Re: How to localize keyEquivalent="q"?

[Robert Slover]

The 'x' and 'v' are visual metaphors, reinforced by their proximity to the 'c' 
(copy) equivalent.

Command-x  ==> 'Cut'  ==> Looks like a pair of scissors.
Command-c  ==> 'Copy'  ==> Abbreviation for (C)opy.
Command-v  ==> 'Paste'  ==> Looks like the typesetter/editor's symbol for 
'insert here'.

others:

Command-w ==> Close (W)indow

The Command-z came along much later, along with Undo, and I can't justify it.  
The others I remember reading explanations of long ago.  The title that comes 
to mind is "The Macintosh is not a Typewriter!", but that may not be the right 
book.  

It is worthwhile to read the Wikipedia article related to this subject.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_shortcut .  Note that one of the two 
images used to illustrate the concept is a screenshot of WorldWideWeb.app 
running on NeXTStep :-D .  Note that they plainly state that "shortcuts" are 
not localized, but "mnemonics" are.

Honestly, I still prefer mnemonics/accelerators to key-equivalents/shortcuts.  
The most productive menuing systems I ever used were the Lotus-style menus in 
the old Borland products.  Just hit [F10] (menu), and start typing 
accelerators.  Effectively, *everything* was quickly navigable from the 
keyboard, whether a shortcut was defined or not.  Even if an accelerator was 
missing for a menu entry, you could get there quickly with the arrow keys.  It 
is amazing how fast those sequences became muscle memory, and allowing 
sequences of characters means a much greater "namespace" for keyboard menu 
access inside an application.  Contrast that to even the best thought-out Mac 
application, where 4 or 5-key "chords" are often necessary to get adequate 
shortcut coverage in any decently-sized application.

--Robert

On Jun 24, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Nicola Pero wrote:

> I'm not sure, but our of interest I looked at the Apple Human Interface 
> Guidelines
> and they seem to require 'Command-q' for 'Quit' regardless of the language. 
> ;-)
> 
> I actually happen to agree with you that 'Command-q' is not a particularly 
> good
> choice for quit in most languages since there is no relationship between 'q' 
> and
> the word for quit in most languages ... On the other hand, even in English, 
> there
> doesn't seem to be a particular logic in the choice of Command-v for Paste 
> (other
> than x, c, v are in a row in the keyboard), Command-z for Undo and Command-w 
> for
> close (other than it's near q).  There seem to be some logic in some other 
> choices,
> such as Command-s for Save.
> 
> But a reasonable point of view is that the key equivalents are actually 
> semi-random
> letters ... in all languages, including English ;-)