[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming |
Date: |
Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:02:26 +0200 |
> Cc: address@hidden
> From: David Reitter <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:33:06 +0000
>
> > We could use overlays to display the ^L as something more visually
> > appealing, while leaving ^L in the buffer.
>
> Sounds like a complicated solution to me.
It isn't complicated.
> But if that's the only way...
I don't know if that's the only way, that's the first way I could
think of. Others might have other, perhaps better, ideas.
> > We could modify the help echo string to mention "shortcuts". I don't
> > think the name of the menu item itself should change, since this is
> > Emacs terminology, and newbies need to learn it as fast as possible.
>
> Unless newbies are successful at finding what they want (help on
> functions assigned to keys), there is no learning effect. They will
> just skip over "Key Bindings" if they don't know what a binding is.
>
> And sorry, the echo area is not enough.
>
> 1. It is not displayed on my system when going through the menus.
Did you turn the tooltips off? If not, perhaps there's some bug?
> 2. the echo area is far away from the menus (visually), and I
> wouldn't be used to check it anyways when going through menus. Menu
> strings have to be self explanatory.
First, the default is to display the help text in a tooltip, not in
the echo area.
Second, the area near the bottom of the display is where other GUI
applications display longer descriptions of the menu items. So I
think users do know to look there' even if tooltips are somehow
disabled.
> I think a useful compromise would be "Keyboard Commands". I don't
> think that this is inconsistent with Emacs terminology.
IMHO, it _is_ inconsistent. And in addition, it is not mentioned
anywhere in the docs where a newbie might look for basic terminology.
It's not in Glossary, for example.
> > Could you please drop this signature stuff? It's very long and thus
> > annoying. TIA.
>
> It's an attachment and shouldn't be displayed on your screen.
> Most mail readers will display "signed".
Rmail does display it.
I don't mind short signatures, but this one is annoyingly long.
- Re: Help menu (was: Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming), (continued)
- Re: Help menu (was: Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming), Richard M. Stallman, 2005/11/16
- Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, Jason Rumney, 2005/11/14
- Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, Eli Zaretskii, 2005/11/11
- Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, Eli Zaretskii, 2005/11/11
- Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, Eli Zaretskii, 2005/11/11
- RE: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, Drew Adams, 2005/11/11
- Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, Eli Zaretskii, 2005/11/11
- Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/11/11
Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, Eli Zaretskii, 2005/11/11
RE: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, Drew Adams, 2005/11/11
- Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, Eli Zaretskii, 2005/11/11
- RE: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, Drew Adams, 2005/11/11
- Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/11/11
- Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, David Reitter, 2005/11/11
- Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/11/11
- Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, David Reitter, 2005/11/11
Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, Miles Bader, 2005/11/11
Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming, David Reitter, 2005/11/11