Menu-based tutorial?

Menu-based tutorial?

[rusi]

There was a question on the linux audio list about managing lots of
interrelated files mess [1]

I suggested orgmode
The OP indicated he's intimidated with emacs keyboard shortcuts.
I suggested he use the menus as far as possible (to start with of
course)

So the question(s):
1. Are there any good intros/tutorials for emacs using menus?
2. The last time (when answering someone similarly intimidated with
emacs keyboard shortcuts) and I suggested the menus, I found them
lacking: eg basic window commands like C-x 1 and C-x 2, buffer
commands like C-x k are not there (as far as I know) in the menus.
Any solutions (for a noob)?

1. http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2012-May/084917.html
    original thread http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2012-May/084889.html

Re: Menu-based tutorial?

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com>
() Wed, 16 May 2012 23:36:02 -0700 (PDT)

   The OP indicated he's intimidated with emacs keyboard shortcuts.

Another way is to print out the reference card and keep it handy.
To see what is available, try: ‘M-x locate RET refcards RET’.

   [menus]

Implicit in menu presentation and interaction is a (usually)
inscrutable ontology, which personally, i find extremely
intimidating.  The reference card is like the menu, passive,
but differs in that it leaves the exploration path undefined.
At times, i find that to be intimidating as well, but less so,
and moreover, ever less so, more quickly.

rickety path and jump into space
heart-pounding wrath: decision misplaced?!
fear falls fast before familiarity
dear walls (six cols): command clarity.
much fuller math: more coverage, less waste.

RE: Menu-based tutorial?

[Drew Adams]

> 1. Are there any good intros/tutorials for emacs using menus?
> 2. The last time (when answering someone similarly intimidated with
> emacs keyboard shortcuts) and I suggested the menus, I found them
> lacking: eg basic window commands like C-x 1 and C-x 2, buffer
> commands like C-x k are not there (as far as I know) in the menus.
> Any solutions (for a noob)?

Not a direct answer to your two questions, but these might help - but they
require loading additional libraries:

1. Icicles has lots and better menus
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsNewbieWithIcicles

2. LaCarte lets you access menus easily using keys. It makes it easy to see and
navigate the menu hierarchy.
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsNewbieWithIcicles#toc7
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/LaCarte

Re: Menu-based tutorial?

[Karra]

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:12:35 PM UTC+5:30, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:

> Implicit in menu presentation and interaction is a (usually)
> inscrutable ontology, which personally, i find extremely
> intimidating.

You mean an incomplete, and often poorly thought through taxonomy? Calling it an ontology is bestowing too much prestige, I'd say.

Re: Menu-based tutorial?

[rusi]

On May 18, 6:37 am, Karra <karra....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:12:35 PM UTC+5:30, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> > Implicit in menu presentation and interaction is a (usually)
> > inscrutable ontology, which personally, i find extremely
> > intimidating.
>
> You mean an incomplete, and often poorly thought through taxonomy? Calling it an ontology is bestowing too much prestige, I'd say.

Any taxonomy implies an ontology -- implied, unconscious or
intentional is another matter.
And the atomic building blocks for communicating these are likely to
be completely arbitrary.
We dont ask questions like:
- What in the (shape of character) '2' suggests that it is twice of
'1'?
- What is the logical progression from 'A' to 'B' to 'C'?

These signs are less arbitrary in a pictogramic language like Chinese.
And presumably we all found these signs arbitrary at some early age
and then we 'grew up' by getting used to such arbitrariness.

Likewise the details of the contents and organization of:
File Edit View.... Help
is likely to be arbitrary, but no more arbitrary than the progression
of keys:
C-x 1, C-x 2, C-x 3, C-x 4.