Mouse shorcuts

[Jasper Huijsmans]

On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:51:15PM +0200, Xavier Otazu wrote:
> 
> 	Hi:
> 
> Jasper Huijsmans wrote:
> >On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 01:46:35PM +0200, Xavier Otazu wrote:
> >...
> >
> >>To work in an environtment where user cannot define the most elemental 
> >>interaction rules, is like driving a Ferrari with a stiff metal seat ... 
> >>you cannot drive comfortably neither use the full potential of the 
> >>car... ;-)
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 	I simply tried to find a similarity between user interaction (GUI) 
> 	and the true potential behind it. I tried to tell that to extract full 
> potential you need a personalized interaction with the user. If your 
> interaction with the system is not comfortable nor easy, you cannot 
> extract the full potential. People with physical disabilities spend more 
> time trying to click on the title bar that pushing Alt+Button1, and life 
> is even harder.
> 
> 	And what about the fact that in xfce there are keyboard shorcuts but 
> not mouse shorcuts? What is the reason for that difference?
> 

Your arguments are valid, I was only complaining about the analogy.

> 	I am sorry if you are annoyed by my questions. I think I was simply 
> trying to tell what was my point of view, and I would like to know what 
> is yours. I would like to know your reasons to not include mouse 
> shorcuts. why you cannot comment on that? I cannot find what are your 
> thoughts about this questions on any FAQ, that's the reason I asked. I 
> tried to speak, simply that, not confronting positions.
> 

The question is not what annoyed me, it's a valid one. I cannot speak
for Olivier, but in general we try to make things work well by default,
rather than supply a load of options. The accessibility one is your
strongest argument here, but there are more ways to get to a window, for
example the taskbar, so I'm not sure being able to easily move a window to
the back of the stack is vital for using xfce. 

> > Apart from your actual argument, which I will not comment on, the above
> > is a load of @#$@, pardon the expression.
> >
> 	If you don't like cars and are sensible about this question, you can 
> 	be sure I'll never use this analogy again. In fact, I neither like cars, 
> but I though it was an easy analogy to ease understanding for everybody.
> 

Car analogies have been misused in user interface discussion far too often. 
Don't take it personally, I'm just being grumpy.

> 
> >Or it may be a very good one, considering 99.9% [1] of the people don't 
> >want
> >to change anything about how their car works, but simply take a few
> >minutes to find out the differences with what they're used to and drive.
> >
> 

... and as you can see, there's always a way to turn a car analogy around.
This also always happens and is equally annoying as the original analogy.
(sorry ;-)

So, please keep asking these questions and discussing the user interface,
but please don't use a car analogy to backup your point. If only for me ;-)

Thanks,

	Jasper