Mmmmm... Modality a mistake? Seemingly, it depends on whom you ask. People have been using it for millennia in their languages (many words change meaning according to their context, context being the "mode"). Musicians have been using it proficiently for centuries for their music sheets(notes on the music staff change according to tonality, tonality being the "mode"). Nowadays (most? many?) people use modality every day on their mobile phones (e.g. T9 has a modal keyboard). Could it be that studies about modality were flawed? I think so. For instance, if you teach modality in the wrong way, I agree you will "realize" that modality is ineffective. I had an hard time using T9 before being told how to use it effectively, and I have helped a couple of people who hated it as well. And I had an hard time using Vim before being told how to use it effectively.
> There is at least one study that talks about this.
I couldn't find any. Could anyone provide some pointers, please?
> I'm talking about modal editing. Obviously I'm not against context.
When scientific proof lacks, appropriate analogies can be our only tool in analyzing a issue and reaching a conclusion. My point is that people don't seem to have issues with modality in other contexts, provided that they know how to cope with it, thus why should I doubt their ability to cope with modality while editing?
> This isn't how we progress. Do you have a study that demonstrates the opposite? Then claiming the study was flawed is meaningless.
Sadly, progress is slower than we wish. If a study contradicting empirical evidence is flawed, it doesn't prove anything, for empirical evidence wins and we are back to square one.
> I knew how to use it just fine, but mode management slows everything down.
This proves that some people have issues with modal editing. Why? Maybe:
- they didn't approach it effectively (in the case of Vim, they lingered in Insert mode);
- their tools were inappropriate (in the case of Vim, the Esc key was too far).
- or modal editing requires some mental capability which not everyone possess (some people can type on Dvorak and Qwerty, indifferently);
- or modal thinking is a learned skill;
- or...
If we can solve this problem, instead of saying that modal editing is better, we could say that modal editing is better when some conditions are met.
EDIT: I've also thought about reasons for Vi-style editing not being as superior as it was in the past:
- keyboard layouts do not resemble the keyboard layout used while designing Vi;
- keyboards with integrated touch-pads and/or track-pads are available to make switching to a pointing device quicker.
