[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: German tutorial fix
From: |
Alex Schroeder |
Subject: |
Re: German tutorial fix |
Date: |
Sun, 19 May 2002 17:26:16 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) |
Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:
> It's easily observable by any touch-typist, by (1) taking some time to
> get used to the control-keys, and (2) trying both for about 3 seconds
> while typing in some text. It's not a subtle thing.
I do not find it easily observable. I bet it also depends on keyboard
layout and customizations outside of Emacs. Furthermore, I think the
tutorial should not care about it, even if it were true.
>> People like Jef Raskin ("The Humane Interface") will argue for
>> "dedicated keys" such as the arrow keys.
>
> If Jef Raskin has a good reason why the arrow keys should be used to the
> exclusions of other cursor movement keys -- in a text editor, even when
> they are less efficient -- then by all means, give his arguments.
I also do not thing that the burden of proof is on me. I do not
believe your claim, so I think the burden of proof is on you (or
Richard, since he said something similar). Skimming the TOC and
checking some chapters selectively, I think here is what he might say:
1. Habit formation -- sometimes you use the arrow keys, sometimes C-f
to move point. That is bad for habit formation.
2. GOMS keystroke level model -- arrow keys might involve hand
movement similar to moving from the keyboard to the mouse, thus you
have one H element in the analysis, and a K for the press, and
mentally preparing M. C-f has mentally preparing, and two
keypresses. The timing he gives for the simplified analysis would
be M = 1.35s, K = 0.2s, H = 0.2s, thus the two are exactly
equivalent as far as the GOMS model is concerned.
3. Hick's Law -- since you now have two equivalent methods of moving
point, this not only hampers habit formation, it also imposes a
cognitive burden when you have to choose between the two.
Anyway, enough of that. These points are not even necessarily true.
My claim is just that 1. C-f is not obviously better, and
2. conflicting opinions exist. So why use it as an argument, if we
have far better arguments at hand? For example stupid terminals.
> If a user knows about `C-n' meaning `next-line' it not only allows
> them to move to the next line, but provides a point of reference
> which makes it easier to remember that for instance that a plain `n'
> moves to the next line or next message in many modes.
This is a valid argument. Notice that in my suggestion for a new
text, I did describe the control keys because of the dumb terminals.
This is also a good point to explain the mnemonics, I agree.
> Knows for sure about what? Which is better for RSI? Is that even an
> issue?
I have it, RMS had it, iirc, Ben Wing had it, JWZ had it, James
Gosling had it, ... health might be just as important as typing speed.
Alex.
--
http://www.electronicintifada.net/diaries/index.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/hr2506c.html
- Re: German tutorial fix, (continued)
- Re: German tutorial fix, Kim F. Storm, 2002/05/18
- Re: German tutorial fix, Francesco Potorti`, 2002/05/20
- Re: German tutorial fix, Richard Stallman, 2002/05/19
- Re: German tutorial fix, Alex Schroeder, 2002/05/19
- Re: German tutorial fix, Miles Bader, 2002/05/19
- Re: German tutorial fix, Stefan Monnier, 2002/05/19
- Re: German tutorial fix,
Alex Schroeder <=
- Re: German tutorial fix, Miles Bader, 2002/05/19
- Re: German tutorial fix, Alex Schroeder, 2002/05/20
- Re: German tutorial fix, Robert J. Chassell, 2002/05/23
- Re: German tutorial fix, Alex Schroeder, 2002/05/23
- Re: German tutorial fix, Richard Stallman, 2002/05/20
- Re: German tutorial fix, Alex Schroeder, 2002/05/18
- Re: German tutorial fix, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/05/18
- Re: German tutorial fix, Robert J. Chassell, 2002/05/20
- Re: German tutorial fix, Mario Lang, 2002/05/20
- Re: German tutorial fix, Colin Walters, 2002/05/20