On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 06:46:30PM -0500, Jean-Philippe Ouellet wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Unman <[email protected]> wrote: > > I feel like I'm intruding on a personal quarrel here, > > Err... I hope that's not how it appears. > > Ultimately I want Qubes to be better. If I am taking things in the > wrong direction, I would certainly like to know! > > > but there's a bikeshed in need of some paint. > > :) > > > So - I like keyboard shortcuts: I use them all the time using the > > Meta key. I don't use Qubes Manager much, so mine are based on Xfce and > > custom scripts/commands. > > How do you do routine shutting down, etc.?
I have meta+Q mapped to close window: on the deskop this triggers the Logout prompt window, so Tab gets to Shut Down. If you meant shutting down of qubes, then I tend not to do this: I tend to keep them about until I need them. I do have a script to kill the VM of the active window, mapped to Meta+1, for the odd occasions when I want to kill a qube. > > > That said, I think the proposed actions are sensible, but the proposed > > shortcuts are not. This isnt because they remind me of some other > > application, but because they are ALREADY USED in other applications. > > > > In my experience, "naive" users of qubes get the hang of it quite > > quickly, but still will sometimes find themselves typing in to the wrong > > window. If this has never happened to you then you are better than me. > > The problem with using shortcuts that already have a place in the > > lexicon is that it would be relatively easy for them to be grabbed by > > the Manager window instead of the intended target window, with obvious > > unexpected consequences. > > Forgive me, but I'm having trouble understanding this argument. > > It appears to me that this argument applies equally to all > applications as opposed to just QM. Yet, it is simply impossible for > all applications to choose unique keys because there are only so many > keys... So, why should QM try to choose obscure and unique shortcuts > whereas other applications do not. (Or... do they and I've just never > noticed?) > > I'm not trying to disagree or reject your feedback, I just don't > understand why it's QM's concern. I think the difference is that QM operates at a level above the qube- it appears to be a window like those of qubes, but it controls and modifies the behaviour of qubes. Other windows dont do this. That's why I favour the use of a Qubes specific key: as you do. > > I think this discussion is worthwhile as the concept applies equally > to the selection of keyboard shortcuts in the new QM as well. > > > That's why I would strongly advocate the use of a Qubes specific key, > > like Virtualbox does. > > I am completely in favor of a qubes-reserved modifier too, and not > just in the context of this proposal. Perhaps that should be addressed > first and we table this proposal in the mean time? > > > Can I suggest that you take advice from one of the UX folk before you > > take a final decision? > > Sure. Who should be pinged? Still @bnvk? > yes, I think so. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-devel/20161223012456.GA1816%40thirdeyesecurity.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
