Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We use too many damn modals (2018)

modalzmodalzmodalz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 127 posts

Re: We use too many damn modals (2018)

#51

Post by d0m »

aylmao wrote: post #9

I remember reading somewhere that most (modal) dialogs are just lazy design. It's easier to have a dialog component and throw whatever notice or controls in there. It's a predictable and flexible canvas. Your password is incorrect? Error dialog. Easier to design and build that a warning state on the text-boxes and a message close to the login button. Writing a post? Editor dialog. It's easier to design and build than…

I used to have the opinion that modals were bad, but now I think there's a good middle-ground where a lack of modal sometimes generates implicit states with many edge-cases that makes the UX more complex.

Re: We use too many damn modals (2018)

#52

Post by ozaark »

The key design principle overlooked here is Progressive Disclosure[1], which modals and dialogs can be very good at delivering.

Progressive disclosure retains user focus on a single task as opposed to showing everything at once. Accordions have similar function to modals and dialogs but adding further task controls to an already complex interface isn't always the best solution.

The author goes on to state that even full screen modals are bad, but what difference does the user see? If done well the user should still be able to use the browser back button, escape key, etc to navigate out. In modern applications, pages can transition from one to the next without a "full page load" -is that also bad for some reason?

Think of many popular mobile apps like Instacart, Doordash, etc that allow a user to dive into categories that slide on top of the existing content to give further controls; is that not ok?

Every element in the DOM can be applied inappropriately but that doesn't shift the blame to the elements themselves. One could argue an entire dedicated site that only uses modals based on the misuse of illegible fonts would be about as apropros.

[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/progressive-disclosure/

Re: We use too many damn modals (2018)

#54

Post by ozaark »

runawaybottle wrote: post #37
recursivedoubts wrote: post #24

Let me see if I can articulate this well: The problem problem with modals in a web page context is that they go against the statelessness of the html request/response model. They end up building up a lot of local state in the client, both model state as well as UI state, that eventually need to be reconciled with the server. If the user closes the modal, is the data saved for later? Does the form reset? Does the serv…

I’ll try to condense it more. If you play a video game and a modal pops up, it takes you out of the experience. It’s the same as (hypothetically) me having to go into my HN profile to find a list of comments I upvoted to then go ahead and downvote (versus just having the downvote button next to the post). Can’t teach this stuff, you basically need to be confronted by tons of bad UI in software, games, physical printe…

> Can’t teach this stuff

There is literally a field of science called Human-Computer Interaction that teaches this stuff.

Re: We use too many damn modals (2018)

#56

Post by lucasmullens »

grumple wrote: post #22
elcomet wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's lazy but the important question should be: is it good design? I don't think it is, as it hides some information from the main page. But I think it can be done well and be useful, as said at the end of the article. After all, OS use a lot of modals.

The more important question: do the people paying you care if it’s good design? Because the people who have paid me thus far in my career have not cared.

Design is one of those things people often don't consciously notice, but affects their overall impression of a product.

I think there's a pretty universal consensus that a good design matters.

Re: We use too many damn modals (2018)

#57

Post by supernova87a »

My main gripe with modal windows is the name. The first couple times some developer told me that's what she was using, I waited for her to explain what modal meant. But she did not, as if it was standard self-explanatory terminology. Way to name something a word that sounds like it has a standard (even deeper) meaning, but does not.

With time, I have just accepted that this is what modal means (I'm going to create a window of this type to display the data/filters), disconnected from any meaning of the term "mode".

But I still don't like it.

Re: We use too many damn modals (2018)

#59

Post by Izkata »

supernova87a wrote: post #57

My main gripe with modal windows is the name. The first couple times some developer told me that's what she was using, I waited for her to explain what modal meant. But she did not, as if it was standard self-explanatory terminology. Way to name something a word that sounds like it has a standard (even deeper) meaning, but does not. With time, I have just accepted that this is what modal means (I'm going to create a…

AFAIK, it is based on the word "mode", because what's supposed to happen is the rest of the page is disabled while you deal with the modal. You've switched modes from "normal usage" to "the popup".

If you can still interact with some other part of the page while it's open, it's not a modal, it's just a popup.

Re: We use too many damn modals (2018)

#60

Post by waheoo »

supernova87a wrote: post #57

My main gripe with modal windows is the name. The first couple times some developer told me that's what she was using, I waited for her to explain what modal meant. But she did not, as if it was standard self-explanatory terminology. Way to name something a word that sounds like it has a standard (even deeper) meaning, but does not. With time, I have just accepted that this is what modal means (I'm going to create a…

Just because you cant see the connection doesnt mean its not there.

Adjective, (of a proposition) in which the predicate is affirmed of the subject with some qualification, or which involves the affirmation of possibility, impossibility, necessity, or contingency.

Its pretty plain to see how a confirm or error message is applied to that definition no?

Post reply on HN