Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Or as somebody said on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/49of20/installed_emacs_started_tutorial_cn_cp_cf_cb_now/

Keyboards have arrow keys.  We shouldn't be talking about C-n/C-p in the
tutorial.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[jpff]

But C-p and \C-n are so much easier to type on most of my keyboards
==John ff


On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:

> Or as somebody said on Reddit:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/49of20/installed_emacs_started_tutorial_cn_cp_cf_cb_now/
>
> Keyboards have arrow keys.  We shouldn't be talking about C-n/C-p in the
> tutorial.
>
> -- 
> (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
>   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
>
>
>
>

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Oleh Krehel]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Or as somebody said on Reddit:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/49of20/installed_emacs_started_tutorial_cn_cp_cf_cb_now/
>
> Keyboards have arrow keys.  We shouldn't be talking about C-n/C-p in the
> tutorial.

The bindings are a selling point. I joined around 4 years ago just
because QT Creator didn't have "C-f".

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Kaushal Modi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 594 bytes --]

> Keyboards have arrow keys.  We shouldn't be talking about C-n/C-p in the
tutorial.

The tutorial states the below:

-----
You can use the arrow keys,
but it's more efficient to keep your hands in the standard position
and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.
-----

So the user is free to use the arrow keys if they desire.

As for me, I trained myself to use C-f/b/p/n instead of the arrow keys
using https://github.com/magnars/hardcore-mode.el and now I almost never
reach for the arrow keys. I also found the C-f/b/p/n bindings unnatural
initially, but now they come up instinctively.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1238 bytes --]

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Yuri Khan]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Kaushal Modi <kaushal.modi@gmail.com> wrote:

> The tutorial states the below:
>
> -----
> You can use the arrow keys,
> but it's more efficient to keep your hands in the standard position
> and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.
> -----

That is only true on keyboards where the arrow cluster is far away
from the home position.

On my keyboard, the arrows are reachable just by curling the right
hand two rows down. Some newfangled keyboards put arrows directly on
the IJKL keys + modifier (see, for example, keyboard.io). Both
arrangements are more ergonomic and more reliable than C-[bfnp] (for
one, the latter do not work with non-Latin keyboard layouts).

So, +1 for demoting C-[bfnp].

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Alexey Veretennikov]

+1 from me. I never ever used C-[bfnp]. First of all they spread all over the
keyboard and were chosen because of mnemonics, not ergonomics. Second is
it is arguable what it is better to press 2 keys(Ctrl+something) instead
of just one (just arrow key).

Of course it is a matter of taste, but at least emacs allows one to
globally bind these keys to something else for those who don't
use it.


Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Kaushal Modi <kaushal.modi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The tutorial states the below:
>>
>> -----
>> You can use the arrow keys,
>> but it's more efficient to keep your hands in the standard position
>> and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.
>> -----
>
> That is only true on keyboards where the arrow cluster is far away
> from the home position.
>
> On my keyboard, the arrows are reachable just by curling the right
> hand two rows down. Some newfangled keyboards put arrows directly on
> the IJKL keys + modifier (see, for example, keyboard.io). Both
> arrangements are more ergonomic and more reliable than C-[bfnp] (for
> one, the latter do not work with non-Latin keyboard layouts).
>
> So, +1 for demoting C-[bfnp].
>

-- 
Br,
/Alexey

RE: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Drew Adams]

> > Or as somebody said on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/49of20/installed_emacs_started_tutorial_cn_cp_cf_cb_now/

Oooh.  Someone said on reddit!  (Quick, get the camera!)

 "installed emacs -> started tutorial -> C-n,C-p,C-f,C-b ->
 now thats just stupid -> closed emacs.  I'm not an octopus."

"That's just stupid."  (Was that someone Ronald McDonald
Trump, perhaps?  Trademark sophomoric dismissal, in any case.)

And someone here wants to run after that someone and plead,
"No, please don't go! Come back! I'm sorry; I'll never do
that again; I promise. Of course you're NOT an octopus."

> > Keyboards have arrow keys.  We shouldn't be talking
> > about C-n/C-p in the tutorial.

But Oleh the avowed Octopus (or is that Hydra?) offers an
opposing testimonial:

> The bindings are a selling point. I joined around 4 years
> ago just because QT Creator didn't have "C-f".

"That's just stupid!", Oleh.  But we sure are glad for it.

The usual way to introduce alternative, seemingly "advanced"
or unusual but handy ways to do things is to introduce them
after presenting the usual, possibly less efficient, behavior.

So yes, the tutorial should _start_ with a simple example that
uses the arrow keys.  But yes, the tutorial should also mention
using C-n and the rest.  In fact, it should motivate their use
as optional behavior that many Emacs users have found to be more
efficient/useful.

IMHO, the tutorial should quickly move from arrow keys to other
keys - it is enough to reassure users at the outset that they
can use (some) keys that they are used to.  There is no reason
to convert the tutorial to using only arrow keys etc.  That
would be a mistake, IMO.

IOW, there is no reason not to start with the arrow keys, and
there is no reason not to present C-n etc.

And as Kaushal and Eli point out, the tutorial already does this:

 You can use the arrow keys, but it's more efficient to keep
 your hands in the standard position and use the commands C-p,
 C-b, C-f, and C-n.

I'm not sure that we should still speak here of "the standard
position" or bother to claim outright that "it's more efficient".
I'd say that we should make users aware of both alternatives.
If they still want to close Emacs and proclaim that it is only
for octopi, so be it.  (Tailists will disagree...)

It might also help to say (if we do not already) that in a few
contexts the arrow keys might do something different from C-n
etc.  (Well, maybe not - we don't want to scare anyone.)

FWIW, I admit to using the arrow keys (!), but I also use `C-n'
etc.  (There, I said it.)

---

I note the first followup comment on that reddit post:

  "if only emacs had a robust and comprehensive system for
  changing or expanding it's default behavior. man. that'll
  be the day."

One can only hope that was tongue-in-cheek.  You never know...

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Yuri Khan]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:

> If they still want to close Emacs and proclaim that it is only
> for octopi, so be it.  (Tailists will disagree...)

Please do not call octopodes “octopi”.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 398 bytes --]

On 03/09/2016 01:26 PM, Yuri Khan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> If they still want to close Emacs and proclaim that it is only
>> for octopi, so be it.  (Tailists will disagree...)
> 
> Please do not call octopodes “octopi”.

I think Drew was talking about multiple copies of an octopus, not multiple copies of an octopod.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

RE: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Drew Adams]

> > If they still want to close Emacs and proclaim that it is only
> > for octopi, so be it.  (Tailists will disagree...)
> 
> Please do not call octopodes “octopi”.

Got it.  Ancient Greek octopus (plural octopodes) is the origin.

In English both octopuses and octopi are in use.  Octopi, though
a mistaken creation and less common, is nevertheless loved for
its quirkiness.  http://grammarist.com/usage/octopi-octopuses/

Ngram:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=octopuses%2Coctopi&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Coctopuses%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Coctopi%3B%2Cc0

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 559 bytes --]

On 03/09/2016 02:07 PM, Drew Adams wrote:
> Got it.  Ancient Greek octopus (plural octopodes) is the origin.

But octopodes in English is ambiguous (could refer to octopus or octopod).

