"Drew Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's what I said before:
[...]
> 4. The default value for buffers that are dense with hot spots
> (e.g. Dired, grep, compilation) and for which users will likely
> want to set point occasionally should be `double' (double-click
> follows link).
>
> 5. The default value for buffers that are dense with hot spots,
> but for which users don't need to set point at all (eg. Buffer
> List) should be 100 ms (fast click follows link). (There are
> probably few such standard buffers.)
>
> (1) I've changed my opinion on #4 and #5. By default, the value
> should be `nil' everywhere: mouse-1 should *not* follow links.
>
> Reasons:
>
> a. mouse-2 as yank is not needed on a link, so mouse-2 is a
> perfect choice for following links. That was surely behind the
> original design, and it remains the best argument for mouse-2.
> Having mouse-1 sometimes follow a link and sometimes set point
> (e.g. via different delays), in the same buffer, always involves
> some UI tradeoffs (fast-click, slow-click, double-click).
> That's OK, but it should not be the _default_ behavior anywhere.
Why does it matter what the ``default'' behavior is? Buffers don't
contain links by ``default.''
[...]
> c. Newbies will discover mouse-2 for links soon enough. They will
> need to discover it for yanking, anyway; it is no harder to learn
> it for linking.
Except that mouse-2 is used for yank in almost all other applications
that run under X, so users will already be familiar with this binding.
I realize that Windows users are another story.
> Up front, we should:
>
> (i) Tell them about mouse-2 for linking.
> (ii) Suggest they try it for a while ("try it; you'll like it").
> (iii) Tell them they can change it: mouse-1-click-follows-link.
Or we could just make the obvious binding the default (which we have,
of course, already done).
Don't get me wrong: I don't have anything against trying to push
users into changing their preferences to the better. It's just that I
don't consider this preference to be better.
However, I'm all for making the Dvorak input method the default and
telling users what you suggested: ``try it; you'll like it!''
> d. It is not difficult to go back and forth between mouse-2 for
> linking in Emacs and mouse-1 in other apps.
That's a totally subjective statement. Here, I'll make another:
It _is_ difficult to go back and forth between mouse-2 for linking in
Emacs and mouse-1 in other apps.
> We all do it all the time.
So what? You've had years to get used to it. I do lots of things all
the time that I wouldn't expect a random person to be comfortable with
doing the way I do, yet they aren't ``difficult.''
> The argument that people are "used to mouse-1 for linking" is
> countered by c plus d - there are two aspects to it.
It isn't countered by c (because people who use X are already familiar
with mouse-2 for yanking), and it isn't countered by d (because the
fact that using another binding is not difficult once you're used to
it doesn't change the fact that people are already used to mouse-1).
So I don't see how the argument is countered by ``c plus d.''
> (2) As I said in October, and which led to Kim coming up with using
> mouse-1 for linking, we should change the finger-pointer cursor over
> links. The index-finger pointer _suggests_ using mouse-1.
Actually, that's another good reason for using mouse-1. The only good
ways to indicate that something is a link is to (a) underline the
text, and (b) change the pointer to a hand when it hovers the text.
Both of these also strongly indicate that mouse-1 follows the link.
So what do you suggest we use to indicate that something is a link
that you follow using mouse-2? Overlining the text and changing the
pointer to a foot?
[...]
> My last point:
>
> (3) We should make decisions about the extent (and placement) of hot
> zones (links, buttons) based on other criteria, besides a tradeoff
> between setting point and following a link - that is a red herring.
Only if we switch back to using mouse-2 for following links.
> We should design hot zones assuming that there is no problem setting
> point: assume that mouse-1 sets point and mouse-2 activates
> hot spots.
This is a hypothetical discussion, based on the assumption that we
will change the binding for following links back to mouse-2.
The equivalent discussion based upon reality would assume that some
people will be using mouse-1, and others will be using mouse-2.
> So, in particular, I repeat that full-line links are better for
> buffers like grep, compilation, and Dired, because of the alignment
> aid and ease of use they provide.
I don't understand the alignment thing. What is that all about?
> If Emacs doesn't do this by default, it should at least provide an
> easy way for users to get this behavior.
That sounds reasonable.
> To repeat:
>
> 8. Users should be able to have full-line hot zones for buffers
> that are essentially lists of links. This includes grep,
> compilation, and Dired. RMS has apparently decided to reduce the
> hot-zone size for grep. I prefer full-line links. It would be
> good for users to be able to customize this, regardless of the
> default behavior.
>
> IOW, because of the recent move to mouse-1 following links (even
> potentially), we are now losing full-line links in grep. People
> accidentally followed links (me too), so the hot zones are now
> being reduced to alleviate this problem.
>
> I don't agree with that solution to the problem, but all I would
> ask for is a way for users to get back the full-line link
> behavior. Mouse-1 is extremely customizable now via
> mouse-1-click-follows-links, but the hot-zone extent is not
> customizable at all, without rewriting the grep/compile code.
Would it be enough if every such mode had a local setting for this?
--
Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
