[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev syntax change
From: |
Laura Eaves |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev syntax change |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:47:35 -0500 (EST) |
Hm...
> From: Philip Webb <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 17:53:04 -0500 (EST)
>...
> i don't believe you've counted correctly:
> JP wanted the above syntax, KD PW were strongly opposed
> & i didn't see any other comments on syntax (KW discussed something else).
Ok I'll have to look at the archive. (I alrady deleted the replies.)
> I (emphatic) recommended a different change after testing things,
> ie 3p+ (etc), which says `3 pages further-down' (intuitively)
> & falls under the fingers better: the first 2 strokes are reached
> from the standard touch-typing position, then you have to reeeaaach
> for the `+' key (while shifting); your (old/new) way, you have to reeeaaach
> in the middle of things, then reset your fingers in standard position.
>
> please review the votes cast so far: anyone else have preferences?
Well, the + and - keys are near 0 on the keyboard, so the reach wouldn't be all
that bad.
3p+ (which granted is somewhat descriptive) has just as many characters to
reach.
I've also been thinking 123+ and 123- without g or p should be
outlawed as the user is less sure of the destination link when
typing relative numbers. Any thoughts?
I could easily change the syntax again to 5g+, etc if people really want
it that way. But I'll wait for replies first....
Thanks.
--le
- Re: lynx-dev syntax change,
Laura Eaves <=