W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2012

[whatwg] Proposal for non-modal versions of modal prompts

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:03:08 -0700
Message-ID: <C65BB100-255E-49D7-B47E-26EF1483F57E@apple.com>

On Mar 21, 2012, at 7:54 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> 
> <dialog> will give a better user experience than even a non-modal version of window.confirm() or window.alert(). Dialogs that are fully in-page 

Oops, got cut off here. What I meant to say is something like "dialogs that are fully in-page are the emerging standard for high-quality page-modal prompting".

I should add that this could be partly for path-dependent reasons, and that if other technologies had been available, authors might not have resorted to in-page modality with overlays. But I think the key missing enabled was not asynchrony but rather the ability to fully control the UI, layout and available commands of the modal experience.

> 
> alert() is mostly only used by either by sites with a low-quality user experience, or as as non-production debugging aid. In both cases, authors who care about the user experience will use <dialog> or a JS-implemented "lightbox" style dialog. And authors who do not care about user experience, or who are doing a quick debugging hack in non-production code, will use old-fashioned blocking alert/confirm/prompt. Thus, I am not sure there is really a meaningful audience for the non-blocking editions of these calls.
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 20:03:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:40 UTC