Re: PROPOSAL: UISG Modal Interface Restrictions

[Gleef <gleef capital net>]

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Bowie Poag wrote:

> 
>  o The UISG proposes that all applications be non-modal in order to fit   
>    the definition of "GNOME Compliant"
> 
>    (By "modal", we're referring to apps which have like a "user mode",
>     or an "edit mode", etc.. Thi smethod of application design has been
>    generally disliked by users & serious app developers for some time.)
> 
> Agree or disagree?

Firstly, using the term modal here, while technically correct, is
potentially confusing.  thanks to Microsoft (at least i've been told this
confusion is their fault), modal also has the meaning of taking over the
focus and all user input.  I would certainly agree that applications
should be non-modal in this sense, but the incompatable definitions might
cause unnecessary confusion.

Secondly, if you require this, it will be impossible to make such things
as a GNOME-Compliant vi clone.  I would say that this is a bad thing.

-Gleef