> In English both octopuses and octopi are in use.  Octopi, though
> a mistaken creation and less common, is nevertheless loved for
> its quirkiness.  http://grammarist.com/usage/octopi-octopuses/

I'm not a native speaker so I don't really get a say. Still, I hear it often enough and sufficiently many dictionaries acknowledge it that it sounds fine to me :)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Tom]

Oleh Krehel <oleh <at> oremacs.com> writes:
> 
> The bindings are a selling point. I joined around 4 years ago just
> because QT Creator didn't have "C-f".
> 

They are a selling point for a very limited audience. Most people
won't join for C-p, but for features comparable to the ones in
IDEs.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Phillip Lord]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Or as somebody said on Reddit:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/49of20/installed_emacs_started_tutorial_cn_cp_cf_cb_now/
>
> Keyboards have arrow keys.  We shouldn't be talking about C-n/C-p in the
> tutorial.

No, nor keys in the first place. I mean, people will just assume that
you use the arrow keys to move the cursor without being asked. This
week, I have sat behind people using Emacs for the first time. Most of
them find the tutorial. Most of them get disheartened at something so
complex that you have to learn special keys to move the cursor. When you
don't.

I started a new version of the tutorial a couple of years ago, but have
got stalled. But every year I watch people struggle with this, and it
encourages me to start again.

If anyone would like to collaborate on this, I can push it somewhere --
perhaps an orphan branch on the main Emacs repo.

Phil

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:38:05 +0100
> 
> Or as somebody said on Reddit:
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/49of20/installed_emacs_started_tutorial_cn_cp_cf_cb_now/
> 
> Keyboards have arrow keys.  We shouldn't be talking about C-n/C-p in the
> tutorial.

We talk about both, actually:

  Moving from screenful to screenful is useful, but how do you
  move to a specific place within the text on the screen?

  There are several ways you can do this.  You can use the arrow keys,
  but it's more efficient to keep your hands in the standard position
  and use the commands C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2016-03-09, at 16:38, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote:

> Or as somebody said on Reddit:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/49of20/installed_emacs_started_tutorial_cn_cp_cf_cb_now/
>
> Keyboards have arrow keys.  We shouldn't be talking about C-n/C-p in the
> tutorial.

I loved this response:

,----
| if only emacs had a robust and comprehensive system for changing or
| expanding it's default behavior. man. that'll be the day.
`----

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Keyboards have arrow keys. We shouldn't be talking about C-n/C-p in the
> tutorial.

As someone who never uses arrow keys, I'd argue that keyboards having arrow
keys is not sufficient reason to avoid educating users about C-n/C-p. In fact,
I use a utility on my Mac to universally bind C-n and C-p to be equivalent to
arrow keys in all other apps. :)

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Tim Cross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1573 bytes --]

I think Drew is on the right track. Lets not over react to a gut reaction
to someone who may not have ever been an emacs user even if we did promote
the arrow keys over C-n/C-p.

Emacs has an audience/user base, but to believe that equals the set of all
people who use editors is a mistake. Some people just want a very simple
editor which is easy to use and only does basic editing - there are plenty
of these editors. These users are unlikely to ever enjoy emacs. Doing your
shopping in a formula 1 car is never going to work.

Those who need/want a more powerful editor are unlikely to be put off by
the tutorial. This doesn't mean we can't improve the tutorial. Only want to
emphasise that there is no way to please everyone and we really need to
focus on the 'real' audience, those who will benefit from what emacs can
offer over things like nano, gedit, textedit etc.

tim

On 10 March 2016 at 07:22, John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
>
> > Keyboards have arrow keys. We shouldn't be talking about C-n/C-p in the
> > tutorial.
>
> As someone who never uses arrow keys, I'd argue that keyboards having arrow
> keys is not sufficient reason to avoid educating users about C-n/C-p. In
> fact,
> I use a utility on my Mac to universally bind C-n and C-p to be equivalent
> to
> arrow keys in all other apps. :)
>
> --
> John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
> http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2
>
>


-- 
regards,

Tim

--
Tim Cross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2443 bytes --]

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:

> Those who need/want a more powerful editor are unlikely to be put off by the
> tutorial. This doesn't mean we can't improve the tutorial. Only want to
> emphasise that there is no way to please everyone and we really need to
> focus on the 'real' audience, those who will benefit from what emacs can
> offer over things like nano, gedit, textedit etc.

I'm not sure what the practical way to move forward is in this discussion. If
someone trying Emacs doesn't intuitively know what the arrow keys will do --
such that they need them to be explained in a tutorial -- I doubt this is why
they will not go further with Emacs.

Meanwhile, there will be people who want to "get into Emacs", and to do so,
knowing that n/p is a part of an overall "movement gestalt" is important to
establish from the beginning.

Without seeing concrete proposals for changes to be made to the tutorial, I
don't see that there is much more to add.

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Evgeny Panasyuk]

10.03.2016 0:32, Tim Cross :
> Emacs has an audience/user base, but to believe that equals the set of
> all people who use editors is a mistake. Some people just want a very
> simple editor which is easy to use and only does basic editing - there
> are plenty of these editors.

IMO larger user base, including "casual" users, would not harm Emacs.

> These users are unlikely to ever enjoy
> emacs. Doing your shopping in a formula 1 car is never going to work.

Your analogy suggests that just text editing with Emacs is intrinsically 
hard and we cannot do anything about it - it is F1 after all which is 
not designed for shopping (editing).

> Those who need/want a more powerful editor are unlikely to be put off by
> the tutorial. This doesn't mean we can't improve the tutorial.

I think the problem is not in tutorial itself, but in non-ergonomic 
default keybindings.
C-n, C-p, C-f, C-b - are laid out on keyboard without any symmetry. This 
is purely historical artifact. There is nothing powerful in these bindings.
Even vi's hjkl are more symmetrical and ergonomic (though also have deep 
historical roots).

-- 
Evgeny Panasyuk

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Tom]

Evgeny Panasyuk <evgeny.panasyuk <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 
> 10.03.2016 0:32, Tim Cross :
> > Emacs has an audience/user base, but to believe that equals the set of
> > all people who use editors is a mistake. Some people just want a very
> > simple editor which is easy to use and only does basic editing - there
> > are plenty of these editors.
> 
> IMO larger user base, including "casual" users, would not harm Emacs.
> 

Indeed. Therefore the tutorial for new users should emphasize features
which are  better in emacs compared to other tools.

C-p and co. are not better, they are just different and not very
ergonomical either.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Tom <adatgyujto@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:54:23 +0000 (UTC)
> 
> Evgeny Panasyuk <evgeny.panasyuk <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > 
> > 10.03.2016 0:32, Tim Cross :
> > > Emacs has an audience/user base, but to believe that equals the set of
> > > all people who use editors is a mistake. Some people just want a very
> > > simple editor which is easy to use and only does basic editing - there
> > > are plenty of these editors.
> > 
> > IMO larger user base, including "casual" users, would not harm Emacs.
> > 
> 
> Indeed. Therefore the tutorial for new users should emphasize features
> which are  better in emacs compared to other tools.
> 
> C-p and co. are not better, they are just different and not very
> ergonomical either.

Why are we continue to argue?  The tutorial clearly states that arrow
keys can be used, and I don't think users of today's computers need to
be taught how to use the arrow keys.  So what's exactly the problem?

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Evgeny Panasyuk]

10.03.2016 8:54, Tom:
>
> Indeed. Therefore the tutorial for new users should emphasize features
> which are  better in emacs compared to other tools.
>

In current state of things I convinced that tutorial must describe these 
n,p,f,b bindings. Arrow keys cannot replace them completely right now, 
because there are many keymaps that use npfb, but not arrow keys. For 
instance grep-mode has special meaning for np. Tutorial is the right 
place to describe these conventions.
Again, problem is not in tutorial which describes bindings, but in 
non-ergonomic layout of bindings.

