[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Name and UI for emacs-style shortcuts
From:       Thomas Zander <zander () planescape ! com>
Date:       2001-12-30 15:50:11
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 12:38:50AM -0500, Ellis Whitehead wrote:
> My first question is what should emacs-style shortcuts be called?  I've 
> labeled them "extended shortcuts" before.  This seems fine to me, but maybe 
> there's already a name for them?

Multi-key ?
Multi-pass ?
super-shortcuts (sells great ;)

 
> On a related note, I would like to give new names to the two standard KDE 
> schemes.  "KDE Default for 3-Modifier Keys" isn't very catchy. *grin*  I was 
> thinking "KDE Standard" (or I suppose "KDE Traditional") for the scheme 
> without the win key, and "KDE Extended" for the scheme with the win key.  I 
> don't like "KDE Extended" much though, especially if the emacs-style 
> shortcuts are going to be called "extended shortcuts".

Hmm; that was an annoyence to me as well :)
I would probably name them:
3-key: traditional
4-key: logical / modern / full-keyboard

 
> Also, the user-interface for the emacs-style shortcuts needs some major 
> re-thinking.  Currently, if you press the first key of a shortcut, a 
> QPopupMenu pops up with the appropriate items.  That's rather strange.  Any 
> suggestions on how to handle this?  Put a message into the statusbar 
> temporarily?  What if there is no statusbar?  Should a menu pop up after a 
> certain amount of time passes without a second keypress?

I am not sure I follow which UI you mean; the entering of the key-sequence or
something else ?
If its the usage of the keyboard shortcut I don't think a list should be
presented; this style of shortcuts mean that lost more shortcuts can be created
and therefor the list will probably get quite long.

Could you describe it a bit more like a use case? Thanx.


> Cheers,
> Ellis

-- 
Thomas Zander                                            zander@earthling.net
The only thing worse than failure is the fear of trying something new
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]