> > > Kuba Ober wrote: > > > > > > A good assumption is that of a two-button mouse > > > with only left button available while dragging. This > > > assumption would make Xcircuit work with trackpads on all > > > platforms (including MacBooks, a machine I'm on).
> > Tim wrote: > > > > I have handled this largely as a matter of key and button > > bindings. I have always used 3-button mice and am annoyed > > with the fact that it is difficult to get them anymore. > > Honestly, do people think it's that hard to figure out how > > to move three fingers independently? Anyway, invoking > > xcircuit with "xcircuit -2" is more compatible with a > > standard 2-button mouse. Most functions associated with the > > middle mouse button are moved to the right button, and > > functions associated with the right button are moved to the > > escape key. > Kuba Ober wrote: > > I agree, just that the chosen defaults are so far from > everyday human interface guidelines that it makes it almost > useless out of the box without referring to the manual first. > That's a big no-no when it comes to basic usability. This is a > minor rant as changing the defaults is trivial, but > nevertheless it has to be done. > People are used to certain ways you interact with a 2D drawing > space. I can get Adobe Illustrator, MS Paint, Inkscape, GIMP, > even old Protel/Orcad, and be productive within minutes. With > Xcircuit -- no way. Xcircuit has other usability shortfalls, > namely very poor discoverability and no visualization for core > concepts. Those are all targeted as general purpose graphic tools. Try a CAD program. It's a focused purpose graphic tool. Even the concept of interface with CAD is different, so the user interface is odd compared to "mainstream" graphics tools. > I'm kind of a usability freak, so I'll be putting in some > works towards that. I'm all for usability. But I think what you are actually referring to is "similarity usability" - meaning the interface needs to be "approachable for the lazy". :) I think this is what Tim was referring to when he wrote: > Personally, I don't even like the "common man-machine > interaction" methods, most of which seems to involve kowtowing > to whatever Microsoft implemented (or Cadence, in the EDA > world, which is much, much worse). I believe I agree with him. I think he is saying "Just because it's common does not make it usable." > > Philip wrote: > > > > I have not had to run XCircuit on anything but an X Windows > > session since I quit dual booting and went with virtual > > machines. And my X server is setup to chord for middle > > click. > Kuba replied: > > I don't know what "chord for middle click" means, "press both the right and the left button at the same time = middle-click" I even have the track pad on my laptop setup to recognize a two-finger tap as a middle-click. > ... but there are some default actions people expect of > buttons. Like right click bringing up a context menu, for > example -- where you could, say, change basic element > properties like color, linewidth, etc. This promotes less > mouse motion while not having to reach for the keyboard. Please - no. Not unless the button can also retain the current "action-terminate" function _and_ the keystroke actions are not removed. The interface is so streamlined and usable I for one would strongly not want to disturb that for broader appeal or more conformity. But - I'm not a software developer. :) I'm just a user with many hundreds of hours on graphic tools. I may sound resistant to progress. Honestly that's not the intent. If moving from C to C++ and Qt makes the software easier to maintain and advance - do it! But if along the way it makes XCircuit's interface just as clumsy as the other 2-D graphic choices, I'd say it's not worth it. -- Philip _______________________________________________ Xcircuit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.opencircuitdesign.com/mailman/listinfo/xcircuit-dev