-- 
Evgeny Panasyuk

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > C-n, C-p, C-f, C-b - are laid out on keyboard without any symmetry.

Next, Previous, Forward, Back.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 436 bytes --]

On 03/10/2016 04:22 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>   > C-n, C-p, C-f, C-b - are laid out on keyboard without any symmetry.
> 
> Next, Previous, Forward, Back.

I think Evgeny meant no physical symmetry.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Evgeny Panasyuk]

11.03.2016 0:39, Clément Pit--Claudel:
>>    > C-n, C-p, C-f, C-b - are laid out on keyboard without any symmetry.
>>
>> Next, Previous, Forward, Back.
>
> I think Evgeny meant no physical symmetry.

Yes, exactly.

Keyboard arrows, Numpad arrows, PgUp/PgDn, Home/End, hjkl, jikl, wasd - 
all have some kind of physical symmetry.

There are even extreme cases like Truly Ergonomic Keyboard where block 
of arrows is fully symmetrical to block of PgUp PgDn Home End: 
http://www.keyboardco.com/keyboard_images/truly_ergonomic_computer_keyboard_209_large.jpg

I guess such symmetry is key to ergonomics.

-- 
Evgeny Panasyuk

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

My point is that these bindings are logical and meaningful.  If you
prefer physical symmetry to meaningful names, you're entitled to your
tastes, but tastes are what they are.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

Users who learn move the cursor with arrow keys in Emacs experience
slow editing.  We should get them started the way that works better.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Phillip Lord]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> Users who learn move the cursor with arrow keys in Emacs experience
> slow editing.  We should get them started the way that works better.

I have doubts that you have any strong evidence for this. The arrows
keys work perfectly well in my experience. In addition, there is the
mouse. And if that is still too slow, you can use things like ace-jump.
The mouse and arrows keys also have an additional huge advantage: they
work any where, including outside Emacs.

Even if you are correct, then you still have to account for the negative
effect putting "how to move the cursor" in front of new users. Most of
them see this and think, "why is this so hard" (I have at least weak
evidence of this, from sitting behind new users and watching).

The point of a tutorial is not to teach people to become brilliantly
efficent power users. It's to get them going, and to see the advantages
as quickly as possible.

Phil

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:58:15 +0000
> Cc: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> The point of a tutorial is not to teach people to become brilliantly
> efficent power users. It's to get them going, and to see the advantages
> as quickly as possible.

What do you suggest we teach them about the arrows that they don't
already know?

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> The point of a tutorial is not to teach people to become brilliantly
>> efficent power users. It's to get them going, and to see the advantages
>> as quickly as possible.
> What do you suggest we teach them about the arrows that they don't
> already know?

Nothing at all.  Why should we teach them anything about it?

I agree that *if* we want to talk about C-npfb we should do it at
the end.  And I'd be perfectly happy to see C-npfb disappear from
the tutorial.


        Stefan "who doesn't use C-npfb very much anyway"


PS: When I introduce my students to Emacs, I mostly focus on things like
"M stands for the meta key which is that thing you don't have on your
keyboard", or "yes, you can see the same buffer in several windows at
the same time", or "no, a window is not what you think", or "we call
those things kill&yank just to keep life more entertaining", or "here's
how you can get rid of this window-split", ...

... and of course the presence of keyboard shortcuts in the menus, and
"M-x", and "C-h k and then click on the link to see the source".

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Phillip Lord]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)
>> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:58:15 +0000
>> Cc: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> 
>> The point of a tutorial is not to teach people to become brilliantly
>> efficent power users. It's to get them going, and to see the advantages
>> as quickly as possible.
>
> What do you suggest we teach them about the arrows that they don't
> already know?

What I suggest is that we don't teach them the arrow keys are not the
way to move the cursor around. This is what the tutorial does at the
moment.


Currently, we have on L40 (ish):

The first thing that you need to know is how to move around from place
to place in the text.

L65: You can use the PageUp and PageDn keys

L76: You can use the arrow keys



Seriously? New users already know to how move around from place to
place. It's like being a driving instructor and starting off with how to
open the door, or how to sit in the chair.

Other gems include:

  M-<chr>  means hold the META or EDIT or ALT

META or EDIT? Seriously? Before ALT which is what everyone has.

  L235: If you are using a graphical display, such as X or MS-Windows,
  there should be a tall rectangular area called a scroll bar on one
  side of the Emacs window.

If you are using a graphical display? I mean, of course, you are using a
graphical display?

  L238: If Emacs stops responding

i.e. if it's broken

Then disabled commands

  L277: Emacs can have several "windows"

An application with windows? Really? 

Oh, but we don't mean windows, we mean something else. It's okay, that's
explained:

  L893: Note that Emacs uses the term "frames"--described in the next
  section--for what some other applications call "windows"
  

Yes, on L893.


The tutorial is not wrong, nor is it missing anything. It's just
didactically from a different time, and I am sure it's putting many
people off.

Phil

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)
> Cc: rms@gnu.org,  larsi@gnus.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:07:26 +0000
> 
> The tutorial is not wrong, nor is it missing anything. It's just
> didactically from a different time, and I am sure it's putting many
> people off.

I think we'd welcome patches to bring it to this time, thanks.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2016-03-10, at 16:42, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

>> From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)
>> Cc: rms@gnu.org,  larsi@gnus.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:07:26 +0000
>> 
>> The tutorial is not wrong, nor is it missing anything. It's just
>> didactically from a different time, and I am sure it's putting many
>> people off.
>
> I think we'd welcome patches to bring it to this time, thanks.

The question is: should the tutorial be patched, or rewritten from
scratch?

Emacs used to be a text editor.  Now it is almost an operating system,
with email clients, Org-mode etc.  Maybe (maybe!) the tutorial should
e.g. mention Org-mode?

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl>
> Cc: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@russet.org.uk>, larsi@gnus.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:48:39 +0100
> 
> 
> > I think we'd welcome patches to bring it to this time, thanks.
> 
> The question is: should the tutorial be patched, or rewritten from
> scratch?

A patch can do both, right?

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2016-03-10, at 17:16, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

>> From: Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl>
>> Cc: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@russet.org.uk>, larsi@gnus.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:48:39 +0100
>> 
>> 
>> > I think we'd welcome patches to bring it to this time, thanks.
>> 
>> The question is: should the tutorial be patched, or rewritten from
>> scratch?
>
> A patch can do both, right?

A "patch" in a technical sense, yes.  I was rather thinking about the
colloquial meaning.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Filipp Gunbin]

On 10/03/2016 15:07 +0000, Phillip Lord wrote:

>   L235: If you are using a graphical display, such as X or MS-Windows,
>   there should be a tall rectangular area called a scroll bar on one
>   side of the Emacs window.
>
> If you are using a graphical display? I mean, of course, you are using a
> graphical display?

What's wrong with this?  A user may be in text console.

> The tutorial is not wrong, nor is it missing anything. It's just
> didactically from a different time, and I am sure it's putting many
> people off.

It's a tutorial for simple editing.  Preserving history sometimes can be
valuable.  Probably most people wanting to use Emacs already know that
it comes from long ago.

Filipp

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Yuri Khan]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Filipp Gunbin <fgunbin@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>>   L235: If you are using a graphical display, such as X or MS-Windows,
>>   there should be a tall rectangular area called a scroll bar on one
>>   side of the Emacs window.
>>
>> If you are using a graphical display? I mean, of course, you are using a
>> graphical display?
>
> What's wrong with this?  A user may be in text console.

