Re: PROPOSAL: UISG Modal Interface Restrictions

[JR Tipton <nails maybe net>]

On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Gleef wrote:
> 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.

Modal simply means having modality in logic; so the term is correct in
both senses.  It isn't Microsoft's fault, either, that they used the term
for modal windows like fatal error boxes and the like... this term has
been around for a long time before Microsoft got around to it.

I disagree with Bowie on this one.  Where are the stats that say
applications should be non-modal?  I have yet to see someone tell me that
Microsoft Developer Studio's method of having an integrated debugger is a
dumb one.  I love it.
I do love using DDD and emacs seperately... don't get me wrong, but I do
believe that if I had a full fledged IDE then I would expect it to switch
modes when I did.

A computer is capable of being a tool that adapts itself to its user's
actions.  When I switch from one mode to another, the application should,
as well.

I think "generally disliked" by users "for some time" isn't specific
enough; there's no factual information behind it.  It seems to me that
commercial applications that embrace the modal model tend to sell just as
well as other ones.

william r. tipton