10 ms·

Modes in UI are bad; even worse are timed modes

62 points by ilyabirman 13y ago

richforrester 13y ago
Don't agree entirely with this article. It all depends on how complex the UI has to be. As long as you don't punish a user by making the same button do something "irreversible" or do something which takes a fair amount of effort to undo ("fair amount" is relative here) then modes can be very useful. Also, Photoshop is a prime example of a piece of software that's been around for over a decade, and has grown to such an extend that it's probably impossible to not have modes. Modes are a great way to expand a UI. You just have to be very careful that ctrl+z doesn't turn into "quit without saving". They're one of those tools that every UI/UX person should have in their pocket, to pull out - at the right time. As for timed modes; I reckon it's all about feedback. Letting someone know what's happening, what's going to happen, and when it will happen.
krig 13y ago
It's a recurring rage of mine how bad and even dangerous many appliance and real-world UIs are. The car stereo with timed modes is only one example, stove-tops with unfriendly touch screen interfaces that make it hard to tell if the stove is on or not is another. That said, I'm not sure I'm prepared to categorically dismiss modes in interfaces. Photoshop is an interesting example where I actually think the moded interface is helpful, given that the interface makes it clear what mode is active right now. Another example that may divide readers of this humble comment is vim, where some may argue that its mode-based interface is core to its strengths.
taeric 13y ago
I can't get past the first part. Modes aren't bad. Indeed, modes can be used to great benefit. The only problem with modes is one of discoverability. It can be difficult to know what mode you are in at times, as well knowing of the different modes available. Of course, this is essentially true of the entire god damned computer experience. Knowing what programs, or modes, available is not an easy task for many to undertake. To think that you can simplify your model of computers to the point that you can eliminate modes is to simplify your model to the point that it is useless for a great many things. And to think that timed modes is bad misses an essential point. The vast majority of users do not want to be in these extra modes. Returning to a "default covers 99.999% of the users" is far from a bad thing. Of course, the first lesson many should be taught, but aren't, is not how to find these modes. Rather, it is how to completely reset the system to defaults. And yes.... I'm a vim user.
- rraval 13y ago
  If you read the Wikipedia article that the author linked to in that assertion[1], you'll find that it mostly agrees with you: > In Raskin's sense and according to his definition, an interface is not modal as long as the user is fully aware of its current state. Given this definition, eliminating modes is as simple as making sure that the user is aware of what mode they are in at all times. This makes your assertion problematic: > To think that you can simplify your model of computers to the point that you can eliminate modes is to simplify your model to the point that it is useless for a great many things. I don't think you would argue against the notion that users should be made aware of what mode they are in. A pretty common example comes from the CSS `cursor` property: - If its `default`, clicking should have no effect - If its `pointer`, clicking should have an effect - If its `move`, clicking and dragging should have an effect These cues are far from useless and help transition a modal interface into a modeless one. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(computer_interface) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(computer_interface)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - rraval 13y ago
      As long as you make sure that the mode vim is in the user's locus of attention. Typically, a user is more focused on the actual text they are trying to edit and thus the vim mode falls out of their locus of attention. So it's not just about displaying what mode the system is in but also making sure that the user is always aware of the mode. It's this mismatch that make modal interfaces bad. Edit: Parent has since deleted their comment. It used to say something along the lines of: > So if I make vim always display the mode its in, does that make it modeless?
      - cjh_ 13y ago
        Good points, displaying the mode isn't enough as you cannot guarantee that the point of display will be sufficient to keep the mode as the user's locus of attention. In vim I get around this by habit, I stay in command mode and only enter insert mode for text entry, and then at the end of a 'unit' of text entry I return to command mode. Thus I always know when I am in insert or command mode by asking 'am I currently entering text', for me hitting ctrl-c after finishing a sentence is part of the act of writing the sentence.
Tomdarkness 13y ago
I'm not really convinced by the examples given. I'd like to see the author come up with some suggestions on how you'd be able to use Photoshop without "modes" since to me it seems pretty much impossible. In regards to the TV remote I don't see why buttons should be dedicated to functions that you are not going to use 99% of the time. Personally I'd prefer a smaller remote because I'm not going to be wanting to change the aspect ratio every half an hour. Also who adjusts the Bass EQ while waiting at a traffic light anyway? You're most likely in the minority if you adjust the EQ on your car stereo at all, let alone adjusting it so often you find yourself trying to adjust it while at a traffic light. I think really it comes down to simplicity. Sure, the user might, once, when setting up their TV get annoyed that the settings disappeared while they were trying to alter something but I'd much rather have a more convenient and simpler remote then having a billion buttons on it for every single possible operation. Plus I'm sure many of us have experienced the classic "I pressed some unknown button on the remote now x has screwed up" from family/friends who are less technically inclined.
- sksksk 13y ago
  I agree, I'd argue that Photoshop is an expert system, it (rightly so) has a huge number of features and being able to have all these features without modes would probably make the app completely unusable. With the TV remote however, I'd flip it around and say that realistically, you are going to be using the volume and channel controls 99% of the time, and so it does not make sense to change the functionality of those buttons depending on context.
