From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Suggestion: Mapping of M-g should be goto-line Date: 28 Mar 2004 19:37:24 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <861xnhfee8.fsf@avet.kvota.net> <86brmldvbd.fsf@avet.kvota.net> <20040327001641.GD26429@fencepost> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1080495706 3267 80.91.224.253 (28 Mar 2004 17:41:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:41:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 28 19:41:40 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B7eHz-00040s-00 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:41:39 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B7eHz-0001dC-00 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:41:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B7eEf-0005If-F0 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:38:13 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1B7eEQ-0005GN-D0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:37:58 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1B7eDt-00054t-Qa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:37:56 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B7eDt-00054o-GP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:37:25 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B7eDp-0005CZ-16; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:37:21 -0500 Original-To: jari.aalto@poboxes.com (Jari Aalto+mail.emacs) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 Original-Lines: 38 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:21024 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:21024 jari.aalto@poboxes.com (Jari Aalto+mail.emacs) writes: > * Fri 2004-03-26 Miles Bader gnu.org> > | In any case Jari's comment seems just plainly wrong -- it's _much_ > | easier to type multiple keystroke bindings if all keys in the > | sequence use the same modifier: e.g., to type C-c C-c C-c, just > | (1) hold down the the control key with one finger, and (2) hit `c' > | three times with the other finger. > > This assumes, that one indeed uses two hand on keyboard. Not at all. I can easily type C-c C-c with the left hand. In fact, even when I am typing with both hands, I use just the left hand for C-c C-c and it is quite fast. > I use left hand on keyboard and right hand on mouse almost 90 % of > the time. I have found it more efficient and faster. In cases, > where it's impossible to reach keys with left hand I have to shift > both hands to keyboard. But it isn't with C-c. > To throw another perspective, think about disabled persons which may > not have good hand coordination or strength. Keeping keys down is > harder that using non-modifier keys: > > C-c c c vs. C-c C-c C-c We should cater for the ergonomics of the most common users first. Disabled persons will rebind their keys for their most common applications, anyway. We should try to cater for their needs as long as it does not negatively impact more common users. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum