Why not writing this article in a modal?
Also, maybe rename Windows to Modals?
Forms in modals: UX case
21–30 of 51 posts
Re: Forms in modals: UX case
#22I hate modals. I think they're bad UX. I think they're antiquated. I think they have all the problems outlined in this essay. If Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest use modals, I'm going to use modals. "What users expect" will almost always be the best UX.
Users don't care if it's a modal or not, they just want it to work.
Re: Forms in modals: UX case
#23Not necessarily disagreeing with the post’s thesis, but if we remove the overlay click behavior and keep the close button, doesn’t this resolve the whole “accidental background row click” issue?
Losing the input by accidentally clicking a single button on the page is fine - you’re just as likely do the same thing on a separate page.
Re: Forms in modals: UX case
#24I'm annoyed by modals on web pages (along with any excessive JS) as much as the next person, but: > What's the difference between a dedicated page that has a link "return back to the table", and a modal that you cannot close by clicking on the overlay. And the only way to close it is by clicking the close button/icon which in fact returns you back to the table as well? I think they tend to happen because (for whateve…
There's not reason you can't have a "dedicated page" with a back button (or even respecting the real back button) in an SPA. Modals are created by lazy designers, devs only implement them.
Indeed, my bad, and it makes more sense upon re-reading it with just SPAs in mind (instead of picturing/comparing a modals-heavy SPA and a regular bunch of pages). I just have a strong association of modals with SPAs, but they don't necessarily go together.
Re: Forms in modals: UX case
#25It's my article. I just got a traffic spike, so I noticed it's here. I guess the person who posted it checked out the URL that I have, and previously I indeed called it something like stop using modals. The thing is that they are really OVERused. And right now I'm working on a project where we have modals inside modals and sometime even popup as a third layer. I cannot influence these decisions, but it's TOO much.
The same is true of iOS - they are used almost by default in many apps without considering the consequences. It’s a context switch, and developers often forget that.
Re: Forms in modals: UX case
#26Title is misleading. The article basically covers specific cases where modals aren't a great solution, but the title suggests they are NEVER useful. Clickbaity if you ask me.
Pedantic if you ask me.
Re: Forms in modals: UX case
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's not reason you can't have a "dedicated page" with a back button (or even respecting the real back button) in an SPA. Modals are created by lazy designers, devs only implement them.
Actually there is. HTML5 Canvas state gets lost. It's the only case, but I know from experience that it can be very significant depending on the application
you're still in the SPA. You generally need some sort of painters algorithm to repaint the canvas anyway. When the canvas comes back you would just repaint it from JS memory.
Canvas in particular has issues web devs have to deal with beyond their "normal" duties. Accessibility is simply not even a thing in canvas. Google Docs had to implement an entire parallel invisible DOM structure to emulate what they draw on the canvas when they were switching over to the canvas. And, of course, that DOM structure has to be in sync with canvas.
Re: Forms in modals: UX case
#28Title is misleading. The article basically covers specific cases where modals aren't a great solution, but the title suggests they are NEVER useful. Clickbaity if you ask me.
It doesn't suggest that they're never useful. It says you that you shouldn't use them — i.e. that using them is bad. There are lots of things that you generally shouldn't do, but sometimes must do under certain circumstances. Doing something you shouldn't because you must, doesn't excuse you from the fact that you're doing something "bad"; it just means that "doing something bad" is the best/only option you have at t…
That’s a wild misuse of language. It’s semantic nonsense to say there’s something you must do but should not do.
Re: Forms in modals: UX case
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't suggest that they're never useful. It says you that you shouldn't use them — i.e. that using them is bad. There are lots of things that you generally shouldn't do, but sometimes must do under certain circumstances. Doing something you shouldn't because you must, doesn't excuse you from the fact that you're doing something "bad"; it just means that "doing something bad" is the best/only option you have at t…
That’s a wild misuse of language. It’s semantic nonsense to say there’s something you must do but should not do.
... you can't remove relevant words from a sentence and then complain it is semantic nonsense afterwards.
Re: Forms in modals: UX case
#30Friends don't let friends commit modals