Re: A New Keyhole Type!

Scott Meyers <smeyers-Q9ZaqOuDrMJWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> wrote:
> At 01:43 PM 8/25/2005, Hendrik Schober wrote:
> >  to be modal.) OTOH, I can think of a reason to not
> >  allow the opposite: Suppose you open the "Print"
> >  dialog, and enter that you want to print page 2-7,
> >  then open the "Open" dialog and open a document
> >  with only one page.
> 
> The same thing that would happen if you opened a one-page document, clicked
> Print, then specified pages 2-7.  I don't see the problem.

  In a well designed print dialog the page range 
  should be disabled for one-page docs. 

> But that's not the issue.  The issue is that modal dialogs are a keyhole
> and, as such, we should look for alternatives, taking into account the pros
> and cons of each design when coming to a decision.  Rather than talk about
> Print dialogs and what could or could not be (thus risking being blinded by
> what we are used to), I think a better example is the bookmark management
> window, which is modal under IE6 and modeless under Firefox.  Now that we
> know that both are possible, we are in a better position to reason about
> their relative merits.

  I definitly agree that there (many) needlessly 
  are modal. However, that doesn't mean that they 
  all are needless. 
  Just to reiterate: I can envision many dialogs 
  being modless, that now are modal. But then our 
  product management often dismisses such ideas, 
  on the ground that the logic implied with this 
  becomes to complicated to get properly explained 
  to the average users. 
  (Please don't argue against that. I have tried 
  to do that and failed. Not being programmers, 
  they do know better what logic the average users 
  understand. <g>) 

> Scott

  Schobi