This post is all about a very common design element that I really hate (most of the time).  I'm talking about modal dialog boxes (or modal windows).

In UI terminology, a dialog box is a window that pops up and prompts some action from you.  They can be used to confirm that you want to delete something, to enter a password, or to give you a status update among other things.  The term "modal" means that this window takes the focus so that you can't interact with anything else in the application until you address whatever action the dialog box is calling for.

Dialogs and pop-up windows are fine, but when you make them modal you're really limiting how a user can work with the software.  Microsoft Outlook is the worst with this.  Almost anything you want to do in outlook other than reading an email causes a modal window to pop up.  If you need to edit your signature, change your account information, or configure plugins, you can't interact with anything else in outlook.  This is particularly frustrating when you want to copy text from an email into your signature (which happens more than you might realize) but you can't view any emails when the signature editor is open.

If you're not sure what I'm talking about, try this (you'll need firefox and chrome):

• Open firefox and to to tools > options
• With the option window open, try going to a new web page in the web browser.
• Now try it with chrome.  Open the options and try to go to a website.

Modal dialog boxes are slightly more necessary with web development.  Websites have the problem that a pop-up in a window can't exist if a new page is loaded, so it makes sense to lock down the rest of the window to prevent the user from clicking links.  To be clear, I'm talking about javascript/html pop-ups within the parent window, not new instances of the browser.

Microsoft is generating some buzz for their new search engine, Bing.  This inspired all kinds of blog posts discussing whether Bing is better than Google.  My opinion makes me feel embarassingly out of touch.

I just don't get what either search engine can do to make my experience much better.  They both seem perfectly capable of getting me the answers I'm looking for.  I can't remember the last time I wanted to find something on Google and I had to look past the first page.

I'm not saying that search can't improve.  I think that ten years from now search will be a million times better than it is now.  I just can't imagine how.

When DVDs first came out I didn't get what the big deal was.  VHS looked just fine and rewinding isn't that big of a deal.  Obviously I was being an idiot, but I kind of feel the same way with search.  At least this time I realize I'm being too complacent.

So what do you think?  Assuming we're all currently pretty good at finding things on Google, what will be some of the major improvements in search over the next decade or two?

One of the constant challenges at work is communicating to users why our software is better than the competition.  In an attempt to get better at creating educational documents, I want to put together some tutorials on this site as practice.

So, are there any tech topics that you guys want to know more about?  I'd prefer doing something related to development or design, but you might be able to persuade me to discuss I.T. stuff too.

If no one has any requests, I'll probably just start with a basic HTML tutorial.  I realize that there are a million of those already, but if no one's going to read it anyway, I might as well try something that will really test me.

Anyway, let me know if you want to see something specific.

On Tuesday I talked about how I don't like modal dialogs.  Here's one way to avoid using them when designing an application.

I learned this one from Gmail, but there are other applications out there doing the same type of thing. Imagine if someone accidentally clicks the "delete" button in your application.  The results could be disastrous.  That's why most websites pop up a window saying "are you sure?"

The problem is, most of the time the use wasn't clicking the delete button by accident.  Most of the time the user actually wants to delete something and it's annoying having to deal with the confirm dialog.

With most important decisions, gmail just goes ahead and performs the action.  Then they pop up an unobtrusive message at the top of the page allowing the user to undo the action.  This makes sure that accidental clicks don't result in catastrophe but the user isn't inconvenienced in situations where they're doing everything correctly.

Sounds simple enough, but it's far from standard practice.  Sometimes it's not necessary to go through the effort of undoing things, but other times it can be a huge time saver.  If you remove enough minor inconveniences, you'll end up with great user interface.

I'm trying to incorporate not only this specific strategy at work, but any design ideas that follow the same line of thought.  For example, we will be redesigning one of our sign-up processes soon and I've already figured out one way to make it much easier.  Rather than showing the user every single option they can customize during signup, I think we'll just show the basics and then the advanced users can go in later and make changes that the majority of our users don't want to deal with.

Once again, this is an obvious idea which makes it all the more important to implement.

There's something weird going on in the Gateway Center in Park City (the building where I work).  On the top floor, Zane Benefits has two offices, Hunter Capital (a venture capital firm) has one, and the HR department of the Sky Lodge (a hotel) has the fourth.  There are only these four offices.

Hunter and Zane Benefits have signs on all their doors identifying which company occupies that space.  The Sky Lodge doesn't have any sign and there's no receptionist.  When you look in their door there isn't anyone to speak to and there's no indication that the Sky Lodge is there.

Being the HR department for a hotel, there are constantly people coming in to interview for positions.  They know to go to the top floor of our building but then they're lost.  My desk is next to a window that looks out onto the entire public area of our floor so I see exactly what everyone goes through to figure out which office to go into.

The average Sky Lodge applicant gets off the elevator and immediately sees all four offices.  They see 3 doors that are clearly not what they're looking for and one unmarked door.  Despite the fact that the unmarked door has to be the Sky Lodge, everyone ends up coming into our office and asking where the Sky Lodge is.

Aside from the obvious question of why the Sky Lodge doesn't just put up a sign, I can't help but wonder why people prefer to go into an office that is clearly not what they're looking for rather than going into the office that is almost certainly what they're looking for.  

I think the answer is that people are afraid of uncertainty.  The Zane Benefits office looks friendly and professional.  It's obvious that if you walk in, someone will talk to you and help you out.  No one wants to go into an unmarked office and wander around until they find someone.

So as always, I'm going to force this weird anecdote into the context of web design.  I generally assume that I can build features into a website and advanced users will find them on their own.  The less sophisticated users don't generally need to see these features, so I figure there's no need to hold anyones hand.  Now I'm wondering if even advanced computer users might have a mental block preventing them from trying things that are uncertain.

For example, sometimes I'm on a website and I'm not sure what a button does.  Generally, I just click the button and see what happens.  What's the worst that could happen?

Well, Most people probably don't try things unless they know exactly what they're doing.  Maybe it's time to do a little more hand holding, even for power users.