Re: emacs-w3m question

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, yet again, Xah!

On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 05:48:14PM -0800, Xah wrote:

> For example, if your job is data entry, the numerical keypad is much
> more efficient to operate than the numbers on top row of the main keys.

If your job is programming, and you touch type, the digits on the top row
are much easier to use than the numeric keypad.  Isn't it good we've got
this choice!

> In the same way, arrow keys, and the dedicated function keys for page
> up/down, home/end keys, are superior to key combos in the main section
> because they involve single key press with a clear label, and their
> physical layout makes them more efficient to operate.

If you spend your day working arrow keys, yes.  If you're moving randomly
over text, making rapid amendments, the C-n, C-v, .... are better,
because you don't have to take your RH away from the home keys.

[ .... ]

> For example, one particular aspect of emacs, its system of keybindings,
> are in fact the worst possible.

You could make a far worse set of bindings.  For example somebody
(Miles?) has written a set that "turns letters upside down".  E.g., when
you type 'd' you get 'p', and vice versa.


> The Swapping of Control and Meta Modifiers

> Emacs's keyboard shortcuts is very inefficient. The primary cause is
> because, emacs's keyboard shortcuts are designed with a keyboard that
> practically has the Ctrl and Alt key positions swapped.
> Space-Cadet keyboard-2m

Maybe the swapping or arrangement of modifier keys isn't that big a deal.
It is better when they are optimally arranged, but maybe isn't very bad
when they are less well arranged.  I don't know.

> The tragedy of the Control/(Alt/Meta) swap made emacs keyboard
> shortcuts very painful, and the frequent need to press the far-away
> Control key creates the Emacs Pinky syndrome. (Many emacs-using
> programer celebrities have injured their hands with emacs. (e.g.
> Richard Stallman???, Jamie Zawinski???, Ben Wing???), and emacs's Ctrl and
> Meta combinations are most cited as the major turnoff to potential
> users among programers)

There's also the possibility that these hackers injured themselves by
excessive typing, and would have fared as badly with any keyboard layout.

> (For more photos of Lisp Machine's keyboards (all have Control as
> primary), see: lisp_machine_symbolics_keyboard.jpg (photo by Rainer
> Joswig???. Used with permission), Symbolics keyboard PN 364000???,
> Symbolics keyboard PN 365407 Rev C??? by Peter Paine )

Heh!  Peter Paine was my colleague ~25 years ago, when we were both at
Racal Norsk in England, building a Lisp Machine.  Where is he now?


> The Choice Of Keys

> Outdated Commands

> A significant portion of emacs's major shortcuts (those with M-???key???
> or C-???key???) are mapped to commands that are almost never used today.
> Some of these occupies the most precious space (Home row with thumb:
> For example: M-s (center-line), M-j (indent-new-comment-line), M-k
> (kill-sentence)). Most programer who have used emacs for years never
> use these commands. For example:

> digit-argument, M-1 to M-9    R
> negative-argument, M--        R

> move-to-window-line, M-r      R
> center-line, M-s
> transpose-words, M-t          R
> tab-to-tab-stop, M-i

> M-g prefix, M-g               R
> indent-new-comment-line, M-j  R
> tmm-menubar, M-'

> zap-to-char, M-z
> back-to-indentation, M-m      R
> tags-loop-continue, M-,
> find-tag, M-.                 R

I don't know about "most programmers", but I regularly use those commands
above marked with "R".  Of the others, I can see that all but
`center-line' could be used a lot by other hackers.  I can't see that
center-line is useful for much at all, except perhaps for preparing
invitations to parties.  Presumably the early hackers did a lot of
partying.


> Difficult Keystrokes for Frequently Used Commands

> Some commands that are used by every emacs user many times every hour,
> such as Open (find-file; C-x C-f), Save (save-buffer; C-x C-s), Close
> (kill-buffer; C-x k), Next Window/Tab (next-buffer C-x ???) all require
> multiple keystrokes with the difficult Control key.

I don't think these commands are "frequently used".  I use them several
times a session rather than many times.  I've never used `next-buffer' in
my life (so having "???" in its binding isn't a problem for me).  The
thing about all these file/buffer handling commands is that they are done
in a break for thinking, so if they are a bit awkward, it's not that
critical.

> Standard Name Emacs Command Name      Keystroke
> Open  find-file       C-x C-f
> Save  save-buffer     C-x C-s
> Close kill-buffer     C-x k
> Next Tab      next-buffer     C-x ???
> Previous Tab  previous-buffer C-x ???
> No Employment of the Shift Key

> For historical reasons, emacs does not use any keybindings involving
> the Shift with a letter. (e.g. there's no ???Meta Shift a???, or ???Control
> Shift a???) This is so because in early computing environment, Ctrl+Shift
> +???letter??? cannot be distinguished from the non-Shift version, due to a
> practical combination of ASCII???, Computer terminal???, telnet???.

Even today, these combinations are only usable on some of Emacs's target
environments, so it's not a brilliant idea to make standard bindings out
of them.  However, that leaves a massive amount of space for personal key
bindings.  They're awkward to type, though.

> Using the Shift key as a reverse operation is very easy to remember,
> and doesn't take another precious shortcut letter. By not using the
> Shift key, commands with a logical reverse operation necessarily have
> to find other key space, and overall making the shortcut set more
> difficult to remember, or scattered, or more difficult to press.

Emacs tends to use the C-u prefix for reversal.


> A Flaw in Keybinding Policy

> Any major software, maintains a guide for the developers about the
> choices of keyboard shortcuts, so that the shortcuts will be
> consistent. Emacs has this in its Emacs Lisp manual: Elisp Manual: Key-
> Binding-Conventions.

> This guide, indicates that the only key space reserved for users to
> define, are the function keys F5 to F9, and key stroke sequence
> starting with Ctrl+c followed by a single letter key.

I agree with you here.  I don't think the function keys, with or without
modifiers, should be standardly bound to any commands,.

> This is a severe restraint to the utility of customized shortcuts. F5
> to F9 are only 6 keys.

Really?  I disagree with you there.

> The key sequence starting with C-c followed by a letter, is a difficult
> sequence to execute, and there are only 26 spaces there.

Or 52, if you are willing to use <shift>.

> The function keys, F1 to F12, are very good candidates for user
> defined shortcut space, similarly for the digit key shortcuts, 0 to 9.
> These keys can be used with any combination of Control, Meta, Shift.
> For example, a user might define them to insert various templates,
> headers/footers, a system of customized HTML/XML tags. Or, she might
> assign them to various special emacs modes such as dired, shell, ftp,
> email, calendar, calc, *scratch*, make-frame-command (Open a new
> window), insert signature.

Lots of people do use all the function keys for their own bindings.
Including me.

>   Xah

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).