  - saidajigumi 13y ago
    > you are going to be using the volume and channel controls 99% of the time So by extension we're required to clutter the interface with dedicated buttons that are used 1% or less of the time, just to make sure the user isn't confused? Sounds confusing.
    - yuliyp 13y ago
      Fewer physical buttons doesn't make the interface less confusing. If a button does 5 different things, it becomes more confusing, because a given button is really 5 actions that you have to understand when they apply before using that button. Consider dedicated picture-in-picture controls as opposed to trying to reuse other buttons to do something different to control PiP. If you aren't using it, you just tune those buttons out. If you are, it's easier to use.
losethos 13y ago
Double click? I uses a stop-watch for random numbers. God says... 3:13 Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Then they brought these men before the king. 3:14 Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? 3:15 Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? 3:16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. 3:17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. ---- God says... -even gross-hearted self-command addition stored becomes Father recondite otherwise consequential made NEGLIGENCE based anything wandering desireth recoveredst tremble spreadest preserving Rest x indefinitely brighter unreal how_hard_could_it_be His admonition
asifjamil 13y ago
Reusing modes can actually be quite good if you're concerned about space efficiency. For example, having excessive controls in the car stereo might be a bad idea since drivers could potentially be distracted. So having the big volume knob to fine tune the bass level for example would be much more preferable to having six individual knobs that the user would have to look through and find.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  But you only learn the interface once (and that doesn't have to happen while driving, either); then you use it again and again. So I would argue making it slightly harder to learn, but better to use in the long run (in the cases where you cannot have it both ways), makes the difference between a tool built to last, and a product made to sell. Then there is the fact that if you only have one knob, you still have to learn how to put it in the mode you want (via secondary buttons, or even worse, just one you have to keep pressing); you gained nothing. Also, compare typing an a cell phone "keyboard" and a PC keyboard. While you wouldn't want to have a single button for every little function (like upper-case letters), it generally makes for better usability to have a dedicated button for most of them, because while I press one key, my other fingers can already get into position to press the next in sequence.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
berntb 13y ago
Hmm... Timed modes are bad? I toyed with the idea of a timed keyboard for mobiles/pads; a variant of the Hexagon game controls -- basically left and right buttons, turning a wheel of chars really quickly. (After a while with Hexagon, you get really good timing.) The keyboard would need some additional way to fine tune the last selected char a few steps up/down on the wheel. I assumed that similar models have been tried and found too slow. Or too demanding on concentration.
ceol 13y ago
I disagree with the car stereo timed mode example. Imagine someone doesn't know beforehand how to cancel out of the settings. Now, they either have to figure that out while driving or they have to sit with their stereo on a useless menu screen until they stop. This is exacerbated by the fact that your average driver isn't familiar with computer menus in the first place, so they have no idea what they're supposed to do unless it's plainly spelled out for them. I suppose my grievance is with this: > If I have changed my mind and don’t want to set up the TV or adjust the bass, I will just press cancel myself. Sure, the über hacker would just press cancel because they know that's what they should do. The rest of the world, who doesn't have nearly as much experience with computer interfaces as you do? They might not even know what a cancel button is, let alone that they should look for it.
- ars 13y ago
  If you are unable to read the button that says "cancel" how were you able to read the button that got you into the settings mode in the first place?
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Who says you read the button or intended to push it at all?
    - ars 13y ago
      Yah, I don't think we can make a user interface for people who flail wildly and press random buttons.
      - ceol 13y ago
        Because it's inconceivable that someone would reach for the volume button and accidentally hit the settings button, right? It's not like stereos ever have buttons next to each other, and it's not like cars ever go over bumps or anything.
        13y ago
Aardwolf 13y ago
And even worse is removing all buttons, settings and flexibility in the name of "simplicity for consumer users", like seems to be the trend lately.
coherentpony 13y ago
Wait, isn't vim built entirely on the concept of modes?
- msoad 13y ago
  That's why some people do not like it. It's more complex to learn. Vim is a good example of how modes can make UI confusing. I think the "shaking icons" mode in iPhone is complex too. Your average iPhone user probably do not know it but she/he wouldn't miss a big part of their device.
  - coherentpony 13y ago
    I can understand that, but calling them 'bad' right off the bat is not necessarily true. Let's use a digital watch as an example. Digital watches are designed to be small enough to fit on your wrist. As a consequence, there are physical constraints on the number of buttons you can put on the side whilst maintaining usability. If you allow the use of a modal user interface, you can use fewer buttons. The downside is you have to read the manual to configure your watch. My point may be moot, though; who uses a watch in the 21st century? I use my phone to tell the time.
    - jordanthoms 13y ago
      Since I got my Pebble, I wear a watch almost all the time
  - omaranto 13y ago
    I think that mode-theorists wouldn't consider the shaking icons thing to be a mode, since it's obvious when you're in it. What they call a mode is a program state that the user can easily be in without realizing it and that affects the results of user interactions. Something like that.
