Consistency of single-select and multi-select dropdown menus

I’ve been quiet too long about this… that’s it, I’ve cracked! :sweat_smile:

Call me a nerd :nerd_face: and a consistency freak but is there a reason why the dropdown sizes of a single-select and multi-select fields are different? It would warm my heart to see these equally visually presented, both in length and width. :heart:

Single-select field options show 9 visible options within a scrollable container:

Multi-select field options show about 4 and half visible options in a shorter and much wider scrollable container:

Cc @lpb @Jan-Rienk

1 Like

Also, why not include a radio button for single select where a checkbox is for multi-select?

I believe that is the standard.

Glad you brought it up, @Richard_Sather!

The width difference makes total sense to me; the multi-select needs a wider control as it needs to be able to display multiple selections within it, unlike the single-select.

The height difference makes no sense! The multi-select should be the same longer height as the single-select, for sure.

Actually that wouldn’t be standard; a dropdown list and a list of items with radio buttons are two distinct and mutually-exclusive ways to implement a selection of a single item from a set of items.


Well, I would challenge the ‘width’ because we still have the same space on the left which is either for the :heavy_check_mark: in the single-select or the :ballot_box_with_check: in the multi-select, right? So why the extra width on the right of the multi-select :person_shrugging:

I didn’t follow your point about the left-hand side - I’m not following why that’s relevant - but the reason the multi-select should be wider is if it were the same width as the single-select then this:


would instead look something like this, offering much less room to conveniently view and manage one’s choices:

Yup, I see your point now!

I misinterpreted that you were referring to the space on the left (that multi-select needs more over single-select, for some reason)

1 Like

I concur with all of @Phil_Seeman’s points. Not all of @Richard_Sather’s architecture background necessarily applies here!!


:laughing: :rofl:

1 Like