Re: Info tutorial is out of date

[Alan Mackenzie]

Morning, Drew!

On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 06:07:30PM -0700, Drew Adams wrote:

[ .... ]

> I was not ranting about my proposed changes - far from it. And I was not
> ranting for or against the use of a mouse. Never, no how.

>     > Key bindings *are* shortcuts - what's wrong with that? 1) They
>     > are commonly called "keyboard shortcuts" by many people. 2) They
>     > are shorter (quicker) to use than clicking menus and links with a
>     > mouse - don't you agree? They are shorter (quicker) than using
>     > `M-x' - don't you agree? What is it about "shortcut" that sets
>     > you off?

>     It's one of those sort of words/phrases so beloved of
>     journalists/salesmen/politicians that can be used to denigrate
>     something, yet the j/s/p, when called on it, can convincingly
>     pretend it was totally innocent and factual, as you have done in
>     the preceding paragraph.

> Like "paragraph"? That's one of those so-called words/phrases so
> beloved of evil-doers that can be used to denigrate us flat-earthers.
> Also, "convincingly" - gotta hate that one too.

> Huh? Are you putting me on, Alan?

No, I'm being entirely sincere.

> What is the evil conspiracy behind the phrase "keyboard shortcut" or
> the word "shortcut"? Is it because it has "short" in it? I really don't
> get it. Please believe me that I am not pretending anything, innocent
> and factual or otherwise. What is sinister about "shortcut"?

[ .... ]

>     In English, "shortcut" usually carries connotations of
>     something naughty.

> Not in my English, it doesn't. Maybe that's the problem. Not in
> American English (to my knowledge); it does not. As with any word, it
> *can* carry a connotation of naughtiness, depending on the context.

At the very least, "shortcut" implies "non-canonicity".  Nobody would
ever describe the direct motorway between two cities as a "shortcut",
even if it weren't blocked by traffic jams most of the time.  So if you
call a key sequence a "shortcut", you're implying "this isn't the
standard way of doing this operation".

[ .... ]

> Nonsense! You're not serious, are you? This is a joke, right?

I'm being entirely serious.

[ .... ]

>     What's wrong with the neutral term "key sequence"?

> Nothing. Nothing wrong with "key binding" either.

"Key binding" is less good for newbies, because it stresses a
relationship of being tied together rather than an act of pressing keys.
This could be somewhat puzzling.

> And nothing wrong with communicating with those misled millions who
> (shudder!) mistakenly think the right term is "keyboard shortcut".

[ .... ]

> BTW, think how derogatory "yank" is to us Yanks, Alan. How would you
> like it if we called it "britting" or "scotting" or "krauting"? Well,
> think how us Yanks feel when you call it "yanking". Unacceptable
> insensitivity.

"Yank" and "yank" are two distinct words, just as "spring", "spring" and
"spring" (a helix of wire, a source of fresh water, and the time after
winter) are three.  "Shortcut" is but one.  I have no problems with
somebody "scotching" rumours, "welshing" on a debt (as long as it's not
to me ;-) or applying "english" to a bouncing ball.  

[ .... ]

>     so I'd get included amongst habitual mouse users in that survey.  A
>     more pertinent question would be "do you regularly use an
>     application without recourse to the mouse?"

> OK. How many do you think would answer "yes" to your "more pertinent"
> question? 0.0001%? 1%? 10%? Does it matter to you? Your mind's made up
> already, isn't it? What if it were only 0.0000000001% who regularly use
> an app without mouse? Would that persuade you? Be honest. I don't think
> so.

I think it would be around 10%.  Certainly more than 1%.  It would be a
good deal more if the doc for proprietary programs actually put keyboard
sequences and mouse actions side by side, rather than relegating
"keyboard shortcuts" to an appendix.  I think that if the Info tutorial
were to relegate `n' and `p' to an appendix, that would cause fewer
newbies to use them.  I think that would be a bad thing.

[ .... ]

>     I have experience of telling ordinary computer users about key
>     sequences: "You know, you can type alt-f s to save the file rather
>     than grasping for the mouse.", and they typically 'phone me up a
>     day or two later with "Alan, thank you!  It's SO MUCH easier that
>     way!".

> I support you in that. Good job. I've done that too. Keep it up.

Which is why I believe `n' and `p' should be introduced as the normal way
of going to the next/previous node.  It helps newbies make an informed

-- 
Alan.