Hi Bill. > I am not sure I understand your point - or perhaps you are > misunderstanding me.
I suspect it's the former, but we'll see. :-) > What I am suggesting is that we specifically _avoid_ using ShiftLock And what I am suggesting is that we specifically _allow_ using it (if possible). > (which is generally a troublesome 'modifier' > anyhow, because it always has "latch" behavior, i.e. toggles between > on/off with successive keypresses). I did wonder about this. I do know that in some Windows AT products, ShiftLock is used as a modifier key. How they went about accomplishing this, however, I couldn't tell you. > Sorry if this sounds complicated, I am not sure how to put it more > straightforwardly. I think you're putting it quite straightforwardly, and I apologize for not doing the same. If you'll permit me to try again: What I would like to avoid, if possible, is the need for "loopholes" and "work arounds." I *very rarely* use ShiftLock when I type, and I *very frequently* rely upon shortcuts, access keys, etc. Therefore *for me*, having ShiftLock as a possible modifier makes sense. Having it become the additional key that I need to press in order to be able to use existing shortcuts, access keys, etc. sounds like an excellent reason to purchase an external keypad. :-) Thanks much for your explanation! Take care. --Joanie _______________________________________________ gnome-accessibility-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-list
