On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 12:31:18PM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > Poor John, failed at Emacs but rules with vi. When are you vi guys
> > going to get your acts together and put a vi-style command interface
> > or are you quietly admitting defeat here also. :P
>
> Hey, that was the firs
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 12:54:46PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, John Levon wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:59:28AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> > > | I have never been able to use that interface, and it buys us precisely
> > > | nothing, and costs a lot.
> Poor Jo
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:59:28AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
[...]
> > | I have never been able to use that interface, and it buys us precisely
> > | nothing, and costs a lot.
Poor John, failed at Emacs but rules with vi. When are you vi guys
goi
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> John Levon wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:08:25AM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> >
> >> Making shorcuts consistent would accelerate user interaction. In fact, I
> >> find a PITA every cleverness in choosing shorcuts. In the
> >> Layout-
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Christian Ridderström wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> >
> >> But you have 'real' shorcuts for that, i.e. keyboard bindings of lfuns.
> >> I agree that bindings could be shown on the menu, though.
> >
> > What's an lfun?
Christian Ridderström wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
>
>> But you have 'real' shorcuts for that, i.e. keyboard bindings of lfuns.
>> I agree that bindings could be shown on the menu, though.
>
> What's an lfun? I've seen this lots of times now
> ?lyx-function
>
> /
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> But you have 'real' shorcuts for that, i.e. keyboard bindings of lfuns.
> I agree that bindings could be shown on the menu, though.
What's an lfun? I've seen this lots of times now
?lyx-function
/Christian
--
Christian Ridderström
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:00:49PM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> > Christian Ridderstr?m wrote:
>
> > > Insert->List & TOC
> > > O
>
>
>
> > I know. The question was if there are examples of 'natural' letter which
> > ar
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:53:22PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > | says who !
| >
| > says me!
|
| My 300 page SCSI manual disagrees with you when I'm looking for a
| mis-spelling as "scsi" instead of "SCSI"
C-s M-c
Alternatively set the cas
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 04:30:52PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> | My 300 page SCSI manual disagrees with you when I'm looking for a
> | mis-spelling as "scsi" instead of "SCSI"
>
> Your SCSI manual does not have an opinion.
You're just discriminating against it !
john
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:53:22PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > | says who !
| >
| > says me!
|
| My 300 page SCSI manual disagrees with you when I'm looking for a
| mis-spelling as "scsi" instead of "SCSI"
Your SCSI manual does not have an o
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:53:22PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> | says who !
>
> says me!
My 300 page SCSI manual disagrees with you when I'm looking for a
mis-spelling as "scsi" instead of "SCSI"
john
John Levon wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:50:55AM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
>
> > I would love to see lyx do search & replace emacs style.
> > I.e. use the minibuffer instead of some popup the
> > user have to move out of the way _and_ eventually close.
>
> This would be nice indeed, bu
John Levon wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:59:28AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>
> > | The minute the minibuffer becomes necessary, the game is over, collect
> > | your shoes, and go home ...
> >
> > Because you rather want a popup?
>
> I want default usable interfaces that do not re
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 02:40:40PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > | It has an obvious failure mode, as above.
| >
| > which does not matter!
|
| says who !
says me!
--
Lgb
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:08:25AM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
>
> M-c c i
>
> I have no idea why anyone would associate that with "insert columnt,"
> but after doing a bunch from the menu, I finally noticed it, and it sure
> helps. Intuitive ones are nice
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:00:49PM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> Christian Ridderstr?m wrote:
> > Insert->List & TOC
> > O
> I know. The question was if there are examples of 'natural' letter which
> aren't the first one. Are those of your example particularly better than
>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:08:25AM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> If you want my opinion, I think shorcuts are useful when they are on the
> first letter. With some effort I can use if they are on the first letter of
> the second word, but if I have to find the underlined letter in the middle
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 12:43:58PM +, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 01:41:34PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > I want default usable interfaces that do not require book-learnin'
> > I've never seen a search-and-replace dialog that would qualify as "more
> > usable" than a mini
Christian Ridderström wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
>
>> John Levon wrote:
>>
>> Maybe you are right. An example not in the first letter? (without using
>> run-together words please)
>>
> The insert menu is full of examples of shortcuts that does not correspond
> to th
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 02:40:40PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> | It has an obvious failure mode, as above.
