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

Re: X Window: Setting up mouse scroll for OOo Calc to one raw

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 10:09:25 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:

> On 02/01/12 05:02, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 14:01:26 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>> (...)
>>> Anyway, I still think this is the job for Xorg, not LO or other
>>> application.
>>> P.S. I'm still looking for a solution on how to get the wheel srolls
>>> more that a few of lines... seems grotesque that this is not possible.
>> I've found this:
>> Bug 29905 - acceleration for mouse wheel
>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29905
>> Which at least comes to confirm:
>> - That this is something to be put at Xorg side 
>> - That this is a future feature
> Well, it confirms that someone else thinks it belongs in X :-)

What a beautiful coincidence :-)

But the best thing is that there is a patch already done for having the 
"feature" implemented at Xorg.

> It seems to me that if the OP of that bug succeeds, all you'd get is
> _more_ lines/rows of scroll, not fewer - it would still need changes in
> the app.

Wheel sroll speed is slow (at least with my basic 3 button mouse I also 
barely get 3 lines up/down which can be quite annoying depending on the 
document lentgh). But if there is a patch to speed it up, I see no 
compeling reason for not having the opposite and make the wheel scrolls 

> But I'm inclined to agree with the other view, that the mouse wheel just
> gives button events, and it's up to the app to interpret them - possibly
> referring to a system-wide (or DE-wide) configuration - since it clearly
> means something different depending on the type of app.

I don't share that POV. 

IMO, it will be desiderable to be possible to tweak both options: one 
(system wide) that affects all applications managed via Xorg's mouse 
driver and also having the possibility to control wheel speed for every 
application. This will result in a fine grained configuration that will 
suit every user need.



Reply to: