From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: German tutorial fix Date: 19 May 2002 22:30:44 +0900 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87offctgcb.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> 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> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1021815193 29985 127.0.0.1 (19 May 2002 13:33:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 13:33:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 179QoD-0007nW-00 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 15:33:13 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 179R1g-0000Z0-00 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 15:47:09 +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 179QoO-0006Ff-00; Sun, 19 May 2002 09:33:24 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp02.fields.gol.com ([203.216.5.132]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 179Qlt-000661-00; Sun, 19 May 2002 09:30:50 -0400 Original-Received: from tc-2-239.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp ([203.216.25.239] helo=tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp) by smtp02.fields.gol.com with esmtp (Magnetic Fields) id 179Qlr-0004s9-00; Sun, 19 May 2002 22:30:47 +0900 Original-Received: by tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AB18A30B5; Sun, 19 May 2002 22:30:44 +0900 (JST) Original-To: Alex Schroeder System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: <87n0uwuwkc.fsf@emacswiki.org> Original-Lines: 58 X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com 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:4119 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:4119 Alex Schroeder writes: > > + but you can edit more efficiently if > > ! but it's more efficient to keep your hands in the standard position > > I don't like this at all. It seems to be an unsubstantiated claim. 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. The arrow keys are better for some things too -- I usually use them when `browsing,' e.g., reading mail or something, because then I don't keep my hands on the home row, and in fact usually keep one near the arrow keys. But for actually _typing_ text, it's not even a contest. > 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. It's almost certainly the case that the arrow keys are more _obvious_ than the control keys, but the argument that has been made is that the control-keys are _more efficient for some purposes_. That's why it's (1) a good thing that emacs can use the arrow keys, and (2) also a good thing that emacs can use the control keys. Users presumably can be counted upon to know about the arrow keys already, but not about the control-keys. Since the control-keys are _more efficient_ in some very common situations, and users probably won't learn about them elsewhere (unlike many commands, which can be learnt by seeing the key-bindings listed in the menus), we should introduce them in the tutorial -- even if they're not as crucial as they once were. The purpose of the tutorial, I would claim, is not to give beginner's the absolute minimal amount of knowledge required to use emacs (with today's more menu- and mousified emacs, that's probably very little knowledge indeed), but to put them on the road to being a proficient user of emacs -- and part of that is coming to grips with the gestalt of emacs keybindings. 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. > People from the RSI crowd will argue for hands moving out of the > standard position in order to prevent injuries. Some will claim this > is wrong. The point is, nobody knows for sure. Knows for sure about what? Which is better for RSI? Is that even an issue? -Miles -- Run away! Run away!