Make the preferences dialog non-modal on Windows

[Jazoray]

In the event that a program cannot continue an operation unless it receives a certain input from the user, windows allows the creation of dialogs that lock and freeze the Task window that created them. Those dialogs are called modal dialogs.


In Pale Moon, the browser window cannot be used when the preferences window is open.

I can see no reason why that be so, and under OSX, the preferences dialog is non-modal too.


Make the preferences dialog non-modal on Windows.

[Moonchild]

Thank you for the superfluous bare-bones definition of a modal dialog.

I see no reason to make the preferences dialog non-modal. Not only are changes not immediately applied in most cases when you change them (which would be a requirement for non-modal, meaning a whole bunch more observers need to be registered), there also is no real reason why the preferences window should be operable concurrently with browsing.

[Jazoray]

The reason for making it a non-modal dialog is that there was never a reason to make it a modal dialog in the first place. Modal dialogues are only needed when an operation CANNOT continue. But Pale moon CAN continue to browse the web while the preferences Dialog is open.
If there are non-applied changes in the preferences dialog, just use the old settings until the user closes the window. this works fine on other OSes. why is the windows environment so bent on interrupting the user? or rather, why have pale moon on windows behave differently than on other OSes?

[Moonchild]

... Having preferences/options windows be modal on Windows is normal practice and therefore expected behavior, leading to a more intuitive interface. Why should Pale Moon behave differently than other applications on the same OS?

BTW: Using a modal dialog is indeed required if the operation or input is blocking, but that does not mean modal dialogs cannot be used when it's not strictly required (taking it to the other extreme).

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Many of the preferences should be confirmed by the user hitting "Ok" on preferences or "Cancel" to discard.

We could explore using an apply button and make the preferences window non-blocking but I don't see a real point in doing so.

If you are really hampered by this you can always just learn all the internal prefs and use about:config which does not ask for the user to confirm changes but also does not give you the ability to cancel them either.

Really I see this as the user should make a deliberate choice in options and then hit ok to confirm it rather than someone using something like in-content preferences flipping things left and right then the tab being closed and the user forgets they set the option.

[Jazoray]

... Having preferences/options windows be modal on Windows is normal practice and therefore expected behavior, leading to a more intuitive interface. Why should Pale Moon behave differently than other applications on the same OS?

because, umm.. i, personally think it's more convenient?

point taken.

BTW: Using a modal dialog is indeed required if the operation or input is blocking, but that does not mean modal dialogs cannot be used when it's not strictly required (taking it to the other extreme).

there is logic to your logic

Many of the preferences should be confirmed by the user hitting "Ok" on preferences or "Cancel" to discard.

We could explore using an apply button and make the preferences window non-blocking but I don't see a real point in doing so.

If you are really hampered by this you can always just learn all the internal prefs and use about:config which does not ask for the user to confirm changes but also does not give you the ability to cancel them either.

Really I see this as the user should make a deliberate choice in options and then hit ok to confirm it rather than someone using something like in-content preferences flipping things left and right then the tab being closed and the user forgets they set the option.

I believe that a user should always be free to use any window of an application, and a modal window just hampers him when not technically required.

i genuinely thought that moving away from the modal preferences dialog would be a great idea. But you make a valid case against the change and i no longer have a reasonable expectation of my idea being implenented.

Thank you for your insights. I will look into virtualization options for my isolated use case then.


can you enlighten me on why the same dialog can be non-modal without problem om OSX?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

On Pale Moon on Mac it is? Sounds like an inconsistency and bug to me... Mac has only been getting the attention it deserves only recently so oddities like this are to be expected so is fixing them because of the same afore mentioned issues with it being as such.

[Jazoray]

On Pale Moon on Mac it is? Sounds like an inconsistency and bug to me... Mac has only been getting the attention it deserves only recently so oddities like this are to be expected so is fixing them because of the same afore mentioned issues with it being as such.

As I said, there are no issues with it on Mac. I have browsed with an open preferences window for months, and everything always behaved as i expected. An apply button or such was never needed.

I also believe that a non-modal dialog is a more expected behavior on OSX as modal dialogs and interrupting the user in general are far less frequent there.

[Jazoray]

Update: I still can't grasp how you're defending this arrogant behavior that disregards the user. i've trried to be civil and understanding about this, but it doesn't work.

Modal Dialogs and focus stealing are 2 bahaviors in a group of app behaviors that should never be used.
Yes, it's commonly used on windows. But it always has been and always will be a bad idea.

The highest authority on a computer is the USER. When the user wants to browse the web, let him.
there is literally nothing different on the Mac port of the settings menu other than it not talking back to the user like "screw you, your input belongs to me now".
it's not expected behavior for most users. most users can use multiple windows and know that there is no reason for one window to block the other window.

this feature exists purely to mess with the user and slowly drive them insane

[Moonchild]

If you prefer everything to be non-modal, then maybe you should not be using Windows as an operating system.

