On Wed, Sep 16, 1998 at 12:45:19AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Joseph> CUA is simple and efficient. > > Opinion. You can't touch this subject without it. However, it's probably the opinion of anyone who has used a CUA editor that it is in fact simple. The most defining feature of CUA is the block functions. Arrows move the cursor, that's certainly easy enough. Shift-arrows mark a block--that is not a logical extention if you didn't know about it, but once you did you'd probably remark that you can see how shift-arrows would make sense. The cut/copy/paste being connected logically to modifications of insert and delete is also not a great leap considering that is what cut/paste is. I'll never understand why they use ^y for line deletion, I guess that's a kickback to the first CUA editors also being wordstar compatible, but that's also not a command a novice wants/needs right away. Someone who knows computers and other editors sure, but not a novice to computers. > Heck, for *me*, emacs is simple, efficient, and ``intuitive''. > So intuitive, in fact, that my finger know how to do several tasks > that my conscious brain does not, without effort, recall. So there. what was that acronym? e(?) meta alt control shift or something...? > I don't think we can ever reach a conclusion on this topic. > > manoj > who is rapidly getting convinced about the sentience of his random > sig generator > -- > > No manual is ever necessary. > May I politely interject here: BULLSHIT. That's the biggest Apple lie of all! > -- Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the intuitiveness of interfaces > Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/> whoa... does that thing use any sort of keywords or is it just totally random???
Description: PGP signature