Re: [Usability] the emacs keyboard shortcut issue

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004, Sunnan wrote:

> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:45:56 +0200
> From: Sunnan <sunnan handgranat org>
> To: usability gnome org
> Subject: [Usability] the emacs keyboard shortcut issue
>
> Mmm, hi. It's me again.
>
> I've been thinking for a while on how Emacs keyboard shortcuts work in
> gtk/gnome text-editing fields.
>
> They're so often overridden! While only a few apps (like Sound-Juicer)
> dare mess with basics like C-a and C-d (since the HIG says not to), it

I greatly dislike the emacs keybindings and think the current situation
harms usability for the average user and provides a less than adequate
situation for those like yourself who want to use Emacs keybindings, which
less face it is not a very ordinary use case.  (In the interests of full
disclosure I should admit I use Vim more than emacs but I do not use
either very often and prefer to use an IDE or something like gedit but I
honestly dont have anything against emacs.)

For several reasons I find Emacs keybindings add unnecessary confusing and
wish they were not turned on by default.

> seems very common to override C-f, C-b, C-p and C-n. I don't know how
> many times I've popped up a "Find" or "Print" dialog by mistake.

I expect Control+A to select all the text, even in a text box.
I expect Control+W to close a window not clear the preceding text
I expect Control+F (mostly) to show a find dialog and yes I definately
expect Control+P to show the print dialog.

I dont think the current mix works well for either ordinary users or emacs
experts.

I find it confusing and surprising that keybindings suddenly have a
different function when inside a text box, it is the nightmare of 'modes'
all over again.

If the emacs keybindings were not turned on by default I think it would
actually make it easier to have things they way you actually want them.
If they were not turned on by default and were instead explicitly turned
on it would be reasonable for them take precedence to override other
associations that applications may have set and give you exactly what you
want.

> I've tried out Mac OS X (which overall is kinda crackrock IMVHO) a
> couple of times, and this is one thing they do right; all application
> shortcuts use the command key for shortcuts, while ctrl is reserved
> for emacs stuff in text input fields. (They even implement C-t,
> transpose characters.)

Apple keyboards are ridiculously consistant (and my mixed usage in the
past of both the Macintosh and Windows the only reason I have learned to
type knowing both the American and UK layout for accents and punctuation).

Apple keyboards have the Apple/Command key, Ctrl and Alt and has done for
as long as I care to remember.  However Gnome does not have the luxury of
such specific hardware (although "a designed for Gnome" hardware
specification would certainly be interesting but) we cannot assume users
will even have a modern keyboard with the "Windows key" (equivalent to the
apple key).

> In many old Unix apps, before the "windowsication" that began with
> KDE/Gnome, Alt was often used as a shortcut prefix key. (C.f. Netscape
> 4.x) Reverting to that would be one possible solution.

Alt keys are used for menu mnemonics.
Reverting to that would be a major regression.

I'm convinced that it is necessary to seperate out the emacs keybidings to
give you what you realy want, without causing trouble for the ordinary
user.

> They're doing better than Gnome in that aspect, and the G in Gnome is
> supposed to stand for GNU.

The K in KDE was supposed to stand for Kool, but things changed.

Just ask RMS how GNU he thinks the GNU Network Object Model Enviroment
actually still is.  Although many Gnome developers do believe strongly in
the pricipals of Free Software and GNU, Gnome is inclusive and their are
certainly others (possibly the minority) that feel that Open Source
bettter describes their view point.  At the very least Gnome I dont
think Gnome is as strongly GNU as it was initially.  If I'm really
all that wrong I will surely be loudly and firmly corrected.

For that matter ask generally what has happened to the "Network Object
Model Enviroment" and ask if an overly complex, excessively high level
Object system that Bonobo is absolutely necessary for a truly open system
with a well coordinated base of libraries like Gnome.  (It is not that I'm
against ORB systems it is that it is massive overkill for most use cases
where all that is needed is the ability to embed a preview that can be
update in place some how.  I hugely commend the KDE developers that have
reused libraries also used by gnome and also made the into higher level
KParts but the underlying libraries are far more significant)

Note that I never refer to it as "GNOME" anymore and the time has come for
Gnome to be just "Gnome" and lose the poorly retrofitted explanation for
the name.

I really do think the emacs keybindings are an assset and certainly do not
want to get rid of them but for common use case I think they add
unneccessary confusion.  I hope we can find a way to give us both what we
want.

Sincerely

Alan Horkan

http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/
Inkscape, Draw Freely http://inkscape.org
Free SVG Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org