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

List:       lyx-devel
Subject:    Re: Key-binding documentation dilemma
From:       mike.ressler () alum ! mit ! edu
Date:       2000-11-30 20:44:33
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Amir Karger wrote:
> I think the docs have to be written assuming you've got the default binding.
> Otherwise, you'd have to write it so that it automatically displayed what
> the person's personal bindings were at that time, or something.

That would actually be really cool!

> IMO, both of these are verbose and annoying. (Admittedly I use CUA.) Yes,
> the docs should have all the necessary information, but they also need to be
> *readable*. Every time you have one of those parentheses (or worse, an extra
> phrase) will break the train of thought of the text.

Agreed - this is why I thought I'd ask. If no one feels strongly about the
emacs bindings (other than me), then it's appropriate to leave them out.

> I would instead suggest that you prominently note that all the given
> bindings are CUA and if you want Emacs bindings, they are listed at [Ref].

This is my current leaning. Guess I'll have to resurrect the Reference
manual ...

> If you think this isn't good enough, maybe you could try footnotes. (I'm not

Yuck!

> sure how many bindings you're talking about. If there are hundreds, the
> footnotes could get burdensome, although you could also put several bindings
> into one footnote.)

Not as many as I thought, but I'd still like to get the style "right".

Mike


-- 
Mike Ressler
mike.ressler@alum.mit.edu
OK, I'm lame: I don't have my own website ...


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