Should I add a redundant "Cancel" option? [duplicate]

Question

The user starts an action, and, afterwards, the system determines that some special condition is present which warrants further confirmation from the user:

^{download bmml source – Wireframes created with Balsamiq Mockups}

In the example above, "No" would do exactly the same as "Cancel". Should the "Cancel" button still be present?

My reason not to include it: It would be redundant and users would wonder about the difference between "No" and "Cancel".

My reason to include it: It allows an "easy way out" for the user: "I don't want to read, think about, and understand the evil scary message box; please just pretend I didn't start the action at all."

Note: I do appreciate alternative suggestions (such as a completely different message box design), but I would also appreciate feedback on which one of those two options is preferred (for example, in situations where the UI library offers limited options).

Answer 1

Don't use No with Cancel. They somewhat do the same functionality.

I would suggest you go a step ahead and be accurate with the options you provide. We click Yes/No many times without reading the message in modal dialog - particularly, when we are installing applications, or facing some warning/alert popups. As a responsible designer/developer; you want your users to make a informed decision.

Since, No and Cancel somewhat run the same function. Use cancel instead of No.

^{download bmml source – Wireframes created with Balsamiq Mockups}

Answer 2

My reading of that prompt indicates the following meaning (approximately):

I see you are trying to [fizzbuzz the main Foo]. 
That isn't recommended because [the main foo has already been fizzbuzzed].
I suggest instead [frobnicate a secondary foo].

When I see a prompt formatted like that, my expectations for the buttons Yes, No, and Cancel are:

• Yes: Follow the suggested action
• No: Ignore the suggestion and continue with my original action
• Cancel: Do nothing and return to the state before attempting this action

Assuming that your description of "No and Cancel do the same thing" means that both do as I described for Cancel, I would say use Yes and Cancel if customizing the text of the buttons isn't possible as in DPS's example, or if the only two-button option is Yes/No then I would prefer clearly calling out the effects of each button in the prompt, such as "The main Foo has already been fizzbuzzed. Click 'Yes' to frobnicate a secondary Foo, or 'No' to cancel."

Answer 3

If the actions do exactly the same you should reduce the actions to one. Adding another wording for the same action confuses the user, increases completion time since he will most likely re-read the dialog, think about what he did before that makes the system offer him both actions and at the end will raise frustration.

I definitely prefer the dialog box with two instead of three options.

Answer 4

Yes, you can and should offer a redundant way of canceling the dialog, but no, it should not be a redundant button with text.

I agree with this:

It allows an "easy way out" for the user: "I don't want to read, think about, and understand the evil scary message box; please just pretend I didn't start the action at all."

However, as it's shown, the user does have to read and think about it, because all 3 buttons are presented equally and require reading/thinking to figure out which does what (at which point the user would be confused by the difference between no or cancel, as Pectoralis pointed out). A red [x] button, however, is instantly recognizable and doesn't require any thought.

You always should support 3 ways of canceling modal dialogs (in either a web or desktop app):

• An explicit "No" or "Cancel" button as you've shown
• A red [x] (ideally, native to the operating system)
• Supporting the Esc key to cancel

Answer 5

As @DPS noticed, I also opt for informing Your users the exact action the button does and the visual distinction between the two. These should be helpful (especially the first link):

When choosing between primary and secondary actions, visual distinctions are a useful method for helping people make good choices.

Should this distinction be more prominent like the button vs. link in Option A or a bit more subtle like the two different colored buttons in Option C? Option A fared a bit better in time to completion, average number of fixations, and average total length of fixations indicating people completed the form faster but not by much.

The need for these distinctions becomes moot, of course, when no secondary actions are present. Make sure you really need each secondary action on a form and don’t add them indiscriminately.

https://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?571

https://uxplanet.org/primary-secondary-action-buttons-c16df9b36150 http://uxmovement.com/buttons/visual-weight-of-primary-and-secondary-action-buttons/ https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2016/11/a-quick-guide-for-designing-better-buttons/

Answer 6

Given freedom to design the dialog however you want, @DPS's answer is great. But you also ask about how to handle this in cases where the UI library provides restricted options for dialog button choices.

In this case, I would suggest that rather than "Yes/No" a better choice would be an "OK/Cancel" dialog:

^{download bmml source – Wireframes created with Balsamiq Mockups}

This provides a clear indication that if you press Cancel, nothing at all will happen, whereas with a Yes/No option, it is ambiguous whether No would still do something without frobnicating the secondary foo or not. (And with Yes/No/Cancel there's an incorrect implication that "No" and "Cancel" do different things, leading to the conclusion that "No" must presumably attempt to continue with the original foo in some manner).

Answer 7

In usability means, you never should have different action triggers that make the same effect with different labels or descriptions.

Answer 8

Consider displaying the notification in a dismissible way, i.e. a modal dialog or a notification banner. This way you can use a standard X button to dismiss the notification, with a button to Frobnicate a Secondary Item within the notification itself.

Answer 9

Three options makes things even more confusing, not less.

If you need an easy way out, perhaps this dialogue box should be removed entirely.

Make an obvious explicit icon appear after foo fabbing that is easily seen and acted upon by the user rather than interrupting their workflow with something they might not need. An animation would draw attention.

Answer 10

"Standard" dialog buttons have always been problematic. One problem is that their sense is often ambiguous, but the other problem is that they can make choices seem clearer than they really are.

Arguably, when an exceptional circumstance arises, the user should be confused, until they have understood the question. Making the dialog simpler and more routine is just downplaying the amount of attention you require from the user.

If you are restricted to "yes", "no", "OK" and "cancel", I would suggest that "yes" / "no" is the most likely to get the user to read the question (which should be clearly worded). Many users, seeing a dialog with "cancel" as one option, will reflexively click the other button to keep going.

Ideally, you'd use "wordy" buttons/hyperlinks to guarantee the user is making a deliberate and informed choice. Of course, the other moral here is not to overuse dialog boxes, because users stop paying attention.