[Usability] Re: Keyboard navigation- outstanding issues
- From: "Padraig O'Briain" <Padraig Obriain sun com>
- To: usability gnome org, gnome-accessibility-list gnome org, gtk-devel-list gnome org, calum benson sun com
- Subject: [Usability] Re: Keyboard navigation- outstanding issues
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:45:28 +0100 (BST)
> Delivered-To: gtk-devel-list gnome org
> X-Accept-Language: en
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: usability gnome org, gnome-accessibility-list gnome org,
gtk-devel-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: Keyboard navigation- outstanding issues
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-BeenThere: gtk-devel-list gnome org
> X-Loop: gtk-devel-list gnome org
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5
> List-Help: <mailto:gtk-devel-list-request gnome org?subject=help>
> List-Post: <mailto:gtk-devel-list gnome org>
> List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list>,
<mailto:gtk-devel-list-request gnome org?subject=subscribe>
> List-Id: Development of GTK+ <gtk-devel-list.gnome.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list>,
<mailto:gtk-devel-list-request gnome org?subject=unsubscribe>
> List-Archive: <http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/>
>
> Calum Benson wrote:
>
> > Now that we are (well, Padraig is) finally getting around to
> > implementing the long-standing keyboard navigation proposals, for gtk at
> > least, the two biggest issues we never really resolved are kind of
> > rearing their ugly heads again.
>
> Well, having collated the responses I got on- and off-list, predictably
> enough, there was some difference of opinion :o) However, here's a
> summary of what consensus there was:
>
> Issue 1: Most support was shown for the idea of allowing the developer
> to choose whether tab characters should be allowed in individual text
> entry fields or not, by means of a flag or similar. If they're allowed,
> Tab key inserts a tab character, and [Shift+]Ctrl+Tab navigates out of
> the field. If they're not allowed, [Shift+]Tab and [Shift+]Ctrl+Tab
> both navigate out of the field. Default should be 'not allowed'.
> (Perhaps should be 'tab characters allowed' for multiline fields?)
>
> Problem: This would presumably mean an unplanned gtk patch :o)
>
I am working on a patch to GtkEntry and GtkTextView for this. Implementation of
[Shift]Ctrl+Tab will depend on a previous patch for changing the behavior of
GtkNotebook being accepted.
The default behavior for GtkTextView is allow_tab_character so I will assume
that is the correct default for multiline fields.
> Alternative: Most people wanted unhindered tab navigation where
> possible. So, in single line textfields, have Tab navigate out of the
> field, and Ctrl+Tab insert a tab character. In multiline text fields,
> have Tab insert a tab character, Enter insert a newline, and
> [Shift+]Ctrl+Tab navigate out of the field. This way, Tab navigation
> works everywhere except for multiline text fields, which occur
> comparatively rarely in comparison to single line fields. (And where
> they do, you often don't have to tab out of them anyway, if at all--
> e.g. email composer window, word processor).
>
> Issue 2: Most people seemed to prefer the current proposal, i.e. Enter
> activates the window's default button unless the focused widget makes
> use of Enter itself (e.g. a multiline text field). A suggested
Currently bug 61561 is causing a problem here for GtkEntry. I assume that there
is an expectation that the behavior of the Enter and Return keys will be the
same.
GtkEntry currently has a property "activates_default" which controls whether the
window's default button should be activated. This proposal sounds like a request
to remove this property and always activate the button, but I will not do that.
I am ignoring the suggested refinement, below, for the present.
> refinement was that if the default button is currently disabled, Enter
> should move focus onto the next control instead. (For an example of why
> you'd ever want the default button to be disabled, see
> http://java.sun.com/products/jlf/ed2/book/HIG.Behavior5.html#46941).
> Caveat: This puts the onus on programmers to disable default buttons
> when appropriate, and perhaps even not provide a default button for some
> dialogs at all. (An idea which becomes more bearable if we decide to
> assign mnemonics to "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, another suggestion that's
> been bandied around recently).
>
> I hate to bring another round of arguments about this down around my
> head with the following phrase, but here goes: I await your comments
> :o) (A decision is getting kind of urgent now, as we've started
> implemeting the rest of the keynav proposals...)
>
> Cheeri,
> Calum.
>
> --
> CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland
> mailto:calum benson ireland sun com Desktop Engineering Group
> http://www.sun.ie +353 1 819 9771
>
> Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems
>
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-devel-list mailing list
> gtk-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]