Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!montnaro From: montnaro@sprite.crd.ge.com (Skip Montanaro) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Double clicks Message-ID: Date: 20 Oct 89 13:20:04 GMT References: <101989.155135.dan@watson.ibm.com> Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com Reply-To: (Skip Montanaro) Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development, Schenectady, NY Lines: 25 In-reply-to: dan@watson.ibm.COM's message of 19 Oct 89 19:51:35 GMT In article <101989.155135.dan@watson.ibm.com> dan@watson.ibm.COM (Walt Daniels) writes: If one really wants a powerful mouse, why not go back to Doug Englebart's original mouse which had enough keys to use as a typewriter by exploiting cords. Look how hard it is to decide what functions to assign to 1-3 button mice, whether or not to double-click, which button raises which menus, whether or not modifier keys must be pressed, and what grief is caused when a vendor fiddles with the peripheral keys on the keyboard. If you're going to get into multi-button mice in a big way (> 4 or 5 keys, chording, multi-clicks, ...), you absolutely have to have standards, otherwise people won't be able to switch between equipment from different vendors, and different application packages would almost certainly apply different semantics to the buttons. As an aside, my boys (six & seven) often triple- or quadruple-click when launching applications on the Mac. (Applications don't start fast enough for them I guess. :-) Imagine what grief might have been caused if Apple had decided to get carried away with the multi-click stuff... -- Skip Montanaro (montanaro@crdgw1.ge.com)