[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#192305: (no subject)



> A problem with mnemonic keys is that they don't translate.

I wouldn't worry about that. It's whether the keys can be pressed. I
imagine that a translation could change the keys too.

I gave some history as to why the keys q and b are appropriate.

This bug is about the English wording for the descriptions. I guess I
shouldn't have even brought up changing the keys.

> Please, no off-list mail at all at all. This address accepts mail only
> from Debian lists
>
I hope you get off-list mail like this though.



> This started with
> |
> | This could almost be a wishlist item, re-prioritize if desired. I hope you
> | don't feel this is too much of a nitpicking issue.
> |
> | "q to end,  b for begin" I feel is ambiguous and may mislead people.
> | E.g.'s, someone wants to go to the end of the list hitting q, someone
> | finished selecting wanting to "begin" the action on their selected
> | items...

Yup, the English is ambiguous. It may also be important to note that
different front ends like gtk could use buttons instead of (or maybe as
well as) these text front end keys. Keys like tab and alike would then be
mapped.

If people want the use of different keys, then that's a different bug. It
may be worth a bug filers time to look at the different interfaces and
translations before proposing key changes. I know I forgot about
non-English translations... I still recommended that the keys stay as q and
b "for historical reasons".

> God UI design requires consistency.

Great, we're currently consistent with programs like less, more and lynx.


As to the history of keyboard commands, keys, shortcuts... I'm sure
debian-curiosa would enjoy reading about them... This may also be relevant
to key change discussion which I would ask to be a separate bug if
desired (I like q and b).

     Drew Daniels




Reply to: