On 18 Jul 2002, at 13:37, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> On 18.07.2002 12:35 Uhr, David H. Bailey wrote
>
> > That's fine for ctrl-A, but he did also ask for the ascii codes for
> > ctrl-a, which ISN'T defined. And it seems that ctrl-a is already
> > system-defined so as not to be useable for individual program use -- on
> > Windows machines it means "select all."
>
> This would indicate that Mac and Windows have a different definition of the
> control key. On a Mac, the command key is used for standard key combos, and
> not control.
That's the tip of the iceberg, Johannes, and why I was having some
difficulty understanding Robert's whole point in the first place.
There is no hidden goldmine of unused keystroke combinations lurking in
ASCII, waiting to be exploited for use as additional metatools to add to
the 30-odd already available. Indeed, the basic confusion seems to be the
idea that there is no real difference between ASCII codes and keystroke
combinations, when in reality, the mapping between the two is highly
variable, despite certain conventional mappings.
And I question the basic premise that having more metatool keys available
would be any kind of improvement. Adding the alpha keys was a big leap,
and a solid improvement. Doubling or tripling that just creates an
organizational and mnemonic challenge.
One thing that would be nice would be if the shifted keys for the
metatools would switch the tool that was used. If, say, an unshifted
metatool key would be an articulation, while a control key combination
would be an expression, a control-shift key some other tool, etc.
Granted, there are more tools than there are possible shift states, but
if it were user configurable, one could choose the most commonly used
tools. I believe someone said there are metatools for clefs (or was it
time signatures?). I can't imagine using those because the music I'm
notating doesn't switch clefs and time signatures that often. However, I
certainly recognize that there are lots of musical styles and instruments
for which there are lots of such changes, and being able to get quick
access to those features through the global, stateless metatool interface
would probably be of great benefit to many people. Or, put another way,
the people who would need it would need it *bad*!
So, I'm not against the concept of a stateless metatool interface at all.
I just question the suggested method for getting there ("ASCII codes",
which are not available for use in the first place).
--
David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
