4 ms·

I'm using Chrome right now, that's a mode. I'm in HN tab right now, that's a mode. I'm editing a textarea, that's a mode. All these are legitimate "modes" in

I'm using Chrome right now, that's a mode. I'm in HN tab right now, that's a mode. I'm editing a textarea, that's a mode. All these are legitimate "modes" in the sense they dictate what happens next when I type or click. The real advice is to be mindful of modes and make users aware of which mode(s) they're in. Sometimes they help, sometimes they don't.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rektide 13y ago
In this set up: I'm using Debian right now (to run Chrome), that's a mode. I'm using Xen right now (to run Debian), that's a mode. And yes, these are captive, modal systems. But from a UI point we have to take some strata as granted, as operating system level. Yes, perhaps Debian is a modal interface, whether it's hosting Xorg or Mir or Wayland or KMSCon or ssh sessions. But these are host environments for the proper interface, and so is gdm or slim or lightdm running my X session, and so is openbox or kde or gnome-shell or awesome running my wm, and so is chrome running my browser. These are all concatenative contexts providing strata for the application. They are modal systems, but notably every one of them exists to provide an amodal system for the host of services running underneath it. Amodality still has to derive functionality from some greater level, so the distinction I think your not encompassing is one of composition versus aggregation. In composition something owns and dictates the interface. In aggregation things contribute to available interface options. If I wanted to, I could have a media player running and control it via global hotkeys. If I wanted to, I could open multiple chrome windows. If I wanted to, I could open multiple tabs perhaps across multiple windows (Awesome powers activate). If I had multi-pointer-X and a good browser I could edit multiple text boxes. In contrast, when we talk about modal UI the discussion is around UI that captures the context. It locks out other modes of operations. Modal systems do not provide aggregate strata into sub-systems running under them, they lock out other sub-system from running. Amodal systems contribute capabilities to users. I'd like to find a way to loop back around and describe MDI as contextual without being modal (on the grounds that it's the same mode repeated), but I don't think I have sufficient argumentation to press that far ahead. I feel on firmer grounds taking issue with your characterization of what really is modal by standing on the aggregation versus composition point, and by highlighting the concatenative nature of the systems you describe.
sp332 13y ago
I'm editing a textarea, that's a mode. Yeah that's why sometimes when I hit Tab in a text box I'm momentarily confused because my cursor disappears. Sometimes I want a hard tab. Modes mean I can't use my muscle memory, which means I have to be "mindful" which sucks.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rektide 13y ago

In this set up: I'm using Debian right now (to run Chrome), that's a mode. I'm using Xen right now (to run Debian), that's a mode. And yes, these are captive, modal systems. But from a UI point we have to take some strata as granted, as operating system level. Yes, perhaps Debian is a modal interface, whether it's hosting Xorg or Mir or Wayland or KMSCon or ssh sessions. But these are host environments for the proper interface, and so is gdm or slim or lightdm running my X session, and so is openbox or kde or gnome-shell or awesome running my wm, and so is chrome running my browser. These are all concatenative contexts providing strata for the application. They are modal systems, but notably every one of them exists to provide an amodal system for the host of services running underneath it. Amodality still has to derive functionality from some greater level, so the distinction I think your not encompassing is one of composition versus aggregation. In composition something owns and dictates the interface. In aggregation things contribute to available interface options. If I wanted to, I could have a media player running and control it via global hotkeys. If I wanted to, I could open multiple chrome windows. If I wanted to, I could open multiple tabs perhaps across multiple windows (Awesome powers activate). If I had multi-pointer-X and a good browser I could edit multiple text boxes. In contrast, when we talk about modal UI the discussion is around UI that captures the context. It locks out other modes of operations. Modal systems do not provide aggregate strata into sub-systems running under them, they lock out other sub-system from running. Amodal systems contribute capabilities to users. I'd like to find a way to loop back around and describe MDI as contextual without being modal (on the grounds that it's the same mode repeated), but I don't think I have sufficient argumentation to press that far ahead. I feel on firmer grounds taking issue with your characterization of what really is modal by standing on the aggregation versus composition point, and by highlighting the concatenative nature of the systems you describe.

sp332 13y ago

I'm editing a textarea, that's a mode. Yeah that's why sometimes when I hit Tab in a text box I'm momentarily confused because my cursor disappears. Sometimes I want a hard tab. Modes mean I can't use my muscle memory, which means I have to be "mindful" which sucks.