3 ms·

> i.e. doesn't need to morph into a different and back again The UX terminology for what you're describing is a modal interface: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

> i.e. doesn't need to morph into a different and back again The UX terminology for what you're describing is a modal interface: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(user_interface) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(user_interface) ... which is to say, an interface that works differently depending on what "mode" the interface is in. A classic example of a modal interface is vi/vim, where you have to explicitly switch into "editing" mode in order to actually insert text into the document. And a classic demonstration of why modal interfaces are undesirable can be produced simply by taking someone who's never used vi/vim before, sitting them down in front of it, and telling them to enter a line of text. They will start typing, and immediately become confused when the words they typed don't actually show up anywhere. (Or worse, when they happen to have typed a keystroke that corresponds to a vi command and weird stuff they didn't expect starts happening.) As you note, modal interfaces are particularly bad in situations where the user needs to operate the system under pressure -- such as (say) on a warship, where the life of the operator may literally depend on them being able to accomplish tasks quickly and accurately. Modal interfaces force the operator to first orient themselves as to what mode the system is currently in before they can do anything, which slows down even experienced operators, and pull away attention that could otherwise be applied elsewhere. What does all that have to do with touchscreens? Because how a touchscreen operates can be modified with only some programming, they tend to lure developers into building modal interfaces in an effort to cram as many features into them as possible. From a feature-checklist perspective that's great, but from a usability perspective it's a disaster. Anyone who's experienced a modern car infotainment system will understand why -- paging through menu screens to find the one mode with the feature you want while piloting a two-ton hunk of metal at 75mph is a bad combination.

bagacrap 7y ago
I don't think you can call modal interfaces inherently bad. I suppose Gmail is a modal interface because if you pull it up and start typing you'll be issuing commands instead of composing an email, until you enter "composition" mode. But what is the alternative? Have every button on the keyboard do the exact same thing regardless of what application or part of an application is currently in use? It's fine if you don't like vim but you don't have to pitch it as an objective universal truth that emacs > vim.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  I didn't say anything about emacs. emacs has plenty of problems of its own. > But what is the alternative? It takes some outside-the-box thinking. Here's an article by Larry Tesler, of Xerox PARC and original-Macintosh-team fame, on how his desire to build a modeless text editor led to the invention of copy-and-paste: http://worrydream.com/refs/Tesler%20-%20A%20Personal%20History%20of%20Modeless%20Text%20Editing%20and%20Cut-Copy-Paste.pdf http://worrydream.com/refs/Tesler%20-%20A%20Personal%20Histo...
mietek 7y ago
Another classic example of a modal interface is the Photoshop toolbox, dating back to MacPaint. http://www.psd-dude.com/tutorials/resources-images/adobe-photoshop-25-years/history-of-photoshop-toolbox.jpg http://www.psd-dude.com/tutorials/resources-images/adobe-pho... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacPaint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacPaint It does not take much work for a Photoshop operator to orient themselves to the current mode, because it is communicated by a number of cues, including the shape of the mouse pointer. One problem with vi’s interface is that, in contrast to Photoshop, it’s not easy for a vi operator to discover the available modes. Are there any paint programs without a modal interface?
- mietek 7y ago
  Rehosted Photoshop toolbox image: https://i.imgur.com/oIKOOCC.jpg https://i.imgur.com/oIKOOCC.jpg
azernik 7y ago
Modal interfaces can work very well, if used wisely: - with experienced users, e.g. people who are used to vim - with a sharply limited number of modes, e.g. the three modes that vim has It's just really easy to get carried away when you have the enormous number of combinations that touchscreens allow.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  The main problem with with experienced users, e.g. people who are used to vim ... though, is that it basically represents a surrender on the idea that UX is important at all. Given enough time and commitment on the part of the user, any interface can be learned well enough to be adequately useful. You could build an interface out of loaded guns and rotating knives, and a sufficiently committed user could eventually learn how to operate it without killing themselves. The challenge is that most users' time and commitment are not unlimited. A stronger argument in favor of modal interfaces is that they enable the creation of complex interfaces that wouldn't be possible without modes. This is part of what appeals to so many vim users about vim -- once you've climbed the learning cliff it presents, you can do some things much more efficiently than you could in, say, a WYSIWYG editor. I personally don't agree with that tradeoff, but I recognize that a number of people see it as worthwhile.
  - azernik 7y ago
    This is absolutely not the case. There is a difference between UI built for people with no training/experience, and those with some training/experience; see e.g. the Therac disaster for an illustration of the UI challenges of building for experienced users. On personal computers, it means attention to keyboard shortcut design, making data more prominent and well-separated visually, and labels less prominent/space-consuming. Consumer-oriented UI is not the only UI! Users' time and commitment are not unlimited, but they are substantial when e.g. you are in the military and already need to be trained to understand the problem domain. EDIT: A great example is the UI of the controls of a car. It's important to put commonly-used controls in ergonomic areas, follow the principle of least surprise, etc.; but it can still be built with the assumption that the user is a licensed driver and knows where the turn signal usually is, that up is left and down is right, what all the assorted symbolic labels mean, etc.

