AJ MacLeod wrote > Sent: 12 November 2007 12:09 > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Keyboard reorg > > > On Monday 12 November 2007 06:31:26 John Denker wrote: > > Agreed! I've thought for ages that a top-to-bottom reorg would be > > helpful. The starting point for me was the realization that there > > are far more aircraft functions that need to be controlled > > than there are keys on the keyboard > > Which is why we have cockpit hotspots. The simple fact of > the matter is this; > we model a vast array of aircraft, of almost every type > imaginable. We are > modelling them in an ever more detailed way, and each > aircraft really is very > different; far too different to provide enough key bindings > to make each > aircraft controllable by the keyboard alone. > > For those who never fly or model anything other than single engine > light "training" type fixed-wing aircraft, perhaps the > problem isn't so > noticeable; these are comparatively simple and probably have > a reasonable > degree of commonality of functions between aircraft. > > There are, IMHO, very few functions indeed which really > _require_ a keyboard > binding by default. Why try and squeeze every aircraft type > and function > into one cramped mould? > > > In situations such as this, the time-honored solution is > > to come up with a _language_. > > A good language has > > *) some orthogonality, and > > *) some mnemonic value. > > And will be detested (indeed, completely shunned) by the > "average user". > While I can see your point, and some possible advantages with > your idea, it's > a complete non-starter from the point of view of the > non-programmer "normal" > user. > > Maybe most of us on this list find it natural to think in > such terms, but I > can assure you (from dealing with typical "users" every day) > that most people > don't. >
I would add that the current assignments have evolved over the best part of a decade, and are the results of a degree of consensus. It is likely that any review will: A. Only tinker round the edges. B. Be different rather than better, and quite likely worse. Consensus is unlikely, other than more or less around what we have already. Any major change would require our users (and developers) to unlearn the old and relearn the new. Unlikely to win many friends. Evolution is usually better than revolution. Vivian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
