It seems like a lot of people don't really consider what it really means to be "modal," and when it comes up, I describe it something like this:
A modal is not, in itself, an overaly, window, frame, etc. Generally, it really shouldn't even be used as a noun. Modal describes the state of the interface. Most interfaces allow for multiple user interactions originating from the broader interface, i.e., it is multi-modal.
Sometimes, it is necessary to put the UI into a single-purpose state, so, in a single mode. This is required when two interactions can interfere with one another. When one interaction must not be interrupted by another, we must go modal.
The author seems to be chiefly complaining about unnecessary modality and the way that gives rise to clunky UIs that don't allow for things like linking. That's rooted in conflating on-screen, 3D elements like overlay dialog boxes with the concept of one of some interface being modal. An example of this would be an interface with a item list that, on item selection, conjures a modal overlay dialog box with the item details. In the base case, there is no dependency problem here, i.e., it's an entirely acceptable design to allow a user to view the details of two items at the same time, and therefor it doesn't call for a modal detail interface.
Modal is a common term for a UI element, as used in the site. I'm not saying you're wrong, per se, but I think you're missing the point, or perhaps missing context into modern UI design terminology
I'm willing to hear your argument. I could have done without you telling me that maybe I'm just out of the loop, because there's a point to be made here. But let me entertain the notion.
"A modal" is a specific term of art referring to set of UI elements that floats over other content, compels focus, and disallows interaction with UI elements behind it.
That's it. That's what it is. You're arguing with accepted terminology. "Well actually, do ships really have beams, isn't that a light thing?" doesn't really get far either.
I'm not arguing with accepted terminology. I'm explaining the design intent and why it is called what it is called. The reason why the article exists is because there are so many cases where the element is inappropriate. But, as the author says, "Many UI toolkits offer modals out-of-the-box" so it's easy.
Now, about the terminology: why does the element have to float over other content? In-line modal interfaces are very common.
Not the person you’re replying to so hopefully I don’t derail, but over a decade of ui/ux and front end dev has taught me:
when people say ‘modal’ or ‘modal window’ or ‘modal pop up’ what they mean is: a new element in the same window, that overlays the current view, and must be dealt with before returning to the underlying page.
There are exceptions, but generally speaking that’s what ‘a modal’ is in the context of web ui.
I know, and you're right that it has lost its definition. I'm making a case that that is what has driven the very common poor use of, as in the article here, modal windows. If implementers really, thoughtfully considered the problems and were well apprised of core concepts, it wouldn't happen as often.
Here's a common case for web application in-line modal forms, which are certainly not exceptional: airline ticket purchase flows.
The author and most people here are using "modal" with a very common popular meaning where the word is a short form of "modal window".
You are confusing it with the much less common but technically accurate meaning in UI. So you are just confused by terminology, and even though it would be better if people stick to unambiguous words, they are talking about something well defined enough that discussing terminology isn't useful.
Right. And, in my opinion, we get exactly the bad UI described because it became common to conflate "modal" with "overlay." That's the way the UI kits implement it, and as the author states, it makes people reach for that because it's what's available.
A modal is not, in itself, an overaly, window, frame, etc. Generally, it really shouldn't even be used as a noun. Modal describes the state of the interface. Most interfaces allow for multiple user interactions originating from the broader interface, i.e., it is multi-modal.
Sometimes, it is necessary to put the UI into a single-purpose state, so, in a single mode. This is required when two interactions can interfere with one another. When one interaction must not be interrupted by another, we must go modal.
The author seems to be chiefly complaining about unnecessary modality and the way that gives rise to clunky UIs that don't allow for things like linking. That's rooted in conflating on-screen, 3D elements like overlay dialog boxes with the concept of one of some interface being modal. An example of this would be an interface with a item list that, on item selection, conjures a modal overlay dialog box with the item details. In the base case, there is no dependency problem here, i.e., it's an entirely acceptable design to allow a user to view the details of two items at the same time, and therefor it doesn't call for a modal detail interface.