3 ms·

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" s

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.
TheZenPsycho 13y ago
Raskin makes a special exception to his "No Modes" rule when it comes to paint and drawing programs, as he admits this is an obvious case where modes are needed. He does provide a mechanism though, that could be used to make photoshop modeless: Quasimodes. A quasimode is a mode that is active only as long as a particular key is being held down. The pressure of the key on the user's finger is what makes the user constantly aware of the mode. Caps-lock is a mode. The shift-key is the quasimodal version of that same function. quite a lot of photoshops toolbar buttons are assigned keys already. M for marquee for instance. Modal keys. like caps-lock. Those modal keys could be switched to quasimodal keys that act essentially like extra mouse keys. Photoshop already has 3 modal quasi-modal "modifiers" keys, in shift, alt, and (command/control), whose quasi mode changes depending on which mode you are in. So imaging a modeless photoshop where each tool and function is invoked by holding down a chord on the keyboard. Ta-da. Modeless photoshop. Of course, Such a photoshop would be much more difficult to learn-as we are sacrificing discoverability. but it it would be easier to use for an expert. and discoverability could probably be recovered using another of raskin's ideas: an dynamic displayed list of commands. Say you hold down the "m" key, and it lists in large type on screen what function that is, and what other keys you can hold down to modify it, and what functions those do. This would be pretty awesome. But it will never happen because grumpy coders like vim and think it's great, and thus stand in the way of UI progress.
- bengillies 13y ago
  It wouldn't be "pretty awesome". It would be almost entirely unusable. At the moment, Photoshop is difficult to use, but has thousands of features (I have no idea exactly how many) that presumably professionals make use of, at least to some degree or another. Try making a modeless version of Photoshop like you describe and most people would have to look up the key combination before doing anything, at least until they've learned all the modifier keys (which sounds remarkably like emacs). Not exactly the paragon of usability. As with almost everything, UI is a tradeoff between several different factors. In the case of modes, the applications that people like them in tend to be used by professionals or experts for a very specific purpose. In such a case, the utility, power and expressiveness is much more important than the initial ease of use. If your aim is to create something that doesn't have thousands of features and should be usability immediately (or relatively so) by new users, then modes are likely a bad idea; if your aim is to create something powerful for experts who will be using it 8 hours a day for the next 5 years, modes may be worth considering.

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.

TheZenPsycho 13y ago

Raskin makes a special exception to his "No Modes" rule when it comes to paint and drawing programs, as he admits this is an obvious case where modes are needed. He does provide a mechanism though, that could be used to make photoshop modeless: Quasimodes. A quasimode is a mode that is active only as long as a particular key is being held down. The pressure of the key on the user's finger is what makes the user constantly aware of the mode. Caps-lock is a mode. The shift-key is the quasimodal version of that same function. quite a lot of photoshops toolbar buttons are assigned keys already. M for marquee for instance. Modal keys. like caps-lock. Those modal keys could be switched to quasimodal keys that act essentially like extra mouse keys. Photoshop already has 3 modal quasi-modal "modifiers" keys, in shift, alt, and (command/control), whose quasi mode changes depending on which mode you are in. So imaging a modeless photoshop where each tool and function is invoked by holding down a chord on the keyboard. Ta-da. Modeless photoshop. Of course, Such a photoshop would be much more difficult to learn-as we are sacrificing discoverability. but it it would be easier to use for an expert. and discoverability could probably be recovered using another of raskin's ideas: an dynamic displayed list of commands. Say you hold down the "m" key, and it lists in large type on screen what function that is, and what other keys you can hold down to modify it, and what functions those do. This would be pretty awesome. But it will never happen because grumpy coders like vim and think it's great, and thus stand in the way of UI progress.

bengillies 13y ago
It wouldn't be "pretty awesome". It would be almost entirely unusable. At the moment, Photoshop is difficult to use, but has thousands of features (I have no idea exactly how many) that presumably professionals make use of, at least to some degree or another. Try making a modeless version of Photoshop like you describe and most people would have to look up the key combination before doing anything, at least until they've learned all the modifier keys (which sounds remarkably like emacs). Not exactly the paragon of usability. As with almost everything, UI is a tradeoff between several different factors. In the case of modes, the applications that people like them in tend to be used by professionals or experts for a very specific purpose. In such a case, the utility, power and expressiveness is much more important than the initial ease of use. If your aim is to create something that doesn't have thousands of features and should be usability immediately (or relatively so) by new users, then modes are likely a bad idea; if your aim is to create something powerful for experts who will be using it 8 hours a day for the next 5 years, modes may be worth considering.