Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnewsm!mls
From: mls@cbnewsm.att.com (mike.siemon)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Not impressed with MacX
Summary: on n-button mice
Message-ID: <1990Dec3.195650.7280@cbnewsm.att.com>
Date: 3 Dec 90 19:56:50 GMT
References: <9011290206.AA00343@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> <1557@pai.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23

In article <1557@pai.UUCP>, erc@pai.UUCP (Eric Johnson) writes:
> 
> Problem: The Macintosh has a one-button mouse, but far too many X
> programs require a three-button mouse...  Der mouse, who usually
> gives great advice, doesn't want to emulate "missing" mouse buttons:

I didn't read der Mouse that way, but rather as encouraging X programmers
to code at a level where functionality maps to hardware with SOME chance
of remapping to fit reality.

Let me point out (without, I hope, sounding too much like an ad, since
my point here is more one of general software architecture) that OPEN
LOOK provides (and compliant O.L. applications use) just this scheme --
one's prgram gets SELECT or ADJUST or MENU notifications, and the toolkit
sees to mapping these from actual button pushes -- a user may configure
to any of 3, 2 or 1 button mice (or can even configure a 3 button mouse
to operate like MacX :-)).  What OPEN LOOK provides as toolkit *can* be
done -- with a bit more work -- by pure X applications.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		In so far as people think they can see the
m.siemon@ATT.COM		"limits of human understanding", they think
...!att!sfsup!mls		of course that they can see beyond these.
standard disclaimer				-- Ludwig Wittgenstein