1226Re: [jasspa] CUA support - update
- Oct 16 4:36 AMThomas Hundt wrote:
> I'm against spending any effort making ME more like Notepad. I think ifI would not worry about this. I never use CUA modes and can type
> we made ME at all CUI-approximating, we can just rename it Micro
> Notepad, because it won't be Emacs-like at all, anymore. The keys just
> about conflict 100%. I would never use it this way. I like being able
> to move around in my document using keyboard keys!
Emacs commands into M$ Word with a devastating effects (I
now use primitive Emacs bindings in Word to stop me destroying
documents or printing them inadvertenly using ^p). If it is
an emulation mode that has to be enabled separately then
that is fine by me.
> And there are bigger usability fish to fry: The supportI certainly agree with this - does require some cleaning.
> for fill-in forms (e.g., User Prefs) is just not really usable
> for the non-hacker and super confusing (if you aren't running in
> GUI mode with a mouse to fall back on). And the online help
> (that pop-up box!!) is almost as bad. Those problems, alas, drag
> down a lot of good work. It's in these area that I really wish ME were
> more Windows-like. (Windows Logo requirements like being able to use
> all GUIs even without a mouse, using keys like Ctrl-Tab to flip through
> tabbed dialogs, use of space to check boxes and drop down lists, and
> support for OK/Cancel and not using Enter for anything except OK.
> Windows has an excellent set of standards for those things.)
It is also a real pain on a termcap terminal when you have
restricted terminal capabilities because of the highlighting.
Must admit I do not use the help box, I just go straight into
the help pages (M-x help) and click/tab around - usually straight
to the glossary and then search - so I do not really notice.
Would standardizing the GUI key bindings be sufficient ?
Should we consider a move to a native GUI for dialog boxes etc. ?
a) Is all of this effort worth it ?
b) Would MicroEmacs become "BloatedMicroEmacs" or "MegaEmacs" ?
c) Would it be more frustrating to use ?
d) Would it make it more usable ?
I guess the real basic questions I should be asking are:-
Why do you use MicroEmacs ?
What do you want as a user from MicroEmacs ?
Amazing, I cannot ever recall asking these questions and
I've never seen any answers to these questions.
> -Tom Hundt
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>