On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:31:52AM -0200, Joao Luis Meloni Assirati wrote: > Sorry, I didn't myself clear. I don't want "partial insets", and doubt > that they would be useful. What I was trying to say is that the cursor > should not jump to the first or the third rows while you move the mouse.
But that's the nearest acceptable position given that it is not allowed to go inside the second row. > That is, while you move the mouse over the inset, the cursor should be at > the end of the inset. Certainly not. First of all, you could select from behind. Secondly, the cursor should be "somehow near" the mouse pointer, everything else is _really_ confusing. And as insets can span the whole width of the screen, placing the cursor on the far end is not a very practical option. > Think about a newbie that starts to copy a large inset. He starts to move > the mouse and not only the whole inset gets imediately selected (which is > natural), but also neighbour insets. I guess if he is surprised, he will move the mouse pointer around a bit and quickly notice that he has just to go far enough to the left or to the right to get what he wants. > As he moves the mouse, more undesired things will be selected. He will > be confused and stop what he was trying to do unless he knows that if he > goes farther, then suddenly less things will be selected. Note that "farther" means something like 2 or 3mm on an ordinary screen. > This is not critical, of course. Anyone can get used with this behavior. I think so, and I think alternatives are worse. Much worse. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
