From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jeremiah Dodds Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete] Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:35:30 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87litcvtu2.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <20111003093334.0bf5d988@kuru.homelinux.net> <4E89B613.9060305@mousecar.com> <4E8AFFBA.1000808@mousecar.com> <4E8B6647.4060008@mousecar.com> <4E8B7DC0.4090708@mousecar.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1317774942 17606 80.91.229.12 (5 Oct 2011 00:35:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 00:35:42 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 05 02:35:39 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBFSU-0002VA-J1 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:35:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48573 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBFST-0001vO-Od for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:35:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58356) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBFSO-0001v8-MH for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:35:33 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBFSN-000401-Bo for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:35:32 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ey0-f169.google.com ([209.85.215.169]:41505) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBFSN-0003zx-6M for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:35:31 -0400 Original-Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so1232364eye.0 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:35:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sIU6srm+Lgxr2Xzk0UtwmWMImmHs50v3HCertIxuKVQ=; b=b1UJHDB3GujZvJ9wHmwiByc8SaVs8uti7CX+07/4RwIy8zCMir9y2P98rkFQU0tAGf xMqk/SscI1dPb8T4L7jsUHzjm+oc+W40i21jOtptbStVK5vcL7IUu3qnt7qmKWqANCpT 9GKb/q6lF8kOSh8LDZwq8MMaGBzwe75WY42kI= Original-Received: by 10.223.8.2 with SMTP id f2mr2650742faf.23.1317774930372; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.223.14.6 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:35:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E8B7DC0.4090708@mousecar.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.215.169 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:82472 Archived-At: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:42 PM, ken wrote: > > Yet you believe those assumptions (which you've conveniently redacted out= ) > were based on logic. They were based on inference, yes. I didn't quote them, as they weren't relevant to what I was replying to. I can't go edit the post I made, nor would I, anyone is free to look at the threads history to see them if they'd like. >>> I not only was making it sound like that, that's exactly what I was >>> saying. >>> =A0And it was *all* that I was saying. =A0I said this because, in fact,= two >>> people posted in favor of the changes and for no other reason than the >>> proposed changes complied with how 'modern editors' worked. Please >>> re-read >>> my original post and you'll see I already said this. >> >> What other people seem to understand is that when those other people >> proposed that the changes be made because other editors have that >> behavior, there was most likely an unstated assumption that the other >> editors did so for a reason and that the suggestion was not merely one >> of wanting to be part of the cool kids club. > > "there was most likely an unstated assumption..."?! =A0So you're saying t= hat > even though people didn't give another reason, you can imagine that they = had > one. Yes, this is very common, especially in non-rigorous discussions like the one they're having. I don't feel that it's an improbable discussion, and I would hope that if it was blatantly incorrect that there would be a slew of people saying that that's not what they intended. Humans can be bad at expressing all the necessary assumptive building blocks to a conclusion, but hopefully do care about clarity. >> Even if those particular people *were* just wanting to feel like they >> were using an editor that "belonged", it would still be worth >> considering the change *because* of the likelihood of there being a >> reason other than being fashionable. > > Again, you're imagining people had another reason, even though they didn'= t > give another reason. I am in fact assuming people have additional reasons, although unstated. I do this for a few reasons: 1. It's very common. 2. As you pointed out, making changes *just* to be like other software is a bit silly. 3. People often notice when many things do things similarly and feel like there may be some merit to their methods. >> .... that >> principle also applies to trying not to surprise *new* users, which >> the behavior does =A0for some. > > No it doesn't apply. =A0When you start to use new software, you should ex= pect > to have to learn it. =A0It's not a surprise if you don't yet know how to = use > it. =A0Or do you think it's a surprise that you might have to learn somet= hing? I do not, and I agree that it doesn't apply when you start to use *entirely new* software. I should clarify here -- if you're using your first image editor, you should expect to have to learn many new things. If you're using your tenth image editor, you will probably have quite a bit of transferable knowledge from the first through ninth that you learned. You should, of course, be fine with learning new things, but it's not a one-sided argument. Software writers should also be willing to make changes that are in line with behavior from other software *in their category*, if there is merit to the behavior. > You and I aren't married. Could we be though? I think we'd make a great couple!