bagacrap 7y ago

I don't think you can call modal interfaces inherently bad. I suppose Gmail is a modal interface because if you pull it up and start typing you'll be issuing commands instead of composing an email, until you enter "composition" mode. But what is the alternative? Have every button on the keyboard do the exact same thing regardless of what application or part of an application is currently in use? It's fine if you don't like vim but you don't have to pitch it as an objective universal truth that emacs > vim.

smacktoward 7y ago
I didn't say anything about emacs. emacs has plenty of problems of its own. > But what is the alternative? It takes some outside-the-box thinking. Here's an article by Larry Tesler, of Xerox PARC and original-Macintosh-team fame, on how his desire to build a modeless text editor led to the invention of copy-and-paste: http://worrydream.com/refs/Tesler%20-%20A%20Personal%20History%20of%20Modeless%20Text%20Editing%20and%20Cut-Copy-Paste.pdf http://worrydream.com/refs/Tesler%20-%20A%20Personal%20Histo...

mietek 7y ago

Another classic example of a modal interface is the Photoshop toolbox, dating back to MacPaint. http://www.psd-dude.com/tutorials/resources-images/adobe-photoshop-25-years/history-of-photoshop-toolbox.jpg http://www.psd-dude.com/tutorials/resources-images/adobe-pho... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacPaint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacPaint It does not take much work for a Photoshop operator to orient themselves to the current mode, because it is communicated by a number of cues, including the shape of the mouse pointer. One problem with vi’s interface is that, in contrast to Photoshop, it’s not easy for a vi operator to discover the available modes. Are there any paint programs without a modal interface?

mietek 7y ago
Rehosted Photoshop toolbox image: https://i.imgur.com/oIKOOCC.jpg https://i.imgur.com/oIKOOCC.jpg

azernik 7y ago

Modal interfaces can work very well, if used wisely: - with experienced users, e.g. people who are used to vim - with a sharply limited number of modes, e.g. the three modes that vim has It's just really easy to get carried away when you have the enormous number of combinations that touchscreens allow.

smacktoward 7y ago
The main problem with with experienced users, e.g. people who are used to vim ... though, is that it basically represents a surrender on the idea that UX is important at all. Given enough time and commitment on the part of the user, any interface can be learned well enough to be adequately useful. You could build an interface out of loaded guns and rotating knives, and a sufficiently committed user could eventually learn how to operate it without killing themselves. The challenge is that most users' time and commitment are not unlimited. A stronger argument in favor of modal interfaces is that they enable the creation of complex interfaces that wouldn't be possible without modes. This is part of what appeals to so many vim users about vim -- once you've climbed the learning cliff it presents, you can do some things much more efficiently than you could in, say, a WYSIWYG editor. I personally don't agree with that tradeoff, but I recognize that a number of people see it as worthwhile.
- azernik 7y ago
  This is absolutely not the case. There is a difference between UI built for people with no training/experience, and those with some training/experience; see e.g. the Therac disaster for an illustration of the UI challenges of building for experienced users. On personal computers, it means attention to keyboard shortcut design, making data more prominent and well-separated visually, and labels less prominent/space-consuming. Consumer-oriented UI is not the only UI! Users' time and commitment are not unlimited, but they are substantial when e.g. you are in the military and already need to be trained to understand the problem domain. EDIT: A great example is the UI of the controls of a car. It's important to put commonly-used controls in ergonomic areas, follow the principle of least surprise, etc.; but it can still be built with the assumption that the user is a licensed driver and knows where the turn signal usually is, that up is left and down is right, what all the assorted symbolic labels mean, etc.