2009-10-06

trade off for better but uncommon

On Oct 5, 12:57 am, Johan Andersson wrote:
> Raven, looking at those movement keys, they are almost like Xah Lee's
> "ergonomic emacs keybindings".
>
> Xah Lee, looking through the dvorak lisp file you provided at your site, I
> think that I could really dig those bindings, with a few modifications.
> However, I was thinking about these bindings and the shell. How do you
> survive (if you use a shell outside of Emacs) that the shell C-a, C-e almost
> always means beginning and end of line? Of do you change them there aswell?

when you opt for something that's less conventional, such as dvorak layout, you trade for certain disadvantage... e.g. unable to touch-type at public library, inconvenient to have co-work type on your keyboard, some inconvenience when using some software, such as some gaming software that doesn't respect your OS wide layout setting, some inconvenience in using some hardware, such as those palm-sized mini-computer that comes with a hardware keyboard with qwerty printed on them and too small to be touch-typed even software mapped to dvorak... etc.

similarly, if you adopt the ErgoEmacs Keybinding for your emacs... you stop using the conventional emacs keybindings for bash... either you spend time to tweak your keybinding system wide, or spend time to tweak your shell's binding... or just switch memory when in shell as you do between different apps or OSes. etc. For me, i just use emacs default keybinding when i'm in shell... but 99% of the time i run shell inside emacs.

Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/



On Oct 6, 10:20 am, "B. T. Raven" wrote:
> > when you opt for something that's less conventional, such as dvorak
> > layout, you trade for certain disadvantage... e.g. unable to touch-
> > type at public library, inconvenient to have co-work type on your
> > keyboard, some inconvenience when using some software, such as some
> > gaming software that doesn't respect your OS wide layout setting, some
> > inconvenience in using some hardware, such as those palm-sized mini-
> > computer that comes with a hardware keyboard with qwerty printed on
> > them and too small to be touch-typed even software mapped to dvorak...
> > etc.
>
> Blackberries are supposed to be thumbed anyway. Layout on such a
> miniscule keyboard isn't a touch typing issue since the method will
> always be essentially hunt and peck.

So, that means, when you use Blackberries, you have to thumb them, and when you thumb them, you have to face qwerty buttons. For a person who are used to Dvorak, that is a inconvenience, even though the person is not touch typing.

> Of course libraries should have a Dvorak keyboard option available with
> a one-click or one-keychord method of changing keyboards.

Library is a example of the thesis.

> In practice,
> at libraries, you're typing a few search terms or short commands so that
> two-fingered typing doesn't have to be endured for long.

many libraries in the US, in tech advanced cities anyway, such as the San Francisco Bay Area of California , have internet terminals that lets library users use for prolonged period of time. (when there are a lot people in waiting, typically 20 min or 30 min per person)

Again, library is just a example of the thesis.

For example, besides libraries, there are companies, any public terminal, public exhibitions, meuseums, ... etc. The point being, that if u chose dvorak layout, you encounter many inconveniences in lots of places and situations. Many of these situation are trivial, insignificant, can be worked around, but nevertheless, they are inconveniences and annoyances.

The more general point being, there is inconvenience when you choose something that is less common, even if superior. This applies to the dvorak layout users, as well as Mac users in the PC world, as well as Linux users in the PC world.

Xah wrote:
> > similarly, if you adopt the ErgoEmacs Keybinding for your emacs... you
> > stop using the conventional emacs keybindings for bash... either you
> > spend time to tweak your keybinding system wide, or spend time to
> > tweak your shell's binding... or just switch memory when in shell as
> > you do between different apps or OSes. etc. For me, i just use emacs
> > default keybinding when i'm in shell... but 99% of the time i run
> > shell inside emacs.

B T Raven wrote:
> In both Linux and w32 environments you have the same keyboard layout in
> Emacs, shell and in all other apps. You wouldn't expect to have Emacs
> keybindings outside of Emacs in either enviroment unless you explicitly
> set them up as shortcut keys on a per app basis, as in Firemacs.

not sure what is your point or what are you trying to say. Are these general remarks, or as counter argument to my previous post? As general remark, i don't think it is true or exact enough. For example, you said:

> In both Linux and w32 environments you have the same keyboard layout in
> Emacs, shell and in all other apps

Hum?? i assume w32 means Microsoft Windows? In Microsoft Windows, the general common keybinding, or common shortcuts for text editing related applications, certainly isn't like emacs. At best, we can say that emacs also support some of it.

In unixes, typically the bash shell supports *PARTS* of emacs's text editing shortcuts. If you are using other shell, they don't suppor emacs keyboard shortcuts for text editing by default. Some can be customived to, and i'm not sure they all can.

In linuxes, which i haven't used for about 7 years, i assume it is still similar to unixes in this context, as explained in above paragraph.

Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

No comments:

Post a Comment