Re: Gnome Key Binding Standard

[Alex Achenbach <achenbac stud uni-frankfurt de>]

W. Reilly Cooley, Esq. wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Paul Hepworth wrote:
> 
> > The specific bindings are not important; they are user-configurable
> > (globally).
> > What is important is that these bindings exist.
> 
> I disagree; I think the specific bindings _are_ important.  I think having
> good, fairly standardized (whatever that means) defaults is very

The "whatever that means" part is crucial.
Who is going to decide on that?
There's at least Emacs vs Motif standard bindings...

> important, because that's what 95% of users will use, especially if GNOME
> will be used for end-user systems.  If the defaults are good enough, then
> the different distributions won't have to put them together themselves,

If there are a number of fairly standardized default themes among which
the
user may choose, eg Emacs type vs Motif type, there will be no need for
the distributions to "put them together themselves", just to set up
one of these as a default.

> helping to ensure standardization between distributions (and systems, like
> the BSDs).  I'm a moderate 'power-user', and of all the configurable
> keybinding in the apps I use, I've made only a few changes.  In fact, I
> contend that, at least working towards a 1.0 release, making the bindings
> user-configurable isn't very important.

Right, but having provisions for themes (and by that
user-configurability)
is important to be able to completely put that in later on.

> What's important is to get a
> working system out, and get people using it. Not to say that it isn't a a
> worthwhile goal; but to get people using the system, and thus more
> developers writing applications is more important.

Certainly, but not with _too_ much of a hurry; just to get the
basics fairly right...

Cheers
(Dein?) Alex