From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Info tutorial is out of date Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:33:00 +0100 Message-ID: <20060717093300.GB1234@muc.de> References: <20060716233525.GA1369@muc.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1153127417 24877 80.91.229.2 (17 Jul 2006 09:10:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs-Devel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 17 11:10:16 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2P72-0007pX-QD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:10:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2P72-0007PL-Az for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:10:00 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G2P6M-00074D-Jo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:09:18 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G2P6M-00073t-1G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:09:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2P6L-00073o-U1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:09:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [193.149.48.1] (helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1G2P8y-0003wg-RE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:12:01 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 42000 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2006 09:09:14 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (HELO localhost.localdomain) (Debian-exim@193.149.49.134) by mail.muc.de with SMTP; 17 Jul 2006 09:09:14 -0000 Original-Received: from acm by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.50) id 1G2PTI-0000dv-6G; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:33:00 +0100 Original-To: Drew Adams Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:57166 Archived-At: Morning, Drew! On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 06:07:30PM -0700, Drew Adams wrote: [ .... ] > I was not ranting about my proposed changes - far from it. And I was not > ranting for or against the use of a mouse. Never, no how. > > Key bindings *are* shortcuts - what's wrong with that? 1) They > > are commonly called "keyboard shortcuts" by many people. 2) They > > are shorter (quicker) to use than clicking menus and links with a > > mouse - don't you agree? They are shorter (quicker) than using > > `M-x' - don't you agree? What is it about "shortcut" that sets > > you off? > It's one of those sort of words/phrases so beloved of > journalists/salesmen/politicians that can be used to denigrate > something, yet the j/s/p, when called on it, can convincingly > pretend it was totally innocent and factual, as you have done in > the preceding paragraph. > Like "paragraph"? That's one of those so-called words/phrases so > beloved of evil-doers that can be used to denigrate us flat-earthers. > Also, "convincingly" - gotta hate that one too. > Huh? Are you putting me on, Alan? No, I'm being entirely sincere. > What is the evil conspiracy behind the phrase "keyboard shortcut" or > the word "shortcut"? Is it because it has "short" in it? I really don't > get it. Please believe me that I am not pretending anything, innocent > and factual or otherwise. What is sinister about "shortcut"? [ .... ] > In English, "shortcut" usually carries connotations of > something naughty. > Not in my English, it doesn't. Maybe that's the problem. Not in > American English (to my knowledge); it does not. As with any word, it > *can* carry a connotation of naughtiness, depending on the context. At the very least, "shortcut" implies "non-canonicity". Nobody would ever describe the direct motorway between two cities as a "shortcut", even if it weren't blocked by traffic jams most of the time. So if you call a key sequence a "shortcut", you're implying "this isn't the standard way of doing this operation". [ .... ] > Nonsense! You're not serious, are you? This is a joke, right? I'm being entirely serious. [ .... ] > What's wrong with the neutral term "key sequence"? > Nothing. Nothing wrong with "key binding" either. "Key binding" is less good for newbies, because it stresses a relationship of being tied together rather than an act of pressing keys. This could be somewhat puzzling. > And nothing wrong with communicating with those misled millions who > (shudder!) mistakenly think the right term is "keyboard shortcut". [ .... ] > BTW, think how derogatory "yank" is to us Yanks, Alan. How would you > like it if we called it "britting" or "scotting" or "krauting"? Well, > think how us Yanks feel when you call it "yanking". Unacceptable > insensitivity. "Yank" and "yank" are two distinct words, just as "spring", "spring" and "spring" (a helix of wire, a source of fresh water, and the time after winter) are three. "Shortcut" is but one. I have no problems with somebody "scotching" rumours, "welshing" on a debt (as long as it's not to me ;-) or applying "english" to a bouncing ball. [ .... ] > so I'd get included amongst habitual mouse users in that survey. A > more pertinent question would be "do you regularly use an > application without recourse to the mouse?" > OK. How many do you think would answer "yes" to your "more pertinent" > question? 0.0001%? 1%? 10%? Does it matter to you? Your mind's made up > already, isn't it? What if it were only 0.0000000001% who regularly use > an app without mouse? Would that persuade you? Be honest. I don't think > so. I think it would be around 10%. Certainly more than 1%. It would be a good deal more if the doc for proprietary programs actually put keyboard sequences and mouse actions side by side, rather than relegating "keyboard shortcuts" to an appendix. I think that if the Info tutorial were to relegate `n' and `p' to an appendix, that would cause fewer newbies to use them. I think that would be a bad thing. [ .... ] > I have experience of telling ordinary computer users about key > sequences: "You know, you can type alt-f s to save the file rather > than grasping for the mouse.", and they typically 'phone me up a > day or two later with "Alan, thank you! It's SO MUCH easier that > way!". > I support you in that. Good job. I've done that too. Keep it up. Which is why I believe `n' and `p' should be introduced as the normal way of going to the next/previous node. It helps newbies make an informed -- Alan.