There’s nothing wrong with mentioning that Emacs *can also* function
in a text console, with several major restrictions (namely, the
keyboard input has an additional indirection layer, and the sets of
fonts and colors are severely reduced). But it is reasonable to assume
and encourage that a novice user will try the GUI version first.

Also, pretty much all potential new users (i.e. the target audience of
the tutorial) already know what a scrollbar is.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:38:49 +0600
> Cc: Emacs developers <emacs-devel@gnu.org>,
> 	Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@russet.org.uk>
> 
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Filipp Gunbin <fgunbin@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> >>   L235: If you are using a graphical display, such as X or MS-Windows,
> >>   there should be a tall rectangular area called a scroll bar on one
> >>   side of the Emacs window.
> >>
> >> If you are using a graphical display? I mean, of course, you are using a
> >> graphical display?
> >
> > What's wrong with this?  A user may be in text console.
> 
> There’s nothing wrong with mentioning that Emacs *can also* function
> in a text console, with several major restrictions (namely, the
> keyboard input has an additional indirection layer, and the sets of
> fonts and colors are severely reduced). But it is reasonable to assume
> and encourage that a novice user will try the GUI version first.

But all the tutorial does is say "IF you are using a graphical
display".  So we are going to bikeshed about a condition that might be
true more often than false, and to which the tutorial paid a "tax" of
6 words?

> Also, pretty much all potential new users (i.e. the target audience of
> the tutorial) already know what a scrollbar is.

It is a non-trivial decision where to draw the line about what is
"common knowledge" and shouldn't be explained.  Once again, the "tax"
is a single sentence, so what's the harm?

In any case, I suggest to postpone any further arguments until someone
actually submits patches to make the tutorial better.  The tutorial
should be considered as a whole, not sentence by sentence.  It is
currently written from a certain POV that guides most of the text in a
consistent way.  You cannot change a sentence here and there without
making the text inconsistent.  So a change like the one that I think
is proposed will require quite a thorough rewrite, which makes
arguments about individual sentences and phrases futile.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Phillip Lord]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> It is a non-trivial decision where to draw the line about what is
> "common knowledge" and shouldn't be explained.  Once again, the "tax"
> is a single sentence, so what's the harm?
>
> In any case, I suggest to postpone any further arguments until someone
> actually submits patches to make the tutorial better.  The tutorial
> should be considered as a whole, not sentence by sentence.  It is
> currently written from a certain POV that guides most of the text in a
> consistent way.  You cannot change a sentence here and there without
> making the text inconsistent.  So a change like the one that I think
> is proposed will require quite a thorough rewrite, which makes
> arguments about individual sentences and phrases futile.


I am working on this. My tutorial is now 480 lines long, so it may need
some pruning. I have buffers and files to do. My plan is to finish off
with Emacs packages, but getting users to install a new package from
ELPA.

My thought is that, at first, this package will contain more tutorial
information. In the first instance, it will probably just say
"congratulations", but in later versions, it could take tutorials on
different topics. It would also enable upgrading the tutorial
out-of-sync with releases.

Phil

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2016-03-11, at 17:57, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@russet.org.uk> wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> It is a non-trivial decision where to draw the line about what is
>> "common knowledge" and shouldn't be explained.  Once again, the "tax"
>> is a single sentence, so what's the harm?
>>
>> In any case, I suggest to postpone any further arguments until someone
>> actually submits patches to make the tutorial better.  The tutorial
>> should be considered as a whole, not sentence by sentence.  It is
>> currently written from a certain POV that guides most of the text in a
>> consistent way.  You cannot change a sentence here and there without
>> making the text inconsistent.  So a change like the one that I think
>> is proposed will require quite a thorough rewrite, which makes
>> arguments about individual sentences and phrases futile.
>
>
> I am working on this. My tutorial is now 480 lines long, so it may need
> some pruning. I have buffers and files to do. My plan is to finish off
> with Emacs packages, but getting users to install a new package from
> ELPA.
>
> My thought is that, at first, this package will contain more tutorial
> information. In the first instance, it will probably just say
> "congratulations", but in later versions, it could take tutorials on
> different topics. It would also enable upgrading the tutorial
> out-of-sync with releases.

Wow, a choose-your-own-adventure tutorial!  Great idea, I really like
it!  I'd be inclined to contribute to it.  I'll check your tutorial
soon.

> Phil

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)
> Cc: Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com>,  fgunbin@fastmail.fm,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:57:09 +0000
> 
> I am working on this. My tutorial is now 480 lines long, so it may need
> some pruning. I have buffers and files to do. My plan is to finish off
> with Emacs packages, but getting users to install a new package from
> ELPA.

Isn't that a chicken-and-egg problem?  How can you have a tutorial
that depends on enough knowledge needed to install ELPA packages?

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Phillip Lord]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)
>> Cc: Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com>, fgunbin@fastmail.fm,
>> emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:57:09 +0000
>> 
>> I am working on this. My tutorial is now 480 lines long, so it may need
>> some pruning. I have buffers and files to do. My plan is to finish off
>> with Emacs packages, but getting users to install a new package from
>> ELPA.
>
> Isn't that a chicken-and-egg problem?  How can you have a tutorial
> that depends on enough knowledge needed to install ELPA packages?

No, it's fine. The idea is that the basic tutorial (part of Emacs
tarball) runs up to the point of installing an ELPA package. That ELPA
package in the first instance will just be something that says "well
done". In the second instance, the ELPA package can do something
funkier, but one step at a time.

Phil

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)
> Cc: yuri.v.khan@gmail.com,  fgunbin@fastmail.fm,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 22:00:18 +0000
> 
> > Isn't that a chicken-and-egg problem?  How can you have a tutorial
> > that depends on enough knowledge needed to install ELPA packages?
> 
> No, it's fine. The idea is that the basic tutorial (part of Emacs
> tarball) runs up to the point of installing an ELPA package. That ELPA
> package in the first instance will just be something that says "well
> done". In the second instance, the ELPA package can do something
> funkier, but one step at a time.

So I guess the issue boils down to where are you drawing the line
between the two parts.  Although it feels strange to have a tutorial
divided in two, with the need to install an ELPA package in the
middle.  But that's me.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2016-03-12, at 07:51, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

>> From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)
>> Cc: yuri.v.khan@gmail.com,  fgunbin@fastmail.fm,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 22:00:18 +0000
>> 
>> > Isn't that a chicken-and-egg problem?  How can you have a tutorial
>> > that depends on enough knowledge needed to install ELPA packages?
>> 
>> No, it's fine. The idea is that the basic tutorial (part of Emacs
>> tarball) runs up to the point of installing an ELPA package. That ELPA
>> package in the first instance will just be something that says "well
>> done". In the second instance, the ELPA package can do something
>> funkier, but one step at a time.
>
> So I guess the issue boils down to where are you drawing the line
> between the two parts.  Although it feels strange to have a tutorial
> divided in two, with the need to install an ELPA package in the
> middle.  But that's me.

It /is/ strange indeed.  But imagine a tutorial split in more parts,
where the first part is a general introduction, and the rest are
branches in various directions.  Sort of like the Emacs guided tour, but
with the tourist being able to actually choose the path once the basics
are covered.

Not only does this sound cool, it also showcases what /can/ be done in
Emacs.  I think that if the first part makes it clear that this is not
any kind of hack compiled in to make this sort of tutorial possible, but
a routine use of Emacs programmability, this might become an interesting
selling point.

And one of those branches should be (info "(eintr) Top"), or maybe its
first chapter converted into an interactive tutorial.  This shouldn't be
too hard to do (the text is written, after all, and written very well),
and might draw a bunch of people into Elisp.  I can even imagine similar
tutorials for other popular languages; they might show how to configure
a basic python|C|whatever environment and how to use it.  For instance,
REPL with python, compiling with C etc.

