On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com> wrote: > (note: I suggest below that we use caps-lock as the frame key) > > 2009/4/30 Gary C Martin <g...@garycmartin.com> >> >> Still think this is a tough, disruptive sell for very small gains. We >> should focus on getting activity authors (and sugar) using the now fully >> functioning accelerator feature to self document shortcuts. > > Which part? This is actually three separate proposals: "discoverable" > (translucent letters), "ubiquitous" (auto-assignment), and "consistent" > (rearranging). Your comments about "consistent" are below, but I don't know > if the above refers to "discoverable" or "ubiquitous". If you mean that > ubiquity is a small gain, noted; if you mean discoverability, I disagree and > would like to hear you elaborate your argument. > > Also, since I'm coding, "tough" is a weak criticism. > > >> >> Anyway, just some quick comments: > > and responses > >> >> >> On 1 May 2009, at 03:28, Jameson Quinn wrote: >> >>> I am interested in making our keyboard shortcuts discoverable, >>> ubiquitous, and consistent. >> >> --- snip --- >> >>> '0x93' : 'frame', >>> 'Insert' : 'frame', #for SoaS >>> '0x00' : 'frame', #for SoaS on Xephyr, see below. >> >> None of my 3 Mac laptops has an Insert key, and the standard keyboard that >> ships with iMac desktops also has no insert. Think all Macs currently ship >> with such keyboards, sans numeric pad, though you can make a custom order >> for "Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad"... actually, just checked that key >> layout as well and no insert key either – but hey, you get 19 function keys >> for your money ;-) >> >> --- snip --- > > I hadn't seen this, I only knew from wikipedia that if your keyboard does > have insert Apple sees it as "help". Looking at a few pictures of Macbook > keyboards, I have to say I like the minimalism, but it leaves few options. > F5-F8 should ideally IMO be available to individual activities. That leaves > caps lock, or key combos (I'd favor close-up combos such as > alt-right_arrow.) > > I'd vote for caps lock. This is, of course, somewhat more radical than most > of my other suggestions, so needs discussion.
Hmmm, not sure. It seems to me that if the zoom-level buttons live in the F-keys, then the Frame button should as well. This keeps it at the top of the keyboard, as on the XO, and keeps a consistent single-key path to a very important element of the UI. And, for what it's worth, I don't think that activities should need to mess around with the F keys. I'd just as soon have banished them entirely, as the caps lock key, were they not required for compatibility. I think that activities should be using, for the most part, the ctrl shortcuts. Perhaps F5 - F8 should be reserved so that they can serve for the middle slider on the XO, and we can make one of F9 - F12 the Frame key? > >> >>> '<alt><ctrl>Escape' : 'close_window_discard_from_journal', >> >> >> Not sure what this one is. > > Close the activity but don't show the naming dialog. Delete the resulting > journal entry. Makes sense. A nice use of alt in the desired manner. >> >> --- snip --- >> >>> #... alt-numeral should be like the top row of the frame, so alt-5 would >>> be journal >>> #and alt-6 first running activity >> >> >> So is the reason behind this idea to help keyboards without any F keys? >> Should this not also include the F5 key being made to show the Journal >> (equiv. to open_search I think). > > This is for keyboards without F keys, but it also gives a natural way to get > the journal and individual activities. alt-shift-N with N>5 could be "close > activity N-5". I think that F5 should be available to individual activities, > so I'd vote against F5/Journal. I'd accept the majority decision, though. Yeah, I think using the alt- shortcuts for the Journal is logical. It would be more logical if we didn't have to duplicate F1 - F4 with alt-1 through alt-4, since then the Journal could just be alt-1, but for keyboards without F keys I guess we need the duplication. I agree, as mentioned above, that F5 - F8 should be left open, to mirror the middle slider on the XO. I find the alt-shift-n suggestion to be highly confusing myself. It sounds like a good way to accidentally close things, and I'm not sure I see the need in the end. Just press alt-n to switch to the activity, followed by alt-esc... >> >> --- snip --- >> >>> # the following are intended for emulator users >>> # '<alt><shift>f' : 'frame', #removed >>> # '<alt><shift>o' : 'open_search', #removed >>> # '<alt><shift>r' : 'rotate', #removed >> >> Why the removals?? Now I would have no working keys at all for accessing >> the frame! > > Because they're inconsistent with the master plan, and > highly-non-discoverable too. Could we map any of those that would be dropped in the F9 - F12 range? For consistency, I guess we should have an "overlay" key there next to the frame key. Could rotate and/or search live there as well? >> >> --- snip --- >> >>> ... >>> Also, ctrl-numeral would choose toolbars, and toolbar tabs would get >>> little translucent numbers when you held control. >> >> So what happens to an activity that uses some ctrl-numerals already >> (labyrinth does)? > > could it use F5-F8? I don't know what it does with these. In practice, the > activity could get them by assigning them before creating that toolbar; > ideally, I'd like this to be a consistent standard. Hmm, I can see ctrl-n being useful to many activities....but tab switching would be advantageous as well. Could we use relative navigation for tabs, in the form of alt-right and alt-left, or similar? This might be more intuitive for kids than counting, and would't eat up as much of the shortcut space. >> >> For my bike-shed, I'd be happy with F1-F4 as is, F5 can be Journal, F6 >> could be frame, then we could make little bits of printed card with icons >> on, and kids could sticky-tape them just above their F keys ;-) I like the thought, but suggest pushing Search(Journal)/Frame to F9 and F10, leaving the "middle" of the F keys open to take the place of the slider. Eben > OK, that's a vote. I vote against you. May the best bike-shed win! (And > since I don't understand what your position on discoverable and ubiquitous > is, I can't count your vote there). > > Jameson > > _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel