Re: Issues with emacs

[Rainer M Krug]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 24/06/12 16:18, Drew Adams wrote:
>> 1) improve the menu to live up to "moderm" menu standards, so that 
>> efffectually everything
>> could be done by using the mouse (*but most definitely keep the keyboard 
>> shortcuts!!!!!!!). I
>> know that this is not possible for all additional packages, but at least the 
>> emacs core
>> should be usable completely via mouse.
>> 
>> 2) improve the GUI look, to conform more with a "modern" look
>> 
>> 3) change the menu, so that there the new users learns to do the stuff by 
>> using the mose
>> (and introduce the keyboard e.g. in brackets).
>> 
>> - From my experience: when (or in many cases "if") the new user manages to 
>> accept and use way
>> of using emacs (now via initially *very strange* keyboard shortcuts) to 
>> reach the brilliant
>> features and tha land off possibilities hidden behind, they will stay. If 
>> the initial
>> crossing of the border can be done easier, more users will discover the 
>> wonders of emacs.
> 
> 1. FWIW, I agree with this.  Menus are a great way to discover.  They need to 
> be well
> organized, of course.  But given good organization, that organization can be 
> a tremendous
> learning aid (and a memory aid).
> 
> In my libraries I generally spend time trying to (a) put more stuff on menus, 
> (b) get the menu
> item terminology right, and (c) organize the menus well.  Not that I always 
> succeed (yes, it
> takes time, thought, and practice using the resulting menus), but I try.
> 
> This is also a motivation behind La Carte (easier keyboard access to menus) 
> and Icicles
> (combined with La Carte, access menu items at any level using substrings, 
> regexps etc.).
> 
> http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/LaCarte 
> http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsNewbieWithIcicles#toc7
> 
> 2. Likewise, the mouse.  A direct-access pointing device is a tremendous 
> asset to human-machine
> interaction.
> 
> (That notion is anathema to some Emacs folk, though you would think that 
> brief reflection on
> tape-vs-disk access would be enough to turn on the light.  Yes, of course 
> Emacs has
> direct-access key sequences, but a mouse gives you direct access _anywhere_: 
> look, point to a
> destination, bam!)
> 
> 3. There is a place for _both_ (a) in-depth documentation and (b) well 
> designed keyboard
> shortcuts, on the one hand, and (c) well designed menus and (d) mouse 
> interaction, on the other
> hand.
> 
> 4. Emacs has moved from only doc and only keyboard (and only console - no 
> frames) toward
> incorporation of more "modern" GUI stuff.
> 
> But most of that movement happened long, long ago, when those things first 
> became possible to
> add to Emacs (back when X Window and window managers in general were new).  
> And most of it
> happened outside the GNU Emacs development stream and was only incorporated 
> later (and
> sometimes not too enthusiastically). Epoch and XEmacs get kudos here, to 
> mention just two.
> 
> And yes, there is still a long way to go.
> 
> 5. If you are interested in going further, please contribute and participate. 
> It is (as has
> amply been demonstrated) not enough to whine that Emacs is not "modern" 
> enough, and to expect
> the old guard to step up to the plate and do what you think should be done.  
> Whether what you
> want gets done depends on you.
> 
> Improving the use of menus and improving doc/help access is approachable by 
> nearly anyone.
> Menu implementation is a bit complicated, and so are keymaps. But once past 
> the initial hurdle
> it is not hard to make a concrete implementation improvement/proposal.  
> Whether a particular
> proposal gets adopted is another story.  But your chances are much higher 
> with code than with
> abstract expectations or whining about "modern" and "nowadays" this or that.

Ups - I just hope that this refers to me: I definitely did not "whine that 
emacs is not modern
enough", nor did I want to complain tat emacs is not "modern" enough for 
"nowadays" computer users.

I just gave my opinion why I think, from personal experience, many people do 
prefer other editors.
I do not complain about this - I though this thread was about raising points 
why not more people
are using emacs? If this was wrong, my apologies.

Although I do not have the time nor the knowledge to improve emacs in this 
regard, I think this is
an important point which should be kept in mind.

And I am looking forward to my next project which will again involve again lots 
of "old fashioned
emacs use".

Cheers,


Rainer


> 
> 
> 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk/nNT4ACgkQoYgNqgF2egr+QgCeIolTH6GKhuaa0um/ukmke2F4
/hAAnjA1ww3bg0x34odVVB1xFnr+Vqx2
=U1gv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----