>
> which does not matter!
says who !
john
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 01:46:49PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > | which has an obvious failure mode.
| >
| > which does not matter.
| >
| > You have tried the functionality, yes?
|
| Yes.
|
| > Does it work or not?
|
| It has an obvious fai
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 02:02:48PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > And how do you do case-insensitive ?
>
> By prepending \c.
>
> I doubt you click faster than I type that.
I'm not sure how many times I can say that efficiency is not the be all
and end all of a usable interface
john
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 01:46:49PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> | which has an obvious failure mode.
>
> which does not matter.
>
> You have tried the functionality, yes?
Yes.
> Does it work or not?
It has an obvious failure mode, as above.
john
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 01:41:34PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>> > I want default usable interfaces that do not require
>> book-learnin'
>>
>> I've never seen a search-and-replace dialog that would qualify as
>> "more usable" than a mi
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:39:46AM +, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 12:15:31PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>
> > | I'd love to see how you do "match whole words" in the minibuffer.
> >
> > think incremental search.
>
> And how do you do case-insensitive ?
By prepending \
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 01:33:49PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > | And how do you do case-insensitive ?
| >
| > lowercase only -> insensitive
| > mixed case/upper case -> sensitive
|
| which has an obvious failure mode.
which does not matter.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 01:41:34PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > I want default usable interfaces that do not require book-learnin'
>
> I've never seen a search-and-replace dialog that would qualify as "more
> usable" than a minibuffer based approach with a decent history.
>
> I did require so
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:03:23AM +, John Levon wrote:
> > | The minute the minibuffer becomes necessary, the game is over, collect
> > | your shoes, and go home ...
> >
> > Because you rather want a popup?
>
> I want default usable interfaces that do not require book-learnin'
I've never se
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 01:33:49PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> | And how do you do case-insensitive ?
>
> lowercase only -> insensitive
> mixed case/upper case -> sensitive
which has an obvious failure mode.
john
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 12:15:31PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > | I'd love to see how you do "match whole words" in the minibuffer.
| >
| > think incremental search.
|
| And how do you do case-insensitive ?
lowercase only -> insensitive
mixed
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> John Levon wrote:
>
> Maybe you are right. An example not in the first letter? (without using
> run-together words please)
>
The insert menu is full of examples of shortcuts that does not correspond
to the first letters:
Insert->Float
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:44:39AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> It strikes me that you're playing the rôle of Luddite here ;-) If people
> want it and are willing to code it, why not let 'em?
In context, we are talking about replacing the find dialog.
I have no problem with such additional fun
John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 12:15:31PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>
>> | I'd love to see how you do "match whole words" in the minibuffer.
>>
>> think incremental search.
>
> And how do you do case-insensitive ?
It strikes me that you're playing the rôle of Luddite here
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 12:15:31PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> | I'd love to see how you do "match whole words" in the minibuffer.
>
> think incremental search.
And how do you do case-insensitive ?
john
John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:08:25AM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
>
>> Making shorcuts consistent would accelerate user interaction. In fact, I
>> find a PITA every cleverness in choosing shorcuts. In the
>> Layout->Document->Layout dialog tab (Qt frontend) we have for insta
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:59:28AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > | The minute the minibuffer becomes necessary, the game is over, collect
| > | your shoes, and go home ...
| >
| > Because you rather want a popup?
|
| I want default usable inter
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:59:28AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> | The minute the minibuffer becomes necessary, the game is over, collect
> | your shoes, and go home ...
>
> Because you rather want a popup?
I want default usable interfaces that do not require book-learnin'
Suitable visual
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:08:25AM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> Making shorcuts consistent would accelerate user interaction. In fact, I
> find a PITA every cleverness in choosing shorcuts. In the
> Layout->Document->Layout dialog tab (Qt frontend) we have for instance
> "Options|t" without
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:14:30PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
|
| > Menues, toolbar(s) and a minibuffer.
|
| The minute the minibuffer becomes necessary, the game is over, collect
| your shoes, and go home ...
Because you rather want a popup?
| > Renderin
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:50:55AM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> I would love to see lyx do search & replace emacs style.
> I.e. use the minibuffer instead of some popup the
> user have to move out of the way _and_ eventually close.
This would be nice indeed, but it must be a complementary interf
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 04:17:23PM +0900, Rob Lahaye wrote:
> Context-sensitive right-mouse-click menu popups.
Yes, we do want this.
> Would something like this be feasible?
> In Xforms, Qt and/or Gnome?
Yes
regards
john
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:14:30PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> Menues, toolbar(s) and a minibuffer.
The minute the minibuffer becomes necessary, the game is over, collect
your shoes, and go home ...
> Rendering some configuration pages in a buffer -- like (x)emacs'
> customization settings.
I hav
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Have I said that I really do not like the dialogs at all?
> I'd prefere an application completely without dialogs...
Dialogs are indeed overused in most applications.
I would love to see lyx do search & replace emacs style.
I.e. use the minibuffer instead of some popu
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | If we did this, then lyx could quite conceivably become a daemon process
> | communicating via the lyxserver with an external process which --- quite
> | conceivably --- could be our frontend dialogs with a main() routi
John Levon wrote:
> Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It would make use of second word
> impossible, careful ordering so that more common options are preferred,
> etc.
But rethinking again: I don't think this as a problem, but as a feature.
(Also, it should be trivial to set the policy to pre
Allan Rae wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, John Levon wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 11:27:22PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Have I said that I really do not like the dialogs at all?
>>>I'd prefere an application completely without dialogs...
>>
>>Wouldn't we all ? However, this
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 11:27:22PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>
> > Have I said that I really do not like the dialogs at all?
> > I'd prefere an application completely without dialogs...
>
> Wouldn't we all ? However, this is not possible.
Menues, t
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 11:27:22PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> Have I said that I really do not like the dialogs at all?
> I'd prefere an application completely without dialogs...
Wouldn't we all ? However, this is not possible.
john
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Kuba Ober wrote:
> From a design standpoint, I think that would be a nice and clean solution.
>
> Here, "a frontend" would be split between lyx and the frontend, but that's OK,
> I guess. A little more splitting as proposed would not be that bad, methinks.
>
> So, correct m
> > Have I said that I really do not like the dialogs at all?
> > I'd prefere an application completely without dialogs...
>
> I was thinking about this myself. Seriously.
>
> Do you remember my hacking of the lyxserver back in september? I made a
> suggestion at that time that I clean up the contr
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| If we did this, then lyx could quite conceivably become a daemon process
| communicating via the lyxserver with an external process which --- quite
| conceivably --- could be our frontend dialogs with a main() routine.
Then we would use bsd sockets (t
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> "Dr. Richard E. Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 07:40:06PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> | > Alfredo Braunstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |
> | > | I'm wondering... Maybe it's a stupid idea, but it seems to me that
> | >
"Dr. Richard E. Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 07:40:06PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
| > Alfredo Braunstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > | I'm wondering... Maybe it's a stupid idea, but it seems to me that it would
| > | not be so difficult to set up a
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:07:29PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> > So the solution is to have shortcuts for everything?
> No, the primary solution is to simplify the dialogs. But we should *not*
> slow the user down, just because translations are a PI
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 07:40:06PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> Alfredo Braunstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | I'm wondering... Maybe it's a stupid idea, but it seems to me that it would
> | not be so difficult to set up a pair of shell scripts to automatically
> | assign unique shorcut
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:07:29PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> So the solution is to have shortcuts for everything?
No, the primary solution is to simplify the dialogs. But we should *not*
slow the user down, just because translations are a PITA.
btw, Document->Layout in Qt has fucked up
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 07:40:06PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > What I'd rather do is to remove most of the shortcuts from dialogs,
| > and have the user use tab to move around.
|
| Bad idea. Some of our dialog are too complex to allow this to
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 07:40:06PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> What I'd rather do is to remove most of the shortcuts from dialogs,
> and have the user use tab to move around.
Bad idea. Some of our dialog are too complex to allow this to work
efficiently. Whilst simplifying the dialogs is
Alfredo Braunstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I'm wondering... Maybe it's a stupid idea, but it seems to me that it would
| not be so difficult to set up a pair of shell scripts to automatically
| assign unique shorcuts to ui elements (menus, dialogs, etc). Like taking
| the first unused letter
John Levon wrote:
> Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It would make use of second word
> impossible, careful ordering so that more common options are preferred,
> etc.
I see. You are right.
Alfredo
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 05:40:53PM +0100, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> not be so difficult to set up a pair of shell scripts to automatically
> assign unique shorcuts to ui elements (menus, dialogs, etc). Like taking
Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It would make use of second word
impossible
62 matches
Mail list logo
