On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 29.04.2008, at 18:10, Eben Eliason wrote: > > > Ctrl-Q is likewise redundant with the ctrl-esc shortcut, which is a > > mostly non-standard shortcut, but somehow makes sense in this context > > anyway. (Hey, it beats alt-F4, right?...there's no logic there that I > > can see) In other news, after looking it up, it turns out that > > ctrl-esc used to be used to reveal the task manager in Windows, > > allowing one to terminate running programs (semantically aligned with > > our use here). Oddly, it has since been remapped to invoke the > > Windows start menu, with opposite semantics. This despite the fact > > that many PC keyboards even have a Windows key which does this anyway. > > In any case, I support our interpretation of ctrl-esc and think it > > serves the purposes without need for redundancy. > > > I thought that all ctrl-modifiers should be handled by the activity? > Wouldn't alt-esc be more appropriate, since the handler is in the shell?
Hmmm. The semantics I was aiming for are: CTRL - "primary" shortcuts...standard/basic actions eg. "copy" ALT - "alternate" shortucts...modifications of the corresponding primary shortcuts, eg. "copy and erase" (cut) SHIFT - "invert"...do the opposite of the primary or alternate shortcut it is chorded with, eg. "cycle through open activities in reverse" My goals for the semantics never specified that different keys should have different contexts or scopes. Of course, now that you point it out, I think that ctrl-esc might be the only global non-ALT shortcut. So if others argue strongly against using ctrl-esc, I'll leave it to a democratic decision. - Eben _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