Phil, would you want me to start preliminary work on such a "eintr
tutorial branch"?

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Phillip Lord]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:
> Not only does this sound cool, it also showcases what /can/ be done in
> Emacs.  I think that if the first part makes it clear that this is not
> any kind of hack compiled in to make this sort of tutorial possible, but
> a routine use of Emacs programmability, this might become an interesting
> selling point.

That is sort of the idea.


> And one of those branches should be (info "(eintr) Top"), or maybe its
> first chapter converted into an interactive tutorial.  This shouldn't be
> too hard to do (the text is written, after all, and written very well),
> and might draw a bunch of people into Elisp.  I can even imagine similar
> tutorials for other popular languages; they might show how to configure
> a basic python|C|whatever environment and how to use it.  For instance,
> REPL with python, compiling with C etc.
>
> Phil, would you want me to start preliminary work on such a "eintr
> tutorial branch"?

I think that would be nice. At the moment, it's worth nothing that I've
got stuff written in org-mode, and I haven't thought at all about how to
present this to the user -- in EWW (read only), in org, or org's text
output, and editable as at present?

Content seems more important than code.

Phil

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Phillip Lord]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord)
>> Cc: yuri.v.khan@gmail.com,  fgunbin@fastmail.fm,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 22:00:18 +0000
>> 
>> > Isn't that a chicken-and-egg problem?  How can you have a tutorial
>> > that depends on enough knowledge needed to install ELPA packages?
>> 
>> No, it's fine. The idea is that the basic tutorial (part of Emacs
>> tarball) runs up to the point of installing an ELPA package. That ELPA
>> package in the first instance will just be something that says "well
>> done". In the second instance, the ELPA package can do something
>> funkier, but one step at a time.
>
> So I guess the issue boils down to where are you drawing the line
> between the two parts.  Although it feels strange to have a tutorial
> divided in two, with the need to install an ELPA package in the
> middle.  But that's me.

No, you mistake my intention, and in answer to your question, where
should you draw the line; my feeling is that "installing a package" is
the end point of the tutorial. This makes sense to me, because
extensibility is a key feature of Emacs.

There is a practical benefit that we can extend the tutorial later if we
wish, independent of the release cycle.

Phil

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Seriously? New users already know to how move around from place to
  > place. It's like being a driving instructor and starting off with how to
  > open the door, or how to sit in the chair.

You are taking a harsh, hectoring tone.  Surely you can state your
position without doing that.

You point out problems in certain points, for certain readers.
Maybe you are right.  But there are many ways to change those points.
Your leap from "there is a problem" to "delete this" is not valid.

Regarding Meta and Alt, Emacs calls it "Meta" and so does the Emacs
Manual, and so does the X Window System.  So your idea of not talking
about Meta at all simply would run into trouble.  Here again, some
change could be an improvement, but the radical change you demand
would be bad.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[John Wiegley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1023 bytes --]

>>>>> Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@russet.org.uk> writes:

> The arrows keys work perfectly well in my experience. In addition, there is
> the mouse.

We should avoid thinking that the audience for a tutorial has our same biases.

Arrows and mouse are terribly slow if one is used to having their fingers on
the home row. That said, there are indeed people for whom an arrow-key-and-
mouse tutorial would be better suited.

A good tutorial is readable and helpful to all audiences, not just for those
whom we presume have the same predilections as ourselves.

anyone who suggests we do away with mentioning C-npfb because *they* don't use
those keys is making a mistake, in my opinion, by neglecting readers who would
benefit from learning about the n/p/f/b paradigm (which is pervasive
throughout Emacs, such as M-n, n in dired, C-M-n, C-c C-n, etc).

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 629 bytes --]

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --]

On 03/10/2016 06:26 PM, John Wiegley wrote:
> Arrows and mouse are terribly slow if one is used to having their fingers on
> the home row. That said, there are indeed people for whom an arrow-key-and-
> mouse tutorial would be better suited.

We should probably teach them evil-mode or viper-mode, then :) C-p C-b and C-n are not on the home row.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Dani Moncayo]

> C-p C-b and C-n are not on the home row.

The point is that they (C-[npfb]) all can be typed without moving your
hands away from their "normal" position in the keyboard.

I find those keybindings _very_ convenient, and I use them all the time.

So I think that the tutorial should teach them at some point (because
new users may like them as many of us do).

-- 
Dani Moncayo

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[H. Dieter Wilhelm]

Dani Moncayo <dmoncayo@gmail.com> writes:

> The point is that they (C-[npfb]) all can be typed without moving your
> hands away from their "normal" position in the keyboard.
>
> I find those keybindings _very_ convenient, and I use them all the time.

The same here.

> So I think that the tutorial should teach them at some point (because
> new users may like them as many of us do).

Definitely

But I'm wondering if this preference of the home row comes from people
which were toughed or learned touch typing.  Maybe for the others this
huge advantage is not so self evident and efficient?

JM2C

        Dieter  
-- 
Best wishes
H. Dieter Wilhelm
Kelkheim, Germany

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Stefan Monnier]

> But I'm wondering if this preference of the home row comes from people
> which were toughed or learned touch typing.  Maybe for the others this
> huge advantage is not so self evident and efficient?

Probably


        Stefan "who doesn't touch type"

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Phillip Lord]

John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com> writes:

>>>>>> Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@russet.org.uk> writes:
>
>> The arrows keys work perfectly well in my experience. In addition, there is
>> the mouse.
>
> We should avoid thinking that the audience for a tutorial has our same biases.
>
> Arrows and mouse are terribly slow if one is used to having their fingers on
> the home row. That said, there are indeed people for whom an arrow-key-and-
> mouse tutorial would be better suited.
>
> A good tutorial is readable and helpful to all audiences, not just for those
> whom we presume have the same predilections as ourselves.
>
> anyone who suggests we do away with mentioning C-npfb because *they* don't use
> those keys is making a mistake, in my opinion, by neglecting readers who would
> benefit from learning about the n/p/f/b paradigm (which is pervasive
> throughout Emacs, such as M-n, n in dired, C-M-n, C-c C-n, etc).

I suggest we do not mention C-npfb till late, if at all, not because it
reflects my bias, but because I have watched new Emacs' users reading
the tutorial. 

A tutorial is not a good place to teach people to do things differently
when they can already do them just fine. Some of that is inevitable
(window vs frame, kill vs cut). Much of it is not.

Phil

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > I suggest we do not mention C-npfb till late, if at all, not because it
  > reflects my bias, but because I have watched new Emacs' users reading
  > the tutorial. 

I think we should first mention that arrow keys work, then invite
users to learn C-b etc. saying that editing will be faster.
-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:25:55 -0500
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> I think we should first mention that arrow keys work, then invite
> users to learn C-b etc. saying that editing will be faster.

We already do precisely that.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Tom]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> > 
> > I think we should first mention that arrow keys work, then invite
> > users to learn C-b etc. saying that editing will be faster.
> 
> We already do precisely that.
> 

If arrows keys work out of the box then C-p/n etc. should be
in a section called advanced cursor control or something like 
that and it should be moved somewhere to the end.

Insertion and deletion, frames, undo, etc. are more important for 
a new user than relearning the cursor keys, so emacs style cursor
movement can be considered an advanced topic which can be
learned after the user can use emacs with the arrow keys.

