Re: lynx-dev syntax change

[Jacob Poon]

On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Philip Webb wrote:

> 990228 Laura Eaves wrote: 
> > 990228 Philip Webb wrote:
> >> i don't believe you've counted correctly:
> >> JP wanted the above syntax, KD PW were strongly opposed
> >> & i didn't see any other comments on syntax (KW discussed something else).
> > Ok I'll have to look at the archive.  (I alrady deleted the replies.)
> 
> there's just been another vote for  1g+  from LP.
>  
> >> I (emphatic) recommended a different change after testing things,
> >> ie  3p+  (etc), which says `3 pages further-down' (intuitively)
> >> & falls under the fingers better: the first  2  strokes are reached
> >> from the standard touch-typing position, then you have to reeeaaach
> >> for the `+' key (while shifting); your (old/new) way, you have to reeeaaach
> >> in the middle of things, then reset your fingers in standard position.
> > the  +  and  -  keys are near  0  on the keyboard,
> > so the reach wouldn't be all that bad.
> 
> maybe you don't touch-type: up to the number keys is a natural movement,
> but  -  &  +  are a stretch &  +  needs shifting:

This is true if everybody uses US (or similar) keyboard layout.  However,
when using other keyboards (eg: Germany, Italy, Latin America), you do not
need to hold the Shift key to access the '+' on typewriter keys.

> it's  1  (inevitable) pain to reach for them at the end of the sequence,
> but  1 extra  (avoidable) pain if they're in the middle of the sequence.
> just once, it's not worth wasting time on,
> but over many uses by many users it's a definite stone in the shoe.

If you want to enter links quickly and frequently for navigating links,
a better way is to put one hand on the keypad (for entering numbers), and
another on the typewriter keys (to handle link type).  However, since
keypads have both plus and minus signs without using shift states, the
typing hinderance you mentioned will not apply when a more efficient
typing behaviour is used.

> i'm esp reacting vs your  0+1g  version, which is even worse:
> the whole idea of the device is to make it easier to jump around,
> esp inside familiar documents, not to compose a logical calculus.

Actually, it is more of an algebraic issue than calculus one. :)  Anyway,
by comparing the efficiencies involved with sign placements, one has to
assume user's keyboard type.  There is nothing wrong with assuming
keyboard types, but by putting signs in front, the syntax becomes more
intuitive to users, independent of keyboard types.