Re: C-p, C-b, C-f, and C-n... why?

[Mathias Dahl]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> I think phrases like "but it's more efficient" is a bit dangerous. I'd
>> rather want something like "but some feel it's more efficient". It all
>> depends on the user, his keyboard, his habits etc.
>
> I have yet to see a keyboard with arrow keys close to the rest of the
> keys.  They are always somewhere on the fringes.  So, habits aside,
> the distance to C-f is shorter than to the right arrow key, and that
> is an objective fact.  Of course, people might prefer a less efficient
> way, e.g., if they type so slowly that the additional time is
> negligible.

OK, the distance from the home row is shorter, but I still don't think
you can conclude that it is more efficient. For example, C-f require
"two" (or one, or one and a half if you want) keypresses while the
arrow keys require only single keypresses.

Also, can you seriously say that, when doing complicated cursor
movements (imagine navigating around in a crossword or minesweeper
game or similar "grid2), that C-f, C-b, C-n and C-p allows for quicker
movement? If so, I think you are an alien... :)

I agree that for casual cursor movement *while typing text*, it is
faster to use C-f et al, but I still don't like the "more efficient"
statement as I do not find it to be true. Also, the mnemonics (f =
foward, b = back, n = nex, p = previous) suggest that the commands was
put on those keys not for quick navigation bur for easy learning, in a
time where the arrows were not present on all keyboards.

I use both, depending on the situation.