Re: lynx-dev Link numbering and keypad mode

[Laura Eaves]

> From: Bela Lubkin <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:04:33 -0800
>...
> I've presented [2] as a 2- rather than 3-way toggle (currently we have
> hidden vs. displayed(links only) vs. displayed(links and form fields)).
> I think it was a mistake, at the time, to separate the last two.  It was
> an implementation oversight at the time that links-are-numbered was
> first introduced, that form fields were *not* numbered.  It should
> simply have been fixed by making them "first class links", i.e. changing
> the links-are-numbered option to always include form fields.  I'd like
> to see that change now.

I agree.  The only reason it is handled the way
it is now is historical.

Another historical feature is that typing a link number
without the g or p suffix activates a link without moving
the current link to it first, so when returning to that
page via the left arrow the current link is not at the link
you followed.

When Fote implemented the "tag soup" parser to better handle bad html,
and changed GriText.c to remove hidden (invisible) links,
he expressed the opinion that the historical behavior was wrong or obsolete
-- typing 123 without the g should behave like 123g.  I objected to this
due to the possibility of hidden links being accidently generated from parser
error recovery.  Typing 123 would be the only way (besides the L-page)
to activate -- or even identify -- such links.

> At this point in Lynx's development, I even wonder whether anyone still
> needs "keypad-as-numbers" mode.  As an informal survey: who would
> currently be bothered if the keypad *always* acted as arrows, except
> when prefixed with "0" to make them into numbers?

I wouldn't object, as long as it's optional.

> I'm asking for first-hand bother, not referred.  i.e. please don't tell
> me that this would confuse some nebulous population of blind users,
> unless you yourself would be confused.  I would like to believe that the
> blind users are just as smart as sighted users, and would "see" the
> benefits of having an arrowpad *plus* go-to-link/page.

As a low vision user I prefer numbering links and form fields
and use the cursor keys for navigation, never the numeric keypad.
So I see no problem with it, as long as the options are available.

> Remember, you would still have separate control over whether link
> numbers were *displayed* on screen.
--le