Re: question about RMB
- From: John Kodis <kodis jagunet com>
- To: gnome-doc-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: question about RMB
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 19:58:27 -0400
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 12:57:37PM -0400, otaylor redhat com wrote:
> - Numeric designations are neutral for handedness, but can easily
> be misunderstood, and definetely confusing for 2-button mouse
> users. (Including scroll wheel mice, where you have to think of
> the scroll wheel as the second "button".)
> - Left/Middle/Right makes left-handed users second-class citizens,
> though they probably will figure it out.
> - Named terminalogy like:
> click (X button 1)
> context click (X button 3)
> middle click (X button 2)
> has less chance of misinterpretation, but probably won't be
> understood without further explanation.
Nice summary. As much as I hate to further confuse things here,
another option which is handedness-neutral and which avoids the
ambiguity of a purely numeric designation would be:
- Inner/Outer terminology:
Inner (button 1, left button for right-handers,
right button for left-handers)
Middle (button 2, unless you've only got two buttons,
in which case this should be "Both")
Outer (button 3, right button for right-handers,
left button for left-handers)
I still prefer the numeric designation. I find it the most natural,
and based on its conformance with X, it seems the most correct.
> (I suppose if we made each use of "context click" a link to
> a glossary entry, people might pick it up pretty quick)
I think that that will be needed no matter what scheme we go with.
-- John Kodis.
] [Thread Prev