laumars 13y ago
The authors example of a car stereo struck a particular chord with me as I was so fed up with counter-intuitive interface on my car stereo that I actually built my own one using a Raspberry Pi. My stereo is far from pretty, but I now have tactile buttons laid out in a logical fashion and instead of an LCD screen, it gives vocal feedback (via voice synthesis). So I no longer need to take my eyes off the road to switch music. As an added bonus, I'm about to hook a 500GB laptop HDD into the device so that I can have my complete music collection on the road.
platz 13y ago
Obligatory Larry Tesler reference. "... who made it his personal crusade to “eliminate modes from software design” during his work on the early desktop user interface at Xerox PARC. The cause became so central to his life that his license plate read “NO MODES”, and he reportedly wore the slogan “Don’t Mode Me In” on a t-shirt."
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
nostromo 13y ago
It's more complicated than that. Bad mode: I use an awesome car service when I'm in Seattle called Car2Go. They have a really bad touch screen in the car. Pushing the physical volume button only turns off the radio if the touch screen is in radio mode. If you're in navigation mode, it mutes the volume of the turn-by-turn directions. It's distracting and confusing at the worst possible time. Good mode: The Apple TV remote is so simple. It's just four arrows and a select button. The arrows may change your selection, fast forward, or change volume all depending on what mode the software is in. It's so natural, you don't even think of it as a "mode" -- it just works.
- jcromartie 13y ago
  The key being that the entire context of the mode is staring you in the face the whole time.
darkchasma 13y ago
Modes in UI are not bad. Unexpected behaviour is bad. Don't confuse the two.
camus 13y ago
"you want to draw a line, but accidentally create a gradient fill." If you pay attention , you always know what tool you've selected ,so it is not really an issue. And just stating something is bad without proposing an alternative is just bashing for the sake of bashing. That's not interesting. Complex tools require complexe interfaces. Not everything should or need to be simple. I dont like ergonomists/designers that just say something is bad without thinking about context. We are not talking about PAINT, but a professional software that needs to do many things. Photoshop has issues , but mode in photoshops are not a problem. Photoshop is supposed to be used by an audience that will take the time to learn it and understand it. It is not a tv or a car stereo where nobody bother read the doc. You cant master photoshop without learning it , it's interface has its own logic one needs to learn.
JosephRedfern 13y ago
<sarcasm>Yeah, emacs and vim - how shit are they? I'd rather nano any day.</sarcasm> In my opinion, you can't make a blanket statement like "Modes in UI are bad". It depends entirely on context.
- mafro 13y ago
  I completely agree. It depends entirely on what mode you're in.
TheZenPsycho 13y ago
Of course a forum full of VIM users is going to disagree with the notion that modes are bad. You guys stand in the way of UI progress. It's interesting too, because the software we are use to, the software we like, changes us and affects the way we think. But it's also a jail, preventing us from seeing new possibilities. Computers are capable of modeling and simulating ANYTHING and producing virtually any kind of interface, and yet we only ever use it with one or two different kinds of interface (typewriter-like, and desk-like). Not even very good interfaces. Please do you us all a favor, I beg of you, read "The Humane Interface" by Jef Raskin, and have an open mind about it. Actually read it. If you've done that, and still disagree that modes are bad, you're going to have to give a really good reason. With evidence.
- derleth 13y ago
  > Jef Raskin Isn't he the one who thought configurability was always bad? > You guys stand in the way of UI progress. And here we go. You think we're so stupid that we can't know what's best for us, and need to be condescended to by someone who has no idea of what our workflow is like but Knows Better because he's... what? An Expert?
- rane 13y ago
  Those people who still ride horses... They're really holding us back as a civilization.
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    This is a terrible analogy since the people who MAKE automobiles weren't fervent and rabid horse adherents, and Henry Ford never had to convince his engineers that cars shouldn't have legs and saddles.
- subsection1h 13y ago
  You guys stand in the way of UI progress. Progress from whose perspective? The masses or the elite? Is a UI that's optimal for Joe Average also optimal for tech geniuses?
koobz 13y ago
Modal/modeless, stateless/stateful, functional/imperative, declarative/procedural, schemaless, distributed, asynchronous. Yammer yammer yammer namedropping and proselytizing buzzwords like gospel. Modal interfaces are bad? Man, what the hell does modal interface even mean anymore? Like when I'm drawing vectors and my cursor changes to a selection tool instead of an "add point tool" when I hover over an existing point. That's bad now? Even though it's really annoying to create a duplicate points in a small area? Restricting functionality to a relevant subset of behaviours based on the task you're doing can be a great idea. Yes, it can also be annoying. E.g. in the case of file explorers that don't let me create folders when I'm opening a file. But that's just it. Spend some time thinking about how people interact with your application rather than making some thoughtless generalization. Otherwise you get Metro.
ctbeiser 13y ago
The problem with modes is fundamentally that people make mode-errors; they're not sure what mode they're in. If you've got users who aren't looking at the device, then yes, they'll make mode errors, because they have no clue what they're doing. If it's an unambiguous mode, and people understand the ways into and out of the mode, sure, you've got no problem, but those conditions are typically only met by system-level conventions.
onster 13y ago
Oh yes, PhotoShop has way too many modes. Adobe should kill them all. When you drag a line across an image, PhotoShop should utilize its psychic power to figure out your real intention.

62 points by ilyabirman 13y ago

Don't agree entirely with this article. It all depends on how complex the UI has to be. As long as you don't punish a user by making the same button do something "irreversible" or do something which takes a fair amount of effort to undo ("fair amount" is relative here) then modes can be very useful. Also, Photoshop is a prime example of a piece of software that's been around for over a decade, and has grown to such an extend that it's probably impossible to not have modes. Modes are a great way to expand a UI. You just have to be very careful that ctrl+z doesn't turn into "quit without saving". They're one of those tools that every UI/UX person should have in their pocket, to pull out - at the right time. As for timed modes; I reckon it's all about feedback. Letting someone know what's happening, what's going to happen, and when it will happen.

krig 13y ago

It's a recurring rage of mine how bad and even dangerous many appliance and real-world UIs are. The car stereo with timed modes is only one example, stove-tops with unfriendly touch screen interfaces that make it hard to tell if the stove is on or not is another. That said, I'm not sure I'm prepared to categorically dismiss modes in interfaces. Photoshop is an interesting example where I actually think the moded interface is helpful, given that the interface makes it clear what mode is active right now. Another example that may divide readers of this humble comment is vim, where some may argue that its mode-based interface is core to its strengths.

taeric 13y ago

I can't get past the first part. Modes aren't bad. Indeed, modes can be used to great benefit. The only problem with modes is one of discoverability. It can be difficult to know what mode you are in at times, as well knowing of the different modes available. Of course, this is essentially true of the entire god damned computer experience. Knowing what programs, or modes, available is not an easy task for many to undertake. To think that you can simplify your model of computers to the point that you can eliminate modes is to simplify your model to the point that it is useless for a great many things. And to think that timed modes is bad misses an essential point. The vast majority of users do not want to be in these extra modes. Returning to a "default covers 99.999% of the users" is far from a bad thing. Of course, the first lesson many should be taught, but aren't, is not how to find these modes. Rather, it is how to completely reset the system to defaults. And yes.... I'm a vim user.

