Re: localization of keyboard shortcuts

[Christian Rose <menthos menthos com>]

I'll start with a another humble request not to send me duplicate copies
of the same mail. Yes, my mail server appearantly doesn't treat the same
message sent to different mail adresses as a duplicate, when the one
mail differs a lot in the headers from the other one (such as the one
mail having been sent to a mailing list). Just send your answer to the
mailing list. Thanks.


"Michael T. Babcock" wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Rose" <menthos@menthos.com>
> > I agree that more configurability is better, but I don't agree about
> > changing the default keyboard shortcuts for different locales.
> 
> Are you multi-lingual?

Yes. Swedish (natively), German (the native language of my parents),
English (you'd be the judge of that) and to some extension French
(studied six years, never used it since).


> I can touch-type on three different keyboard
> layouts.  My keyboard shortcuts are unfortunately the same, and I don't want
> them to be.  (English, Canadian French, Dvorak)

Unfortunately (or perhaps "fortunately"), I'm used to only one keyboard
layout, the Swedish one. It's not that I don't know other layouts, it's
just that I'm used to type on a Swedish one (the German Z <-> Y swap
always gets me).


> > Changing defaults for different locales makes a lot of sense in some
> > cases - that is, when the locale has declared preference for things
> > behaving in one way or another as the default.
> 
> Have you ever seen keyboards with say, arabic character sets on them?  Would
> you recommend those use the "same" key bindings even though that key may
> have no equivalent?

No, I haven't used arabic keyboards.

And yes, I still suggest that the keyboard bindings be the same (given
of course that the keys exist in the layouts and is easily accessible).

If that's not the case, yes, it might be reasonable to have other
_additional_ shortcuts. You have to draw the line somewhere and to me
the line is keyboard layouts where the entire English alphabet has to be
accessed via some modifier key or so. Then you obviously can't find a
globally easily accessible key, and have to make some other additional
arrangement, for example adding an additional shortcut with a "native
keyboard character" on that layout.

To me, the line isn't that close that i would accept \ as a default
keyboard shortcut, as this key isn't accessible without an additional
modifier on a *lot* of layouts.

I had a look at these layouts:

Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
UK
US

Out of these, only the Italian, Norwegian, UK and the US ones allows
unmodified access to \, the rest uses AltGr + some character.

Only 4 out of 12 makes me wonder about if \ is suited as a keyboard
shortcut, especially since the placement of \ varies from every single
layout to another, even between *very* similar layouts.

On the other hand, the normal keys with letters in the English alphabet
are fairly consistent (with some few and small exceptions) and easibly
accessible throughout the layouts. That's why regular letters are often
used in keyboard shortcuts, and not special characters (like
!/&§½\?£$@') where the placements differ and the modifier keys vary.

If you run out of English letters, use key combos with the function keys
(although I think that the lower function keys should be fairly
standardized for the same bahvior across apps).


> My proposal works across the board.

You're attacking this from the wrong end. Yes, that keyboard layouts
differ is a pain, but that is not a reason to try to have unique
keyboard shortcuts for every single keyboard layout there.
The reason is documentation and portability. I don't have to know what
keyboard layout you use and you don't have to know mine, as long as we
agree on a keyboard shortcut that makes sense on most layouts and that
we can both easily type.

Another point is that although I believe Canada uses two different
layouts, the normal case is that people *don't* have to swap between
different layouts that often, except when they go abroad.

I can name some countries with more than one official language (Belgium,
Canada, Finland, Switzerland) and each one of those countries, except
Canada, have *one* keyboard layout that fits all the languages in their
countries.

If you still have to swap layouts, you still have to learn to type on
that other layout. Having to learn how to access your favorite key combo
is no different than having to learn where all the other keys are.


> > Take for example that you have an icon showing a hand pointing with the
> > index finger, and you know that in most locales that's ok, but you also
> > know that in locale foo that is considered a terribly offensive gesture.
> > If you know that, I think that going ahead and choosing that icon
> > anyway, even if you know this, is a bad design decision since it needs a
> > nasty hack for a particular locale later on.
> 
> No, its not a nasty hack.  A smile in Canada means some variation of 'hello'
> and in Japan can mean 'I want sex'.  Lots of things are localised and we
> shouldn't try to internationalise by neutralising all of our symbols, but
> rather by allowing different locales to have their own symbols.  A big red
> octagon makes a good stop sign here.  In France (elsewhere in Europe?), they
> don't use them -- should we change "stop" to something different?  No.  We
> can make internationalised icons, etc.  Its not that hard -- and it means
> we're doing it right the first time.

Hmm, the icon analogy was an analogy and nothing else. I don't want to
jump into that bin any further.
But if you use icons that fit in all locations you know of, you don't
have to use localized icons. Having to use localized icons isn't
necessarily good (again comes the documentation issue). In some rare
cases you have to do that (a smile means basically the same thing in the
western world, so refusing to use it might be hard), but it's not the
common case, and doing it right from the beginning (by using icons that
you know aren't offensive or might be interpreted differently) should be
the way to go.

And, no, I don't think that France uses different stop signs than the
rest of Europe. Most traffic signs are virtually identical in Europe
(with minor differences, but the symbols are usually the same).
For example, I know that Sweden is the only country in Europe that has
yellow instead of white as the default background color for the
"warning" or "prohibited" class of traffic signs, but that's pretty much
the only difference.
Each country has it's own traffic regulations of course, but the signs
used are similar.

And for the sake of it, I might give you the interesting tidbit that
Sweden had its own "Stop" sign (labelled "Stopp" and looking entirely
different) until the 60's or something, when the sign was changed to the
international "Stop" symbol with a red octagon and white borders and the
label "STOP" in all caps. This was of course done so make the sign
internationally viable and in line with other countries.

I actually believe that this was at the same time that there were some
forming of an international standard for common traffic signs and such -
I've heard about some such. Most countries in Europe uses this
convention (since then naturally also adopted by the EU as a formal
standard) but I've heard that the US was one country that refused to
accept it - that should be one reason to why Europe uses blue lights on
police cars, for example, and the US red and blue ones, and why the US
has an entirely different set of traffic signs). I'm not sure about
that, though. It might just be a rumor. :)

And just last year, the traffic lights were changed all around Sweden
across a single weekend to reflect the behavior of all other traffic
lights in Europe (they now change green -> yellow -> red instead of
green -> green+yellow -> red).


> > I say "nasty hack" because it isn't beautiful. By "beautiful" I mean
> > that a decision should be made that would work in all locales.
> 
> You obviously don't understand the true diversity on this planet.

Of course I do. Maybe even more than you, because I care about the fact
that conventions and default shortcuts should be easily accessible to
everyone, rather than the "let them have their entirely own system, I
don't care, that's their problem, as long as I can have my favorite
shortcut" type of attitude when establishing conventions and rules that
should be used.

If it isn't easily accessible (to most that is) regardless of the
layout, it isn't a good shortcut to begin with.

On the other hand, suggesting that all different layouts should have
their own shortcuts is a horror for the end user, as there would be no
good documentation of it. Undocumented keyboard shortcuts are no
keyboard shortcuts (unless you're the type that likes so sit down and
try a million different combos randomly).

Also, I don't know the keyboard shortcut change proposal could actually
work - that would have to make every app know what keyboard layout was
used instead of just language.
And, as you probably know, you can use different keyboard layouts with
the same language...

Convinced?


Christian



#######################################################################
Christian Rose
http://www.menthos.com                    	    menthos@menthos.com
#######################################################################