Re: emacs-w3m question

[Paul R]

Hello, 

> > A happy post-USA-election day to you, Xah!

>> it is fantastic that Obama won!

Alan> And yesterday in Scotland, the Labour party, the party of British
Alan> government, held on to their parliamentary seat for Glenrothes,
Alan> against the strong expectation that the Scottish National Party,
Alan> the party of Scottish government, would win it.

And french president, currently European Union president for 2 months
more, recently gave a speech in which he said that he does not want to
leave this european seat when time comes (IIRC, Tchek Republic is
supposed to take over after France in january ). He argued that given
the "current crisis", the european presidency ought to be strong, very
wise and skilled, hence he is the only one able to do the job (still
according to him). Cock really is a good emblem for our country, as it
is the only known animal that keeps singing even with both foot in his
own poo :)

Alan> But we've had this discussion several times. Modern isn't
Alan> necessarily better. Modern is easier for newbies familiar with
Alan> other programs to learn, but there's no evidence that, once
Alan> learnt, it's any better than the classic Emacs UI. Do you address
Alan> this matter anywhere in your online essays? My own experience is
Alan> that Emacs's classic UI is much better. One reason to believe
Alan> Emacs UI should be superior is that it was developed by the people
Alan> who use it, for their own use.

Although I agree with that, I think it is important to keep in mind that
emacs frighten a lot of people when they first try it, and a lot of
those people may drop it forever because of this first impression.
I think newcomers are young and have time to realize what bindings are
convenients or not in everyday use, and emacs should not impose, by
default, a map that makes it practicaly unusable to anybody coming from
the "CUA world". Yes, they can learn. No, they don't want to learn
before trying, and I can understand that.


-- 
  Paul