I agree with Aaron. It really depends on how the UI kit was built and how quickly the design language allows the user to grasp whether it in fact IS or ISN'T a disabled state.
In my experience user testing the users just click on the button w the label that matches their desired outcome — delicately curated disabled state be damned.
I tend to agree with what's been said here, yet also feel this borderlines on making the button look like it's disabled, which (to me) feels like almost a dark pattern. While it's mentioned in there regarding the shade of grey being dark enough to avoid that, I still feel with a dark grey it can still have that appearance.
With our UI style guide... grey would mean disabled :(
"it depends." let this echo for eternity in our hearts and minds.
well said lol
in these examples, the color of "cancel" is less problematic than its proximity to primary actions.
Sorry, no. This may be a good idea for a generic Cancel button but should not be applied for destructive actions. Further, obfuscating "Not Now" or "No Thanks" is a small step towards dark patterns.
Did anyone else find the iOS example made a stronger case than the first modal? Perhaps the iOS example highlights a lack of hierarchy in those alert actions.
The face that they think "Cancel" is not an action speaks volumes about how seriously this article needs to be taken as words to live by.