rraval 13y ago
If you read the Wikipedia article that the author linked to in that assertion[1], you'll find that it mostly agrees with you: > In Raskin's sense and according to his definition, an interface is not modal as long as the user is fully aware of its current state. Given this definition, eliminating modes is as simple as making sure that the user is aware of what mode they are in at all times. This makes your assertion problematic: > To think that you can simplify your model of computers to the point that you can eliminate modes is to simplify your model to the point that it is useless for a great many things. I don't think you would argue against the notion that users should be made aware of what mode they are in. A pretty common example comes from the CSS `cursor` property: - If its `default`, clicking should have no effect - If its `pointer`, clicking should have an effect - If its `move`, clicking and dragging should have an effect These cues are far from useless and help transition a modal interface into a modeless one. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(computer_interface) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(computer_interface)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - rraval 13y ago
    As long as you make sure that the mode vim is in the user's locus of attention. Typically, a user is more focused on the actual text they are trying to edit and thus the vim mode falls out of their locus of attention. So it's not just about displaying what mode the system is in but also making sure that the user is always aware of the mode. It's this mismatch that make modal interfaces bad. Edit: Parent has since deleted their comment. It used to say something along the lines of: > So if I make vim always display the mode its in, does that make it modeless?
    - cjh_ 13y ago
      Good points, displaying the mode isn't enough as you cannot guarantee that the point of display will be sufficient to keep the mode as the user's locus of attention. In vim I get around this by habit, I stay in command mode and only enter insert mode for text entry, and then at the end of a 'unit' of text entry I return to command mode. Thus I always know when I am in insert or command mode by asking 'am I currently entering text', for me hitting ctrl-c after finishing a sentence is part of the act of writing the sentence.

Tomdarkness 13y ago

I'm not really convinced by the examples given. I'd like to see the author come up with some suggestions on how you'd be able to use Photoshop without "modes" since to me it seems pretty much impossible. In regards to the TV remote I don't see why buttons should be dedicated to functions that you are not going to use 99% of the time. Personally I'd prefer a smaller remote because I'm not going to be wanting to change the aspect ratio every half an hour. Also who adjusts the Bass EQ while waiting at a traffic light anyway? You're most likely in the minority if you adjust the EQ on your car stereo at all, let alone adjusting it so often you find yourself trying to adjust it while at a traffic light. I think really it comes down to simplicity. Sure, the user might, once, when setting up their TV get annoyed that the settings disappeared while they were trying to alter something but I'd much rather have a more convenient and simpler remote then having a billion buttons on it for every single possible operation. Plus I'm sure many of us have experienced the classic "I pressed some unknown button on the remote now x has screwed up" from family/friends who are less technically inclined.

sksksk 13y ago
I agree, I'd argue that Photoshop is an expert system, it (rightly so) has a huge number of features and being able to have all these features without modes would probably make the app completely unusable. With the TV remote however, I'd flip it around and say that realistically, you are going to be using the volume and channel controls 99% of the time, and so it does not make sense to change the functionality of those buttons depending on context.
- saidajigumi 13y ago
  > you are going to be using the volume and channel controls 99% of the time So by extension we're required to clutter the interface with dedicated buttons that are used 1% or less of the time, just to make sure the user isn't confused? Sounds confusing.
  - yuliyp 13y ago
    Fewer physical buttons doesn't make the interface less confusing. If a button does 5 different things, it becomes more confusing, because a given button is really 5 actions that you have to understand when they apply before using that button. Consider dedicated picture-in-picture controls as opposed to trying to reuse other buttons to do something different to control PiP. If you aren't using it, you just tune those buttons out. If you are, it's easier to use.

losethos 13y ago

Double click? I uses a stop-watch for random numbers. God says... 3:13 Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Then they brought these men before the king. 3:14 Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? 3:15 Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? 3:16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. 3:17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. ---- God says... -even gross-hearted self-command addition stored becomes Father recondite otherwise consequential made NEGLIGENCE based anything wandering desireth recoveredst tremble spreadest preserving Rest x indefinitely brighter unreal how_hard_could_it_be His admonition