And if it's an advanced topic then it would be better placed
at the end of the tutorial with other advanced topics like recursive
editing after the basics like windows, undo and stuff.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Tom <adatgyujto@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:36:19 +0000 (UTC)
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> > > 
> > > I think we should first mention that arrow keys work, then invite
> > > users to learn C-b etc. saying that editing will be faster.
> > 
> > We already do precisely that.
> > 
> 
> If arrows keys work out of the box then C-p/n etc. should be
> in a section called advanced cursor control or something like 
> that and it should be moved somewhere to the end.

It's not an advanced topic, its basic cursor motion.  And the same
issue pops up again with C-v vs PageDown.

> Insertion and deletion, frames, undo, etc. are more important for 
> a new user than relearning the cursor keys, so emacs style cursor
> movement can be considered an advanced topic which can be
> learned after the user can use emacs with the arrow keys.
> 
> And if it's an advanced topic then it would be better placed
> at the end of the tutorial with other advanced topics like recursive
> editing after the basics like windows, undo and stuff.

I urge you to try modifying the tutorial along these lines, and show
the results here.  I'm sure you will soon enough bump into a problem
that you will have to make many changes in the text where you
originally didn't want to.  The tutorial text has its internal logic,
whereby it relies on previously covered stuff as it advances, so
moving part of that to the end will produce gaps in the flow of logic.

I'm not saying that the tutorial cannot be changed, or that we cannot
mention the familiar editing keys more than we currently do.  I'm just
saying that doing that is not as simple as moving some part to another
place.  There's more there than meets the eye.

Thanks.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> If arrows keys work out of the box then C-p/n etc. should be
>> in a section called advanced cursor control or something like 
>> that and it should be moved somewhere to the end.
> It's not an advanced topic, its basic cursor motion.

What he means by "advanced topic" is "something that's not indispensable
to start using Emacs effectively".
In this sense, it is "advanced topic".  You don't have to use C-fbnp in
order to use M-n, M-p, C-M-f, C-M-b, ...


        Stefan

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 13:08:40 -0400
> 
> >> If arrows keys work out of the box then C-p/n etc. should be
> >> in a section called advanced cursor control or something like 
> >> that and it should be moved somewhere to the end.
> > It's not an advanced topic, its basic cursor motion.
> 
> What he means by "advanced topic" is "something that's not indispensable
> to start using Emacs effectively".

That would fit most of the tutorial.

Things that are truly indispensable are mostly those which the readers
already know: basic cursor motion, inserting a character and deleting
a character.  The only other necessary stiff is C-x C-f and C-x C-s,
but those can be replaced by menu-bar commands.

Does it mean that the entire tutorial is "advanced topic" and should
be moved to the end of itself?  Hmm...

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2001 bytes --]

On 03/13/2016 01:27 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> That would fit most of the tutorial.
> 
> Things that are truly indispensable are mostly those which the readers
> already know: basic cursor motion, inserting a character and deleting
> a character.  The only other necessary stiff is C-x C-f and C-x C-s,
> but those can be replaced by menu-bar commands.

Hey Eli,

Here are a few things that I struggled with when I started using Emacs (phrased in terms of concepts that I was already familiar with)

* Opening and saving a file
* Copying (or cutting) and pasting
* Undoing, and in particular the notion of undoing an undo
* Using C-u as a prefix
* Searching (and replacing)
* The notion of major and minor modes

Interestingly, the tutorial does cover all of this; but it also tried to train me to be efficient at things that I didn't care (like having me jump around the buffer, paging through things with C-v, etc): what I wanted was a five minutes introduction which would:

* Give me enough to survive in Emacs with more or less the same productivity as I has in GEdit (which was pretty low)
* Teach me a few cool features so that I felt compelled to keep using Emacs

Based on this, it would be easy to pick up more stuff along the way.

Speaking of cool features, here are a few ones that are very simple to comprehend, but that I find very useful; I think the tutorial could expose them:

* C-SPC C-SPC to mark a point
* C-u C-SPC to jump to a previously marked point
* C-w marking the following word during a search

In addition, I think many people get attracted to Emacs for a particular programming language, so I like the suggestion of the tutorial branching up into various directions after exposing the basics.

One final idea: maybe the tutorial could showcase more of Emacs' fancy features? Like syntax highlighting, spell checking, image support, indentation, and similar things? Right now it's a plain text buffer in fundamental mode.

Clément


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pit@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 14:41:54 -0400
> 
> Here are a few things that I struggled with when I started using Emacs (phrased in terms of concepts that I was already familiar with)
> 
> * Opening and saving a file
> * Copying (or cutting) and pasting
> * Undoing, and in particular the notion of undoing an undo
> * Using C-u as a prefix
> * Searching (and replacing)
> * The notion of major and minor modes
> 
> Interestingly, the tutorial does cover all of this; but it also tried to train me to be efficient at things that I didn't care (like having me jump around the buffer, paging through things with C-v, etc): what I wanted was a five minutes introduction which would:
> 
> * Give me enough to survive in Emacs with more or less the same productivity as I has in GEdit (which was pretty low)
> * Teach me a few cool features so that I felt compelled to keep using Emacs
> 
> Based on this, it would be easy to pick up more stuff along the way.
> 
> Speaking of cool features, here are a few ones that are very simple to comprehend, but that I find very useful; I think the tutorial could expose them:
> 
> * C-SPC C-SPC to mark a point
> * C-u C-SPC to jump to a previously marked point
> * C-w marking the following word during a search

I see your point.  But here's the problem:

 * The tutorial explicitly aims at making you more productive than
   you'd be in GEdit or Notepad, as high productivity is one of
   Emacs's string selling points
 * The set of "cool features" that users would like to be taught is
   highly variable from one user to another, and their superset is way
   too large for a tutorial

The only practical solution to the dilemma is to have multiple
tutorials.  This is not ideal, either, because many newcomers will not
know enough to choose the ones they want, but it's a step in the right
direction (IMO).

The only problem is to find volunteers who'd actually write such
tutorials.

> In addition, I think many people get attracted to Emacs for a particular programming language, so I like the suggestion of the tutorial branching up into various directions after exposing the basics.

I actually think that a tutorial should demonstrate the common stuff,
i.e. how the same commands do different things in each major mode.
For the details that are specific to each mode users should read the
respective manuals and doc strings, as describing them in a tutorial
will make that tutorial be very much like the manual ;-)

> One final idea: maybe the tutorial could showcase more of Emacs' fancy features? Like syntax highlighting, spell checking, image support, indentation, and similar things? Right now it's a plain text buffer in fundamental mode.

Excellent ideas, but again: we need someone to step forward and
actually do all that.  Most of us are not good at writing such
interactive documentation.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3118 bytes --]

Thanks for the detailed answer Eli!

