Andy Ross said:

> Josh Babcock wrote:
> > So maybe airplanes shouldn't be in the interface business.  Maybe we
> > should spend our energy agreeing on property conventions and Nasal
> > scripts.
> Even better would be to take a big audit of all the existing bindings
> and re-assign them from scratch.  We've accumulated all sorts of
> inconsistencies and usability glitches over the years.  Here's one
> right here:
> > a    Tailhook down
> > A    Tailhook up
> > L    Toggle slats
> IMHO, we want to adhere to *either* the traditional toggle convention
> *or* the no-shift-means-down/shift-means-up idea.  Using a combination
> in the default mappings is confusing.  Likewise, we have other
> bindings (magnetos, flaps) that use yet another convention ("key
> pair") to indicate increase/decrease.

Yes, there are a couple of these, but it's not a huge problem.  I'd almost
suggest that the key pair might be better for those things with multiple
intervals.  This is a coordination thing for me.  Note that the two you
mentioned share the same two keys, so this isn't wasteful.

The shift/noshift is probably the best thing for handling up/down, on/off.  It
certainly makes gear operation more reliable.

> I'm sure this will generate a good viscious flame war, but IMHO it
> ought to be done sooner rather than later.  We're starting to attract
> real newbies, and they are already having a hard time with our default
> interface.

Ok here's the flame:  Have you ever known someone to write "IMHO" when they
really mean to be humble?  ;-)
> And while we're at it, we need to do the same thing for the joystick
> bindings.  I bought a new stick recently to replace my X45 (a Logitech
> Extreme Digital 3D) and discovered that our default bindings for it
> are absolutely nothing like the ones for the X45.  It does "snap view"
> with the hat instead of panning, for instance.

Yet another reason for a nice user binding dialog (tm). (Sorry no code to go
with this comment :-))


Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to