On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 12:53:04PM +0100, Christian Ridderström wrote: > > With the ERT inset (in textEd) for instance, this is not really a problem > > since you have the visual "barrier" (box) that you pass through. > > Well, the idea of all-boxes is to have that barrier for each change.
which works for the ERT since the barrier is visible before you approach it, so you are more prepared for the "resistance". However, I thought neither of us want these boxes being shown all the time? Speaking of boxes, in another thread the suggestion was made to only have a thin line underneath the object. This sounds good since it's less visually intrusive, but what if this also makes the "barrier" seem to vanish, the user might get annoyed at having to press left/right twice... > > > Because C-Left moves the mouse pointer half a screen to the left I > > > rarely test this feature... > > > > You need to fix your window manager? SCNR > > Indeed. Save a few small changes I use the same configuration as 14 > years ago. ok... and all new WM features since then are just crap? ;) > > > I think the second point is sufficient and everything else not strictly > > > needed. > > > > For text editing, I'm pretty sure I'd like a mode without any boxes... > > Even without the once the cursor is in? To clarify: Normally, I'd probably like the 'current' inset to have a box, but I can imagine that sometimes I don't even want the current inset to be shown. Especially if I am moving through the text using lots of left/rights (if there was a small delay before the box showed up, that might not be a problem though) > > > it's annoying as it is with ERT boxes, index boxes etc, that clutter the > > screen and takes away my focus from the actual text content. > > It could be made less intrusive like the pink corners of the math boxes > (instead of a 'solid' box...) Those corners are nice... which reminds me, do you remember that problem with extra space after the math-inset (the one where the extra space made you think that there was a real space, and then at the printout you got stuff like "in this formula C=2you have") I just checked the latest xforms, and there is still extra space after the math inset... I can't really remember, but wasn't it something about the width of the box that forced us to accept that space? > > > Have you used word and NOT been irritated by the squiggly lines below > > words? > > Rarely. and yes, I find this confusing. > > > Note: Isn't it overkill drawing something that's emphasized using a box > > AND (e.g.) italics? We don't want to flood the user with visual info. > > Interesting point. Hm, maybe. Maybe not, though... > Well, it's not easy to know if it's too much or not. That's one reason I think it would be good to be able to switch between modes... for that matter different people probably have different thresholds. (I think the old story about information overload comes from Vietnam pilots who had to much beeps and indicators going on so they simply shut off 'unimportant' stuff like warning of enemy radar locks...) > > > > cursor in a subscript, or in a superscript... objects are in a strict > > > > hierarchy. Is there a similar distiction in 'textEd'? > > > > > > The typical XML document structure is hierarical. So, yes. > > > > Sorry, I don't buy that argument. You are talking about data structures > > intended to be machine readable, whereas I am talking about how we (our > > brain) thinks about text. > > It helps to adjust your way of thinking a bit to the way the machine > handles stuff. This enables you to work with the machine, not against > it... 'Documents are trees' is not a bad mode of thought IMO. Don't get me wrong, I actually use that metaphor a lot (and have actually tried to convince others to think that way), but I do know that some people like to write stuff from start to end. (ie a bit unstructured IMO, but maybe I'm just envious because I can't ;) > > > In my mind, text is more of a linear (sequential) object than > > something with the tree structure of a formula. > > This holds for a novel or such, but even the random science paper has > structure. And, btw, if you only have flat text you'll never see a box > even with all-boxes. Now I'm confused... I don't write novels, but I am a book-aholic, and there's quite often markup (italics, bold etc) even in them. Some modern novels look awful due to too much markup btw. Anyway, this markup would show up as boxes wouldn't it? (and thus possibly impede the writer of that text). And even though my science papers are usually heavily tree-structured, perhaps papers in other fields (psychology?) are more like novels? /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