On 03/13/2016 03:03 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pit@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 14:41:54 -0400
>>
>> Here are a few things that I struggled with when I started using Emacs (phrased in terms of concepts that I was already familiar with)
>>
>> * Opening and saving a file
>> * Copying (or cutting) and pasting
>> * Undoing, and in particular the notion of undoing an undo
>> * Using C-u as a prefix
>> * Searching (and replacing)
>> * The notion of major and minor modes
>>
>> Interestingly, the tutorial does cover all of this; but it also tried to train me to be efficient at things that I didn't care (like having me jump around the buffer, paging through things with C-v, etc): what I wanted was a five minutes introduction which would:
>>
>> * Give me enough to survive in Emacs with more or less the same productivity as I has in GEdit (which was pretty low)
>> * Teach me a few cool features so that I felt compelled to keep using Emacs
>>
>> Based on this, it would be easy to pick up more stuff along the way.
>>
>> Speaking of cool features, here are a few ones that are very simple to comprehend, but that I find very useful; I think the tutorial could expose them:
>>
>> * C-SPC C-SPC to mark a point
>> * C-u C-SPC to jump to a previously marked point
>> * C-w marking the following word during a search
> 
> I see your point.  But here's the problem:
> 
>  * The tutorial explicitly aims at making you more productive than
>    you'd be in GEdit or Notepad, as high productivity is one of
>    Emacs's string selling points
>  * The set of "cool features" that users would like to be taught is
>    highly variable from one user to another, and their superset is way
>    too large for a tutorial
> 
> The only practical solution to the dilemma is to have multiple
> tutorials.  This is not ideal, either, because many newcomers will not
> know enough to choose the ones they want, but it's a step in the right
> direction (IMO).
> 
> The only problem is to find volunteers who'd actually write such
> tutorials.
> 
>> In addition, I think many people get attracted to Emacs for a particular programming language, so I like the suggestion of the tutorial branching up into various directions after exposing the basics.
> 
> I actually think that a tutorial should demonstrate the common stuff,
> i.e. how the same commands do different things in each major mode.
> For the details that are specific to each mode users should read the
> respective manuals and doc strings, as describing them in a tutorial
> will make that tutorial be very much like the manual ;-)
> 
>> One final idea: maybe the tutorial could showcase more of Emacs' fancy features? Like syntax highlighting, spell checking, image support, indentation, and similar things? Right now it's a plain text buffer in fundamental mode.
> 
> Excellent ideas, but again: we need someone to step forward and
> actually do all that.  Most of us are not good at writing such
> interactive documentation.
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2016-03-13, at 20:03, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

>> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pit@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 14:41:54 -0400
>> 
>> Here are a few things that I struggled with when I started using Emacs (phrased in terms of concepts that I was already familiar with)
>> 
>> * Opening and saving a file
>> * Copying (or cutting) and pasting
>> * Undoing, and in particular the notion of undoing an undo
>> * Using C-u as a prefix
>> * Searching (and replacing)
>> * The notion of major and minor modes

And how to exit Emacs;-).

How about an "official" "tip of the day" feature?  Like showing a "Did
you know...?" tip /in the scratch buffer/ (or the splash screen)?

>> Interestingly, the tutorial does cover all of this; but it also tried to train me to be efficient at things that I didn't care (like having me jump around the buffer, paging through things with C-v, etc): what I wanted was a five minutes introduction which would:
>> 
>> * Give me enough to survive in Emacs with more or less the same productivity as I has in GEdit (which was pretty low)
>> * Teach me a few cool features so that I felt compelled to keep using Emacs
>> 
>> Based on this, it would be easy to pick up more stuff along the way.
>> 
>> Speaking of cool features, here are a few ones that are very simple to comprehend, but that I find very useful; I think the tutorial could expose them:
>> 
>> * C-SPC C-SPC to mark a point
>> * C-u C-SPC to jump to a previously marked point
>> * C-w marking the following word during a search

+1 for all these.  Also, C-M-v.  Also, transposing commands.  Also,
[insert your favorite cool & useful stuff here]...

> I see your point.  But here's the problem:
>
>  * The tutorial explicitly aims at making you more productive than
>    you'd be in GEdit or Notepad, as high productivity is one of
>    Emacs's string selling points
>  * The set of "cool features" that users would like to be taught is
>    highly variable from one user to another, and their superset is way
>    too large for a tutorial
>
> The only practical solution to the dilemma is to have multiple
> tutorials.  This is not ideal, either, because many newcomers will not
> know enough to choose the ones they want, but it's a step in the right
> direction (IMO).

Agreed.  On the other hand, the same can be said about the manual, which
is not extremely concise...

> The only problem is to find volunteers who'd actually write such
> tutorials.

I already started to exchange ideas with Phil, and have like 8kB of one
of such possible tutorials.  I'd be happy to write more; I like writing
in a natural language, though as a non-native English speaker (and not
having a disguise like Eli's;-)) I will probably need my texts
polished by someone.

I could contribute to a tutorial about basics of Elisp (for people
prefering a more interactive approach than Chassell's book) - this is
actually the one I started writing. Also, Org-mode.  Dired might be
tricky to pull off, but we can artificially create a simple directory
structure somewhere in /tmp to play around with - and then it would be
really nice.  Calc already has a good tutorial/introduction.

And we definitely need a tutorial on asking Emacs about its state - all
those descibe-.* commands, C-h bindings, apropos-.* commands etc.

It also just occurred to me that instead of writing tutorials for
various programming languages, we could have one general tutorial for
coding and one for writing prose.  I could contribute especially to the
latter one.

>> In addition, I think many people get attracted to Emacs for a particular programming language, so I like the suggestion of the tutorial branching up into various directions after exposing the basics.
>
> I actually think that a tutorial should demonstrate the common stuff,
> i.e. how the same commands do different things in each major mode.
> For the details that are specific to each mode users should read the
> respective manuals and doc strings, as describing them in a tutorial
> will make that tutorial be very much like the manual ;-)

Yes and no.  Manual should be comprehensive, and a tutorial can be just
a quick showcase of possibilities.

An important question is: may a tutorial mention/suggest a Melpa package
(assuming it's GPL'd, for instance)?

>> One final idea: maybe the tutorial could showcase more of Emacs' fancy features? Like syntax highlighting, spell checking, image support, indentation, and similar things? Right now it's a plain text buffer in fundamental mode.
>
> Excellent ideas, but again: we need someone to step forward and
> actually do all that.  Most of us are not good at writing such
> interactive documentation.

OK, how about some showing off;-)?  I authored two books (one on pure
math, in English, and one - coauthored with a friend - which is an
introductory textbook on LaTeX, in Polish).  I'm in the process of
writing two more (both in English, one solo and one with two coauthors).
I also prepared a few short e-learning courses, some of them consisting
of videocasts with accompanying textual material, and one of them (which
is work in progress) being a highly interactive course on basics of
mathematical analysis.  This one is probably closest to a "tutorial",
since in each part the student is expected to answer a series of short
and simple questions, and the answers taken together form a proof of
a theorem.

I don't claim that I'm "good" at writing such things.  But definitely
I (a) do have some experience at it, (b) like writing such stuff a lot,
(c) am willing to write a few for Emacs, and (d) have my FSF papers
signed.

I will need, however, people to help.  At least to proofread and
criticize what I'll have written (especially to help make it short,
since I tend to be too verbose), also to brainstorm ideas.

I'm rather busy now, and it's not likely to change a lot in the near
future.  However, I have assigned an hour a day for writing prose, and
I'd be happy to devote 15-30 minutes of that for Emacs tutorials within
the next few weeks.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

The idea of the tutorial is to get people started.  Then they should
go to the Emacs manual to learn more.  We describe a lot of
possibly-cool features in the Emacs manual, but there's no need
to teach them in the tutorial.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1168 bytes --]

On 03/14/2016 08:16 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
> The idea of the tutorial is to get people started.  Then they should
> go to the Emacs manual to learn more.  We describe a lot of
> possibly-cool features in the Emacs manual, but there's no need
> to teach them in the tutorial.

Hi Richard,

The manual is indeed great. The question is, what drives people to read it?
Maybe the tutorial is a good occasion to teach people about the manual: we show people a cool feature, and we point them to the relevant section in the manual.

The issue that I'm pointing out is that migrating to Emacs has a small cost, at least at the beginning. It would be wonderful if we could tell people "do you think Emacs is too (bloated|complicated|hard-to-learn|...) for you? Just check the 5-minutes tutorial and see for yourself".

But again, maybe there should be two documents: the Emacs elevator pitch, and the Emacs tutorial.

