Re: German tutorial fix

[Alex Schroeder <alex@emacswiki.org>]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> It's easily observable by any touch-typist, by (1) taking some time to
> get used to the control-keys, and (2) trying both for about 3 seconds
> while typing in some text.  It's not a subtle thing.

I do not find it easily observable.  I bet it also depends on keyboard
layout and customizations outside of Emacs.  Furthermore, I think the
tutorial should not care about it, even if it were true.

>> People like Jef Raskin ("The Humane Interface") will argue for
>> "dedicated keys" such as the arrow keys.
>
> If Jef Raskin has a good reason why the arrow keys should be used to the
> exclusions of other cursor movement keys -- in a text editor, even when
> they are less efficient -- then by all means, give his arguments.

I also do not thing that the burden of proof is on me.  I do not
believe your claim, so I think the burden of proof is on you (or
Richard, since he said something similar).  Skimming the TOC and
checking some chapters selectively, I think here is what he might say:

1. Habit formation -- sometimes you use the arrow keys, sometimes C-f
   to move point.  That is bad for habit formation.

2. GOMS keystroke level model -- arrow keys might involve hand
   movement similar to moving from the keyboard to the mouse, thus you
   have one H element in the analysis, and a K for the press, and
   mentally preparing M.  C-f has mentally preparing, and two
   keypresses.  The timing he gives for the simplified analysis would
   be M = 1.35s, K = 0.2s, H = 0.2s, thus the two are exactly
   equivalent as far as the GOMS model is concerned.

3. Hick's Law -- since you now have two equivalent methods of moving
   point, this not only hampers habit formation, it also imposes a
   cognitive burden when you have to choose between the two.

Anyway, enough of that.  These points are not even necessarily true.
My claim is just that 1. C-f is not obviously better, and
2. conflicting opinions exist.  So why use it as an argument, if we
have far better arguments at hand?  For example stupid terminals.

> If a user knows about `C-n' meaning `next-line' it not only allows
> them to move to the next line, but provides a point of reference
> which makes it easier to remember that for instance that a plain `n'
> moves to the next line or next message in many modes.

This is a valid argument.  Notice that in my suggestion for a new
text, I did describe the control keys because of the dumb terminals.
This is also a good point to explain the mnemonics, I agree.

> Knows for sure about what?  Which is better for RSI?  Is that even an
> issue?

I have it, RMS had it, iirc, Ben Wing had it, JWZ had it, James
Gosling had it, ... health might be just as important as typing speed.

Alex.
-- 
http://www.electronicintifada.net/diaries/index.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/hr2506c.html