asifjamil 13y ago

Reusing modes can actually be quite good if you're concerned about space efficiency. For example, having excessive controls in the car stereo might be a bad idea since drivers could potentially be distracted. So having the big volume knob to fine tune the bass level for example would be much more preferable to having six individual knobs that the user would have to look through and find.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
But you only learn the interface once (and that doesn't have to happen while driving, either); then you use it again and again. So I would argue making it slightly harder to learn, but better to use in the long run (in the cases where you cannot have it both ways), makes the difference between a tool built to last, and a product made to sell. Then there is the fact that if you only have one knob, you still have to learn how to put it in the mode you want (via secondary buttons, or even worse, just one you have to keep pressing); you gained nothing. Also, compare typing an a cell phone "keyboard" and a PC keyboard. While you wouldn't want to have a single button for every little function (like upper-case letters), it generally makes for better usability to have a dedicated button for most of them, because while I press one key, my other fingers can already get into position to press the next in sequence.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

berntb 13y ago

Hmm... Timed modes are bad? I toyed with the idea of a timed keyboard for mobiles/pads; a variant of the Hexagon game controls -- basically left and right buttons, turning a wheel of chars really quickly. (After a while with Hexagon, you get really good timing.) The keyboard would need some additional way to fine tune the last selected char a few steps up/down on the wheel. I assumed that similar models have been tried and found too slow. Or too demanding on concentration.

ceol 13y ago

I disagree with the car stereo timed mode example. Imagine someone doesn't know beforehand how to cancel out of the settings. Now, they either have to figure that out while driving or they have to sit with their stereo on a useless menu screen until they stop. This is exacerbated by the fact that your average driver isn't familiar with computer menus in the first place, so they have no idea what they're supposed to do unless it's plainly spelled out for them. I suppose my grievance is with this: > If I have changed my mind and don’t want to set up the TV or adjust the bass, I will just press cancel myself. Sure, the über hacker would just press cancel because they know that's what they should do. The rest of the world, who doesn't have nearly as much experience with computer interfaces as you do? They might not even know what a cancel button is, let alone that they should look for it.

ars 13y ago
If you are unable to read the button that says "cancel" how were you able to read the button that got you into the settings mode in the first place?
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Who says you read the button or intended to push it at all?
  - ars 13y ago
    Yah, I don't think we can make a user interface for people who flail wildly and press random buttons.
    - ceol 13y ago
      Because it's inconceivable that someone would reach for the volume button and accidentally hit the settings button, right? It's not like stereos ever have buttons next to each other, and it's not like cars ever go over bumps or anything.
      - 13y ago

Aardwolf 13y ago

And even worse is removing all buttons, settings and flexibility in the name of "simplicity for consumer users", like seems to be the trend lately.

coherentpony 13y ago

Wait, isn't vim built entirely on the concept of modes?

msoad 13y ago
That's why some people do not like it. It's more complex to learn. Vim is a good example of how modes can make UI confusing. I think the "shaking icons" mode in iPhone is complex too. Your average iPhone user probably do not know it but she/he wouldn't miss a big part of their device.
- coherentpony 13y ago
  I can understand that, but calling them 'bad' right off the bat is not necessarily true. Let's use a digital watch as an example. Digital watches are designed to be small enough to fit on your wrist. As a consequence, there are physical constraints on the number of buttons you can put on the side whilst maintaining usability. If you allow the use of a modal user interface, you can use fewer buttons. The downside is you have to read the manual to configure your watch. My point may be moot, though; who uses a watch in the 21st century? I use my phone to tell the time.
  - jordanthoms 13y ago
    Since I got my Pebble, I wear a watch almost all the time
- omaranto 13y ago
  I think that mode-theorists wouldn't consider the shaking icons thing to be a mode, since it's obvious when you're in it. What they call a mode is a program state that the user can easily be in without realizing it and that affects the results of user interactions. Something like that.

laumars 13y ago

The authors example of a car stereo struck a particular chord with me as I was so fed up with counter-intuitive interface on my car stereo that I actually built my own one using a Raspberry Pi. My stereo is far from pretty, but I now have tactile buttons laid out in a logical fashion and instead of an LCD screen, it gives vocal feedback (via voice synthesis). So I no longer need to take my eyes off the road to switch music. As an added bonus, I'm about to hook a 500GB laptop HDD into the device so that I can have my complete music collection on the road.

platz 13y ago

Obligatory Larry Tesler reference. "... who made it his personal crusade to “eliminate modes from software design” during his work on the early desktop user interface at Xerox PARC. The cause became so central to his life that his license plate read “NO MODES”, and he reportedly wore the slogan “Don’t Mode Me In” on a t-shirt."