Clément.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Maybe the tutorial is a good occasion to teach people about the manual: we show people a cool feature, and we point them to the relevant section in the manual.

A certain amount of that could be good in the tutorial.  It just can't be
very long.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Phillip Lord]

Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pit@gmail.com> writes:

> On 03/13/2016 01:27 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> That would fit most of the tutorial.
>> 
>> Things that are truly indispensable are mostly those which the readers
>> already know: basic cursor motion, inserting a character and deleting
>> a character.  The only other necessary stiff is C-x C-f and C-x C-s,
>> but those can be replaced by menu-bar commands.
>
> Hey Eli,
>
> Here are a few things that I struggled with when I started using Emacs
> (phrased in terms of concepts that I was already familiar with)
>
> * Opening and saving a file
> * Copying (or cutting) and pasting
> * Undoing, and in particular the notion of undoing an undo
> * Using C-u as a prefix
> * Searching (and replacing)
> * The notion of major and minor modes

I think many of these are essential. The tutorial needs to indicate
where Emacs is different from rest of the world. So, keyboard-centric
control, that it has pasting, but not cutting and copying (or rather
that these are implicit), viewing one file twice, that files are not
files but buffers, that windows are frames. Finishing off with modes and
how to install new ones.

> One final idea: maybe the tutorial could showcase more of Emacs' fancy
> features? Like syntax highlighting, spell checking, image support,
> indentation, and similar things? Right now it's a plain text buffer in
> fundamental mode.

In this day and age, these are not really fancy, but basic technology.
Fortunately, most of them just work.

Phil

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 214 bytes --]

On 03/13/2016 03:46 PM, Phillip Lord wrote:
> In this day and age, these are not really fancy, but basic technology.
> Fortunately, most of them just work.

In that case, let's demo prettify-symbols-mode :)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

The Emacs cursor commands are not "advanced".  On the contrary, they
are very basic.  However, they are not absolutely necessary to learn.

  > If arrows keys work out of the box then C-p/n etc. should be
  > in a section called advanced cursor control or something like 
  > that and it should be moved somewhere to the end.

That would encourage people not to learn them, and then their
Emacs editing would be permanently slower.

We want people to skip these commands rather than give up on Emacs.
We do not want people to skip these commands merely because they
are in a hurry.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > > I think we should first mention that arrow keys work, then invite
  > > users to learn C-b etc. saying that editing will be faster.

  > We already do precisely that.

If some users feel a negative reaction to using C-b etc., and they
give up on Emacs rather than skipping that section, perhaps some local
change in wording would encourage them to make the other choice.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> CC: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:15:08 -0400
> 
>   > > I think we should first mention that arrow keys work, then invite
>   > > users to learn C-b etc. saying that editing will be faster.
> 
>   > We already do precisely that.
> 
> If some users feel a negative reaction to using C-b etc., and they
> give up on Emacs rather than skipping that section, perhaps some local
> change in wording would encourage them to make the other choice.

Indeed, suggestions to that effect are welcome.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I think we should first mention that arrow keys work, then invite users to
> learn C-b etc. saying that editing will be faster.

This would be my preference as well, as well as to mention that the concept of
'b' meaning "backward" will recur in other contexts as they learn more.

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Phillip Lord]

John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com> writes:

>>>>>> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> I think we should first mention that arrow keys work, then invite users to
>> learn C-b etc. saying that editing will be faster.
>
> This would be my preference as well, as well as to mention that the concept of
> 'b' meaning "backward" will recur in other contexts as they learn more.

I think that the middle ground here is to talk about C-bfnp as examples
of keychords. The still get mentioned, but use of the keyboard does not
become the main focus.

Phil

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > > Users who learn move the cursor with arrow keys in Emacs experience
  > > slow editing.  We should get them started the way that works better.

  > I have doubts that you have any strong evidence for this.

Of course I do.  I've watched people edit, and when they move
their hands to the arrow keys that takes time.

  > In addition, there is the
  > mouse.

Using the mouse is extremely slow each time.
That is why I never use it for editing.

  > The mouse and arrows keys also have an additional huge advantage: they
  > work any where, including outside Emacs.

That's why we made Emacs support them.  But that has nothing to do
with the question at hand, which is how we should recommend people use
Emacs.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Chad Brown]

There are some extensive UI studies on these topics, and the results
are basically (paraphrased from memory):

  * Using the mouse for nearby positional editing is measurably slower
    than using 1-key or 2-key keyboard commands, for people used to
    both.

  * Using arrow keys in a typical IBM 101 or similar layout is *very
    slightly* slower than using home-row keys (I believe both WASD and
    HJKL were compared).

  * Similarly, using 2-key combinations (like emacs’) is *very
    slightly* slower than using home-row keys.

  * Using the mouse for distant positional editing is often faster and
    rarely slower than using the keyboard. The theory I recall is that
    tying scrolling to analog physical movements enables people to use
    the spatial-reckoning hardware in our brains.

  * Interestingly, emacs has seen a recent flowering of new navigation
    modes that are largely based on searching rather than positioning
    (ace-jump, avy, swiper, etc).

  * For many users, using the mouse for positioning *feels* faster or
    as fast as using the keyboard, even if it is not (mostly for
    nearby positioning).

  * Similarly, many users *feel* like moving their hand to the mouse
    for any positioning task is slower than using the keyboard, even
    if it is not (mostly for non-local positioning).

  * Interestingly, showing users the stopwatch doesn't change the feel
    factor.

  * Whether it is worthwhile or not to break what users feel in favor
    of lower stopwatch numbers depends on your domain. Breaking feel
    creates an irritation point that slows down both editing and
    reading/writing, so it's definitely not free.

The practical upshot of all of this is that there really is no “one
best answer” for whether to use dedicated keys, key-chords, or mouse
for an editing environment; the answer is still "it depends".

It’s been a while since I followed this space, and there’s probably
been some new research since I looked. If memory serves, the sources
for these come from a combination of Apple’s/SIGCHI’s research, Bruce
Tognazinni’s work at Apple and Sun, some stuff from the MIT Media Lab,
and the work on Plan 9’s 8½, rio, and acme user interfaces. Much (but
not all) of it predates the widespread adoption of advanced scroll
wheels and multi-touch scrolling gestures, but those are unlikely to
suggest a stronger insistence on emacs's control-key style of
positioning.

I hope this helps. Apologies if it should have been sent to emacs-tangents 
instead.

~Chad

Re: Why does the tutorial talk about C-n/C-p etc?

[Evgeny Panasyuk]

12.03.2016 22:14, Chad Brown:

Interesting data, thank you!

>    * Using the mouse for distant positional editing is often faster and
>      rarely slower than using the keyboard. The theory I recall is that
>      tying scrolling to analog physical movements enables people to use
>      the spatial-reckoning hardware in our brains.
>
>    * Interestingly, emacs has seen a recent flowering of new navigation
>      modes that are largely based on searching rather than positioning
>      (ace-jump, avy, swiper, etc).
>...
>...
>    * Similarly, many users *feel* like moving their hand to the mouse
>      for any positioning task is slower than using the keyboard, even
>      if it is not (mostly for non-local positioning).

There are special "mouse" kinds which are built-in into keyboard.
For instance Trackpoint: 
https://microle.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trackpoint.jpg
- it is near home row, and actually feels fast and convenient for 
non-local positioning. I wonder what is faster - trackpoint or 
keyboard-based search techniques like ace-jump.

Subjectively ace-jump makes impression of two roundtrips - first is to 
recognize which character to search, and second - which one to select 
from alternatives.

-- 
Evgeny Panasyuk