Re: question about RMB

[John Kodis <kodis jagunet com>]

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.