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

nostromo 13y ago

It's more complicated than that. Bad mode: I use an awesome car service when I'm in Seattle called Car2Go. They have a really bad touch screen in the car. Pushing the physical volume button only turns off the radio if the touch screen is in radio mode. If you're in navigation mode, it mutes the volume of the turn-by-turn directions. It's distracting and confusing at the worst possible time. Good mode: The Apple TV remote is so simple. It's just four arrows and a select button. The arrows may change your selection, fast forward, or change volume all depending on what mode the software is in. It's so natural, you don't even think of it as a "mode" -- it just works.

jcromartie 13y ago
The key being that the entire context of the mode is staring you in the face the whole time.

darkchasma 13y ago

Modes in UI are not bad. Unexpected behaviour is bad. Don't confuse the two.

camus 13y ago

"you want to draw a line, but accidentally create a gradient fill." If you pay attention , you always know what tool you've selected ,so it is not really an issue. And just stating something is bad without proposing an alternative is just bashing for the sake of bashing. That's not interesting. Complex tools require complexe interfaces. Not everything should or need to be simple. I dont like ergonomists/designers that just say something is bad without thinking about context. We are not talking about PAINT, but a professional software that needs to do many things. Photoshop has issues , but mode in photoshops are not a problem. Photoshop is supposed to be used by an audience that will take the time to learn it and understand it. It is not a tv or a car stereo where nobody bother read the doc. You cant master photoshop without learning it , it's interface has its own logic one needs to learn.

JosephRedfern 13y ago

<sarcasm>Yeah, emacs and vim - how shit are they? I'd rather nano any day.</sarcasm> In my opinion, you can't make a blanket statement like "Modes in UI are bad". It depends entirely on context.

mafro 13y ago
I completely agree. It depends entirely on what mode you're in.

TheZenPsycho 13y ago

Of course a forum full of VIM users is going to disagree with the notion that modes are bad. You guys stand in the way of UI progress. It's interesting too, because the software we are use to, the software we like, changes us and affects the way we think. But it's also a jail, preventing us from seeing new possibilities. Computers are capable of modeling and simulating ANYTHING and producing virtually any kind of interface, and yet we only ever use it with one or two different kinds of interface (typewriter-like, and desk-like). Not even very good interfaces. Please do you us all a favor, I beg of you, read "The Humane Interface" by Jef Raskin, and have an open mind about it. Actually read it. If you've done that, and still disagree that modes are bad, you're going to have to give a really good reason. With evidence.

derleth 13y ago
> Jef Raskin Isn't he the one who thought configurability was always bad? > You guys stand in the way of UI progress. And here we go. You think we're so stupid that we can't know what's best for us, and need to be condescended to by someone who has no idea of what our workflow is like but Knows Better because he's... what? An Expert?
rane 13y ago
Those people who still ride horses... They're really holding us back as a civilization.
- TheZenPsycho 13y ago
  This is a terrible analogy since the people who MAKE automobiles weren't fervent and rabid horse adherents, and Henry Ford never had to convince his engineers that cars shouldn't have legs and saddles.
subsection1h 13y ago
You guys stand in the way of UI progress. Progress from whose perspective? The masses or the elite? Is a UI that's optimal for Joe Average also optimal for tech geniuses?

koobz 13y ago

Modal/modeless, stateless/stateful, functional/imperative, declarative/procedural, schemaless, distributed, asynchronous. Yammer yammer yammer namedropping and proselytizing buzzwords like gospel. Modal interfaces are bad? Man, what the hell does modal interface even mean anymore? Like when I'm drawing vectors and my cursor changes to a selection tool instead of an "add point tool" when I hover over an existing point. That's bad now? Even though it's really annoying to create a duplicate points in a small area? Restricting functionality to a relevant subset of behaviours based on the task you're doing can be a great idea. Yes, it can also be annoying. E.g. in the case of file explorers that don't let me create folders when I'm opening a file. But that's just it. Spend some time thinking about how people interact with your application rather than making some thoughtless generalization. Otherwise you get Metro.

ctbeiser 13y ago

The problem with modes is fundamentally that people make mode-errors; they're not sure what mode they're in. If you've got users who aren't looking at the device, then yes, they'll make mode errors, because they have no clue what they're doing. If it's an unambiguous mode, and people understand the ways into and out of the mode, sure, you've got no problem, but those conditions are typically only met by system-level conventions.

onster 13y ago

Oh yes, PhotoShop has way too many modes. Adobe should kill them all. When you drag a line across an image, PhotoShop should utilize its psychic power to figure out your real intention.