3 ms·
Modal behavior always introduce cognitive overhead. It's something that you have to track, and it introduces the possibility of getting it wrong. To your point
by lmkg 12y ago
Modal behavior always introduce cognitive overhead. It's something that you have to track, and it introduces the possibility of getting it wrong.
To your point, that overhead can be reduced through various UI techniques, but it cannot be eliminated. It's an extra bit of information you need to track. It's an extra check you need to make before reading the situation (and critically, it cannot be done in parallel). Switching modes is an extra step you need to take before performing an action. These are all additional points of failure. In a high-stress, high-stakes situation that's something you want to avoid.
That's not to say that modal UI's are always bad and never should be used. I'm saying that there's a tradeoff, and that tradeoff is not worthwhile in safety-critical applications.
- agumonkey 12y agoThis is really interesting to me. The modal war (say emacs/vi) has always felt weird to me. It's just how you split and dispatch the input a system can receive. How fine grained this distinction is will decide how parallel things can be afterwards. I never searched too much about it because I lacked the terminology, but I wish I knew some studies, theories and reference about ergonomy, information and UI.
- dredmorbius 12y agoThe tradeoff is in minimizing the overhead while maximizing the utility of the modal switch. Because that's what modes offer: clusters of functional utility grouped by association.