Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #174108

Re: bart again (UCX64)

Show all headers | View raw

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Ergonomics experts often design interfaces that I find hard to
>>> use.  To take one example, I want to use common key binding across
>>> applications, but the experts seem to think there is only one such
>>> set (and it comes from an OS I have not used for years), so I
>>> can't use the bindings my fingers "know" about.
>>
>> I'm curious to know more about the specifics here.  What key
>> bindings, which "one set to rule them all", what domain of
>> applications followed that set?
>
> I like to use Emacs keybindings.  I can use them in bash and programs
> that use GNU readline which includes a lot of REPL programs like ghci,
> swipl, gp and so on.  I can't use them in the Gnome browser.

Clearly emacs needs to add  M-x new-browser-frame  .

By the way, have you tried the Brave browser?  I haven't
yet but am thinking about it.  (The question here is
mostly rhetorical, feel free to duck it unless you really
want to answer.)

> One big annoyance is not strictly to do with keys but is UI-related.  I
> am used to having selected text available for immediate pasting with the
> middle button, but several applications have started to auto select text
> in certain situations and I loose my selection.

Clearly a need for selection rings so  ESC <middle button>  would
paste the second most recent selection, etc.

More seriously, one-level-deep "clipboards" really bug me.  I
know one is a lot lot better than zero, but even just two or
three would be a lot better than one.  (And don't get me started
on so-called "browser history".)

>> Also I'm curious to know how
>> you know (or why you suspect) the choices were made by experts?
>
> I don't.  Maybe I should have put "experts" it scare quotes.  I stated
> to notice the loss of configuration when Gnome got a team in to clean up
> the interface and develop a set of rules to simplify things for the
> average user.  They may not have been experts, but the announcement
> suggested they were.

I see.  I've been trying different u/li/nux windowing systems
recently, haven't found one yet that I really like (or at
least can stand).  I got a suggestion to try xfce, which I
expect to do someday.

>> What abilities or skills qualify them as experts?
>
> Too big a topic.  I hope you won't mind if I just don't even try to
> answer that.

Don't mind at all.

Probably I should mention that I am used to associating the word
ergonomics with (mostly) physical attributes, and not so much
with logical attributes like key bindings.  Maybe the word has
expanded its scope since I first learned it.

That said, your answers here have been quite illuminating.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: bart again (UCX64) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-02 23:28 +0100
  Re: bart again (UCX64) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-02 20:09 -0700
    Re: bart again (UCX64) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-03 07:15 +0000
      Re: bart again (UCX64) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-03 03:03 -0700
        Re: bart again (UCX64) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-03 18:53 +0000
    Re: bart again (UCX64) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-03 16:24 +0100
      Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-09-03 12:22 -0700
        Re: bart again (UCX64) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-04 02:01 +0100
          Re: bart again (UCX64) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-09-05 21:40 -0700
            [OT] Re: bart again (UCX64) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-06 17:06 +0100
      Re: bart again (UCX64) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-09-03 18:02 -0700

csiph-web