Also, your tone of posting is certainly not "being civil" and I do not respond well to this kind of "my opinion about the development of software overrules everything else" attitude. Modal preferences dialogs are normal behavior for the OS. The fact that it behaves differently on a Mac does not automatically mean that it should be adopted on other operating systems as well where this behavior is not normal.
Pale Moon follows expected patterns for the operating system. Unless there is a very clear, well-founded, objective reason to do so, software should not try to redefine standard, expected behavior of the operating system's normal operational flow for applications.

[_Poke_]

While non-modal settings aren't really essential to me, the only real reason I can see to leave the settings modal is to prevent user error - someone opens the dialog, changes a setting but gets distracted and forgets to save it. Perhaps if it is a simple change then the convenience outweighs the small risk, epsecially if the user has multiple screens. It would seem that this small risk is the only reason programs should behave this way in Windows if the program doesn't actually require an input to continue running.

Still, this is a small issue that's not really worth getting hostile over. While there's little reason the dialog should be modal, there's equally little reason to have it open while browsing.

[Jazoray]

Considering all the things that Pale Moon does better than other browsers, having a modal dialog is the REAL counterintuitive inconsistency here. I am baffled about your attitude towards this behavior. Pale Moon has always been a browser that respects the user and his intentions. a non-modal interface would play right into that.
It's weird. It's almost as if you PREFER being interrupted while you browse, and assume that the same is true for most users. It doesn't fit.
I really want to know: do you really think that interrupting the user is a good practice, and that the program should control the user, and not the other way around? Because that's what i am reading from your posts.

If you prefer everything to be non-modal, then maybe you should not be using Windows as an operating system.Pale Moon follows expected patterns for the operating system. Unless there is a very clear, well-founded, objective reason to do so, software should not try to redefine standard, expected behavior of the operating system's normal operational flow for applications.

The objective reason is that a user should not be interrrupted in his workflow. THAT is what is really unintuitive. Simply letting the user proceed with his work is far more intuitive that following a design standard that is almost universally disliked.

just because it's window's attitude to bump and push and interrupt the user at every chance it gets, that doesn't mean every program must adopt this attitude. It is hostile towards the user. it's like telling the user "you cannot be trusted to make decisions on your own"
it is also common and expected windows behavior that the operating system has freedom. Unlike better operating systems, every program is free to define its own GUI workflows and bahaviors.

While it is good to follow estamblished de-facto standards, it's not good to follow them blindly. And when the standard behavior is one that disrespects the authority of the user, they must not be followed. Pale Moon has always been a browser that isn't afraid to move away from something established, if it makes sense to do so. If it didn't, it would still be identical to Firefox.
If a program can be better by not following someone else's workflow, then that alone is a reason for a change.
Maybe windows will even stop demanding this weird behaviour if we all just stopped using it.

The fact that it behaves differently on a Mac does not automatically mean that it should be adopted on other operating systems as well where this behavior is not normal.

On Pale Moon on Mac it is? Sounds like an inconsistency and bug to me... Mac has only been getting the attention it deserves only recently so oddities like this are to be expected so is fixing them because of the same afore mentioned issues with it being as such.

This seems like a double standard to me.

You're always talking about how the dialog being modal is "expected". I doubt that even many windows users expect this behavior. The actual expected behavior for a program is to do what it's being told to do.

The normal behavior should be:
1) User tells the program to do something
2) program does it, unless there is an important reason not to

the behavior with the modal preferences dialog is:
1) user tells the program to do something
2) program talks back to the user and refuses to do said task

This whole discussion is not about personal preference or about adopting standards of any operating system.
It is about respect and authority.
Do you respect the decisions that a user makes?
Do you respect the authority of the user to command a program?
Do you believe that a user should have authority over a program?

If you answered any of these questions with 'yes', then not rudely interrupting the user is the only logical conclusion.

In what use case would any user be grateful towards a preferences window that interrupts him browsing the web. I want an example for this.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

One.. Though Moonchild and I work fairly well together we do not share the exact same opinions on everything.. So how can there be a double standard where I said it sounded like an inconsistency to me but Moonchild stated policy.. I defer to Moonchild because he is the leader of the project however I don't blindly defer to him. I will state my opinion or viewpoint and if his is objectively better especially for the majority of users then that is that. Decision is made. So no double standard can be construed as these are two statements from two people.

Two.. (or one and a half) We have to consider what the bulk of our user's expectations are.

Three.. Saying modal dialog is hostile to the user is insane. The preferences window has ALWAYS been model and there is NO objective reason to change it. You should be completing your changes in options and then confirming it to close the window. How can it be refusing a task when you told it to go to options. How is it talking back.. And how is this any different than the past 15 years in Mozilla-based browsers...

Four (also two and a half) We do listen to our users. We consider everything that is said. I personally read every thread, every post that has been added since early 2014.

Five.. I dunno what parallel universe you have been living in but 99% of All Windows Applications will not allow you to continue work while you are changing options/preferences. Many Mac and Linux programs will not let you either.

What you need to do is calm down and take a step back and consider others rather than your own personal preferences.

[Jazoray]

One.. Though Moonchild and I work fairly well together we do not share the exact same opinions on everything.. So how can there be a double standard where I said it sounded like an inconsistency to me but Moonchild stated policy.. I defer to Moonchild because he is the leader of the project however I don't blindly defer to him. I will state my opinion or viewpoint and if his is objectively better especially for the majority of users then that is that. Decision is made. So no double standard can be construed as these are two statements from two people.

Thank you for clearing that up. i wasn't sure if you both spoke representative for a united team opinion or just for yourselves.

Two.. (or one and a half) We have to consider what the bulk of our user's expectations are.

consider, or "just assume"?

Three.. Saying modal dialog is hostile to the user is insane.

wow, and I am the one getting warnings while TEAM members throw insults around?

The preferences window has ALWAYS been model

just because a mistake was made long ago doesn't mean there isn't still time to correct it.

You should be completing your changes in options and then confirming it to close the window.

The highest authority of a computer is the user. if the user wants to browse the web, then browsing the web is what must be done. no ifs. no buts. bow to the king. the user is law. And disrespecting that authority is what a modal dialog does. that is why its hostile to the user.

How can it be refusing a task when you told it to go to options. How is it talking back..

The user clicked on a window containing a website because he wants to browse the web. that is the task the user wants done. telling the user that he can't browse the web and should pick options now is refusing that task. it is talking back

And how is this any different than the past 15 years in Mozilla-based browsers...
[...] Five.. I dunno what parallel universe you have been living in but 99% of All Windows Applications will not allow you to continue work while you are changing options/preferences. Many Mac and Linux programs will not let you either.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/MyQki.jpg
Usually you're better than the rest. Why not in this case?

Four (also two and a half) We do listen to our users. We consider everything that is said. I personally read every thread, every post that has been added since early 2014.

nice to know. where did i say that you didn't? And why do you feel it's necessary to cinvince me of that?

What you need to do is calm down and take a step back and consider others rather than your own personal preferences.

like i said before. preference has nothing to do with it.

[Moonchild]

The highest authority of a computer is the user.

You are absolutely correct. As such you have all authority to:

• Install or uninstall software;
• Choose software that works best for you;
• Curse at it, break the keyboard, or throw your computer out the window;
• Even, in case of Open Source software, adapt existing software to your personal needs and make it do exactly what you prefer.

But you have no authority to:

• Decide on software development that is not your work;
• Apply your preference (because that is still what it is, no matter how much you try to twist it) and keep hammering on it to try and make developers do your bidding, in spite of logic explained to you and in spite of expected program behavior.

If your opinion doesn't stroke with millions of users out there (not just of Pale Moon, but of pretty much all Windows applications) that agree with the developer, then you should consider your view utopian in nature.

if the user wants to browse the web, then browsing the web is what must be done.

Nothing prevents you from doing so except your own actions. You ask to open a dialog with preferences, and the browser responds.

There's no reasonable requirement that you should be able to change options while browsing at the same time. Normal progression for changing options in software is:
Operate program -> choose to change options -> change options -> confirm -> continue operating program.
If you feel that is a mistake, then you should probably take a time machine to back when this was decided and rewrite history?

[Admin]

This is getting out of hand with circular reasoning and not listening to what is said, as well as not respecting a few simple rights. You have already been issued a warning, we will not do it again.

Everything has already been explained, a few times, by the two main people involved in this project who work on Windows architecture. If you don't like it, you have a free choice:

1. Either calm down, accept that this is the way this piece of software works, and use it, or
2. Stop using the browser, exercising your authority as a computer user.

Either choice should put an end to this.

If you choose neither and choose to continue your train of stubborn posts and perpetuate the conflict in spite of both reasoning and the ultimate authority of the developers over their own work, then I will be forced to exercise my authority over the forum.

[Sob__]

I'm just wondering, what's the advantage of having open settings dialog floating around all the time? I would find it really annoying to have whole unnecessary open window just because I want to switch an option or two from time to time. True, no one would force me to keep it open. But it still seems to me much better to have e.g. toolbar buttons as part of program's main interface for those few often changed options. Much more accessible and pleasant to use.

[Supernova]

The only use case I see is when you're checking on internet which preference to change to get the result you want. Pretty limited.

[Tharn]

It is limited and not a big deal to me personally. But even so, I can't see any advantages to having a preferences window force focus. Do you?

[megaman]

Yes, it is annoying when you open the prompt and you encounter something that requires your attention on a website during that phase.

No, you don't open prompts all the time.

If the majority of users do have this issue, sure. (We have to think on both sides of the field.)