home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Atari Mega Archive 1
/
Atari Mega Archive - Volume 1.iso
/
lists
/
gem
/
l_0399
/
276
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1994-08-27
|
2KB
From: mforget@elfhaven.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Michel Forget)
Subject: Re: Shortcut Manager
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 01:25:22 -0600
Mime-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
In <Pine.3.87.9406021243.E11025-0100000@undergrad>, Timothy Miller writes:
[Subject: Re: Shortcut Manager]
[> If the shortcuts are configurable, then there's no point in having a
[> standard because people can set it to however they want. Programmers and
[> users both would be changing them to their own preference, and no two
[> systems would be the same.
[>
[> This would totally defeat the purpose of what we're doing. We should
[> make ONE complete, BULLET PROOF (which it is not quite yet) standard and
[> tell people to stick with it.
What? Why are the two options mutually exclusive?
There are good reasons to have a standard; what if the user wants to get
underway with a program quickly, with no hassle at all? Also, the
standard includes things such as block marking, what order modifiers
should appear in menus, how dialog boxes should react to keys, and how
the cursor should react to keys. These are not things that can be
controlled in the SHORTCUT.INF file.
A good argument for having the SHORTCUT.INF file is for people like
you who HATE ^A -- this way you can change it to anything you want.
It is also good for people who have broken keys on their keyboards,
or find a particular combination hard to duplicate (perhaps they have
short fingers or arthritis).
We need both solutions, I think, instead of one or the other.
--
() ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ () ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ()
() Michel Forget / Electric Storm Software () My cat stole my ()
() mforget@elfhaven.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca () opinions, and pawned ()
() ess@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca () them off for milk. ()
() ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ () ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ()