Adhering to a language and communicating is modal. Going from friend to foe, lover to leaver, all modes...
Go ahead and ignore, I'm rude, I know, it's a mode I wish I could control a little more. Anyways, I'm playing SKATE II and the modes are amazing. I thought Tony Hawk on PS2 could not be competed with; but, I think the control mappings for this game are just as satisfying and a pleasurable challenge. If you are going to design interactions and information architecture you must know what activities go with what mode in the defined system. It's a must not a should. On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk < [email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 30, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Angel Marquez wrote: > > Okay, so, how about this: >> http://www.humanized.com/about/ >> >> I think right after I posted how I use UI's and CLI together in a >> harmonious way that converges when and how to use both in an effective >> manner someone posted a link to these guys. I'm not trying to single you out >> humanoidz; but, modes cause misery written on a computer, posted on the >> internet, to a blog makes me think you don't get it. >> > > Locked out modality where everything else on the screen is off limits until > the mode is dismissed causes misery. > > But it is interesting that an entire product that is based in modality like > Ubiquity and Enso is somehow not "modal." Even as defined by the creators. > It's entirely modal. It maybe an ephemeral and dynamic type of modality that > is using context and source material in an attempt to make the interaction > more natural, but its still modal. The way we changed the palettes to pop-up > and stick (which became the basis for a lot of the CS3 changes later on) in > Photoshop all those years back was something I termed "semi-modal" and is > similar in concept as to what Ubiquity uses, in that you lock keyboard and > interaction into a thing on the screen until that thing is dismissed. But it > is still modal. > > I think it's the nature of past modality and its uses that people want to > run away from it instead of embracing it and evolving it. For example, > choosing a tool -- any tool -- in Photoshop is a "mode." Is that bad? > Hardly... it's what makes the entire pixel editing model work in the first > place. Choosing tools is the entire basis for a lot of desktop applications > and that type of modality has its place. In the analog world, picking up a > hammer is similar to a mode, as opposed to picking up a saw. > > As for not getting it... I'm going to ignore that comment and the manner > you stated it. > > Maybe it's just the way you are framing it or maybe.... >> > > My definition and use of modality comes from my work on desktop client > applications, where even then arguably people thought modality meant "dialog > boxes that lock you out of doing anything else on the computer." In fact, > modality simple means that there are modes. When you choose a tool you are > setting the mode for how all of your interaction with the mouse and keyboard > work. > > > -- > Andrei Herasimchuk > > Chief Design Officer, Involution Studios > innovating the digital world > > e. [email protected] > c. +1 408 306 6422 > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [email protected] > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [email protected] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
