Re: Info sucks?
On Wed, Sep 16, 1998 at 10:26:24PM -0300, Lalo Martins wrote:
> On Sep 16, Seth M. Landsman decided to present us with:
>
> [good stuff on cultural expactations deleted]
>
> > Therefore, if I were to implement a text-based UI, I would follow
> > the key bindings that emacs follows or vi follows. This would follow the
> > cultural norms we've come to expect, and could almost be called intuitive
>
> The problem we face here (in GNU/Linux systems) is that we have
> people with so many different backgrounds. For some, emacs
> bindings are the "norm"; for some, vi is; a good portion of us
> doesn't come from an Unix background, and of these some think
> CUA is "standard" and others think Wordstar/Borland is
> "obvious". There are even people who were spoiled by NE
> (Norton's) and try to "F3-Q" to quit... ykes :-) (my dad for one)
>
> So _my_ rule of "a good keyboard UI" is - configurable bindings
> rule. That's why I'm so addicted to joe, even when it miserably
> lacks mouse support.
I mentioned emacs or vi as an example, not to say that it was the
right way to do it. My point was more along the lines that the designer
has to consider and make allowances for his target audience. If I were to
write an emacs elisp proggie I would follow emacs conventions. If I were
to write something for the general populace, I might create a set of
default bindings, and allow them to be configurable, but give them smart
defaults.
-Seth
--
"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion"
Reply to: