From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alex Schroeder Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: German tutorial fix Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 17:26:16 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87elg8upk7.fsf@emacswiki.org> References: <87y9emho8s.fsf@lexx.delysid.org> <200205160722.g4G7M8X18181@aztec.santafe.edu> <3277-Thu16May2002155214+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <200205171928.g4HJSdw20390@aztec.santafe.edu> <87znyywagx.fsf@pot.cnuce.cnr.it> <87adqyz047.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <200205190530.g4J5UNa22924@aztec.santafe.edu> <87n0uwuwkc.fsf@emacswiki.org> <87offctgcb.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1021821832 4625 127.0.0.1 (19 May 2002 15:23:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 15:23:52 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 179SXI-0001CU-00 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 17:23:52 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 179Sko-00031m-00 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 17:37:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 179SXb-0006Oh-00; Sun, 19 May 2002 11:24:11 -0400 Original-Received: from relay02.cablecom.net ([62.2.33.102]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 179SVK-0006KK-00 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 11:21:51 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp.swissonline.ch (mail-4.swissonline.ch [62.2.32.85]) by relay02.cablecom.net (8.11.6/8.11.4/SOL/AWF/MXRELAY/06072001) with ESMTP id g4JFMbc05514 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 17:22:37 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from confusibombus (dclient217-162-232-180.hispeed.ch [217.162.232.180]) by smtp.swissonline.ch (8.11.6/8.11.6/SMTPSOL/AWF/2002040101) with ESMTP id g4JFLmo13336 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 17:21:49 +0200 (MEST) Original-Received: from alex by confusibombus with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 179SZc-0000FQ-00 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 17:26:16 +0200 Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <87offctgcb.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> (Miles Bader's message of "19 May 2002 22:30:44 +0900") Original-Lines: 61 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:4124 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:4124 Miles Bader 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