positioning would be already good, but we all know how it goes with features in Limesurvey. ;-)
And I don't think prioritizing best on effort needed is not always the best approach. Right now something will be implemented, that isn't needed anymore, when we have an "enable other" option for any answer option / subquestion. So while implementing this now would be quicker, it is useless once we implement what people really want. Just saying.
In total, this might be more work at the end. Now, if you give me these two options:
1. Have this now and "enable other" in 10 years or
2. Not having anything now and "enable other" in 5 years,
Then definitely 1, please. ;-)
@holch : title is «07367: "Other answer" at a certain position in the list»
It's not : Allow multiple other :) or add any question between each choice (07367:67559 )
Other answer position : no DB update in Question system : only view (then it's QuestionTheme in my optionion)
Multiple other : need to create a DB column for each other ? Then : need to name it other1 other2 other2 ?
|@Denis and @Gabriel: I totally understand. But I am wondering if it is really worth implementing this feature if we can basically solve more problems with the other approach. I admit, I am no expert on how much work this means more, I am coming from a user perspective and a usability perspective. I simply find the 'multiple other" approach the most flexible one and also the most userfriendly one. Just a click behind the answer option / subquestion and you have an other option where ever you want. I know this might have some impact on database design, etc., but I am just bringing the user perspective into this, because I feel that Limesurvey in general is a little too "developer driven". I can accept if at the end it is decided to go for the option that might not be ideal, but easier to implement, but I still think it is important to discuss this before and way the different arguments. At the end of the day, I know that the word of the developer will always way more, but I want to bring the user point of view to the attention at least.|
|Can't edit my answer, but "way" == "weigh". ;-)|
|@holch: The solution is simple: Create a bugreport "Fix the crappy database structure to allow features like relevance equations on single-choice-questions and other fields behind every answer item" ;-) Will allow allow a lot of old feature requests to be finished.|
I think i already ask for a real QuestionSystem where DATABASE structure are inside the QuestionSystem ;)
My opinion are more : the only way to get real evolution like 07367:67559 are to create "'Extension" system.
@holch : you ask for multiple other option, but , why stop at this step ?
1. Other type (date/number/list of choice)
2. Multiple other by option : one date and long text (it's not in @jelo screenshot)
3. etc …
If you start with one you can broke other's …
For example : maybe best is to have 2 settings for all question : "Use this question as other for Question code" with "answer code"
The question is always «Where to stop» …
My opinion : don't stop, offer condition where other dev can offer great system. Where you can offer :
1. Big LimeSurvey with a lot of QuestionType but complex to use
2. Medium LimeSurvey with some question type
3. Light LimeSurvey easy to understand and use.
Currently : there are no clean way for QuestionTheme and SurveyTheme to have translation. It must be fixed before another things. SurveyTheme can not add attribute (CSS Class is clearly a SurveyTheme related question attribute) etc …
The whole feature request thing is a waste of time if you don't know what the mission of LimeSurvey is.
@DenisChenu: Currently, the development stops when the technical debt sets in.
The litmus test is very simple. Relevance equations were added to multiple-choice questions, but not to single choice questions.
The reason is technical debt.
Take it, change it or leave it is the current status. Which is totally fine. But for a SaaS offer it's will limit the userbase to a certain level of willingness to pay. 5 minutes for an untrained user vs. 5 hours reading posts and modifying workarounds is a simple business case if you can choose between solutions. The students which are forced to use LimeSurvey will stay. The OnPremise business case will stay valid too.
I wonder if the main milestone is still the WYSIWYG edit feature. A good example for a WYSIWYG UX is Surveyking.
|2013-08-30 13:09||jelo||Note Added: 26113|
|2013-08-30 14:22||mfaber||Issue Monitored: mfaber|
|2014-12-05 16:17||jelo||Note Added: 31183|
|2015-06-16 00:42||jelo||Note Added: 32375|
|2015-08-11 17:40||holch||Note Added: 32901|
|2015-08-14 10:58||Mazi||Note Added: 32955|
|2016-04-05 08:59||Mazi||Note Added: 36999|
|2016-04-06 13:12||jelo||Note Added: 37039|
|2016-04-13 20:34||trivender||Note Added: 37357|
|2016-09-25 22:41||jelo||File Added: otherfields.editor.JPG|
|2016-09-25 22:41||jelo||Note Added: 40951|
||Assigned To||=> LouisGac|
||Status||acknowledged => assigned|
|2016-12-02 11:14||DenisChenu||Note Added: 42314|
|2016-12-07 15:16||DenisChenu||Note Added: 42446|
|2016-12-07 15:22||DenisChenu||Note Added: 42447|
|2016-12-07 16:05||jelo||Note Added: 42453|
|2016-12-08 08:50||DenisChenu||Relationship added||related to 11988|
|2019-08-06 01:58||tixeon||Note Added: 53118|
|2019-08-06 01:58||tixeon||Issue Monitored: tixeon|
|2019-11-01 17:25||c_schmitz||Category||Survey design => Survey editing|
|2020-12-04 16:30||joka77||Note Added: 60840|
|2020-12-04 17:33||Mazi||Note Added: 60841|
|2020-12-04 22:37||tixeon||Note Added: 60842|
|2020-12-04 22:37||tixeon||File Added: Put other further up the list.txt|
|2020-12-05 11:53||jelo||Note Added: 60843|
|2021-11-25 10:22||galads||Additional Information Updated||View Revisions|
|2021-11-25 10:22||galads||Assigned To||LouisGac => galads|
|2021-11-25 10:39||jelo||Note Added: 67559|
|2021-11-25 10:39||jelo||File Added: image.png|
|2021-11-25 10:39||jelo||File Added: image-2.png|
|2021-11-25 12:02||Mazi||Note Added: 67568|
|2021-12-01 03:06||jelo||Note Added: 67613|
|2021-12-22 18:30||gabrieljenik||Note Added: 67847|
|2021-12-22 18:30||gabrieljenik||Bug heat||20 => 22|
|2021-12-22 18:35||DenisChenu||Note Added: 67848|
|2021-12-22 18:38||gabrieljenik||Note Added: 67849|
|2021-12-22 18:50||holch||Note Added: 67850|
|2021-12-22 18:54||gabrieljenik||Note Added: 67851|
|2021-12-22 19:04||holch||Note Added: 67852|
|2021-12-22 19:04||DenisChenu||Note Added: 67853|
|2021-12-22 19:19||holch||Note Added: 67854|
|2021-12-22 19:49||holch||Note Added: 67855|
|2021-12-22 21:03||jelo||Note Added: 67856|
|2021-12-23 08:56||DenisChenu||Note Added: 67857|
|2021-12-23 11:21||jelo||Note Added: 67858|
|2021-12-23 11:21||jelo||File Added: image-3.png|
|2022-01-11 15:21||galads||Status||assigned => review|