3 ms·

A lot of your examples aren't "modal human interfaces." They are examples of the state of the world, or the state of the human in question. There's no question

A lot of your examples aren't "modal human interfaces." They are examples of the state of the world, or the state of the human in question. There's no question that you need to be aware of the state of the world. The position of a pen isn't an interface; the pen itself isn't modal. The "interface" to a pan is its handle. The "tuning" of an instrument isn't an interface; the strings are (the mode of a synth makes it modal, certainly, but I'll get to that). There are some interfaces that are easily mapped by humans, though. The forward/reverse setting in a car is one of them. I don't doubt that many accidents have been caused by that modal interface, but it's still better than any other interface for that task than any other I can think of. You don't WANT the user to be able to just start driving backward without going through a specific (non-normal-driving) action to put the car into that mode. The keyboard example is the same: A modal interface that makes sense. You have limited resources there: Most musicians can't afford to have a separate keyboard for every sound they want a synth to make. Even Photoshop is a "necessary" kind of modal interface, because Photoshop isn't representing a user doing a single task: Photoshop is a simulation of dozens of potential "brushes" or effects, and it's far more economical to use the same interface (the left mouse button) to control them all. It's all about cognitive mapping: A good UI for a stove has the controls arranged in the same physical orientation as the burners. Four burners in a square? Four controls in a square. No instructions necessary (to anyone with even a rudimentary idea of how stoves work).

taeric 13y ago
But the different "modes" of anything are just the state of the input mechanism. To be clear, my argument is not to use modes for the sake of using modes. More that I do not understand the attitude in computer design where it is assumed that we can get down to no modes in an interface. There is this magical "all context switches to get here do not count." That is, it is a fine guideline, but treated as its own independent rule is missing all of the conflict and tradeoffs that actually go into many decisions where they arise. Editors are an amusing example, because they come up a lot. But, for many, getting the computer to the damned editor is enough of a mode change that it is hard to do. With GUI applications, the march lately has been to hide as many of the "buttons" as possible. Which is not really doable while still adding buttons. This is the same problem as faced by car interface designers. Even the iPod did this. "Spinning" back then was either selection or volume control, you know, depending on the mode. :) So, yes, I agree excessive modes are bad. I even agree that vim is a bad interface for most folks. (Most being everyone else I know that uses a computer, honestly.) I disagree that "modes are bad" is at all a useful mantra by itself. It is only helpful when you take all of the other context into consideration, as well. That make sense? (As far as the "better" interface for a car, this one is easy to imagine. Come up with an interface where you really just tell the car what it is you are wanting to do. "Take me to the store." "Pick up my daughter from school." ...)

taeric 13y ago

But the different "modes" of anything are just the state of the input mechanism. To be clear, my argument is not to use modes for the sake of using modes. More that I do not understand the attitude in computer design where it is assumed that we can get down to no modes in an interface. There is this magical "all context switches to get here do not count." That is, it is a fine guideline, but treated as its own independent rule is missing all of the conflict and tradeoffs that actually go into many decisions where they arise. Editors are an amusing example, because they come up a lot. But, for many, getting the computer to the damned editor is enough of a mode change that it is hard to do. With GUI applications, the march lately has been to hide as many of the "buttons" as possible. Which is not really doable while still adding buttons. This is the same problem as faced by car interface designers. Even the iPod did this. "Spinning" back then was either selection or volume control, you know, depending on the mode. :) So, yes, I agree excessive modes are bad. I even agree that vim is a bad interface for most folks. (Most being everyone else I know that uses a computer, honestly.) I disagree that "modes are bad" is at all a useful mantra by itself. It is only helpful when you take all of the other context into consideration, as well. That make sense? (As far as the "better" interface for a car, this one is easy to imagine. Come up with an interface where you really just tell the car what it is you are wanting to do. "Take me to the store." "Pick up my daughter from school." ...)