Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!bionet!arisia!roo!janssen From: janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: knowing what's broken Message-ID: Date: 8 Dec 90 06:57:09 GMT References: <1563@pai.UUCP> Sender: news@parc.xerox.com Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA Lines: 25 In-reply-to: erc@pai.UUCP's message of 4 Dec 90 22:03:22 GMT In article <1563@pai.UUCP> erc@pai.UUCP (Eric Johnson) writes: [A discussion regarding systems that have fewer than three mouse buttons and what to do about it, since so many X programs wrongly assume three mouse (pointer) buttons are available...] No offense, but I really don't care what's considered broken and what isn't. What I worry about includes time and hassles. How much time and This is the kind of attitude that gives us all more hassles. If the writers of applications would stop to think about the possibility that a user may have one-button, two-button, and three-button (or more) mice, and make their application work properly in these cases, one wouldn't have to worry about various work-arounds that may turn otherwise-nicely-designed application interfaces into torture traps. Doing it right, and knowing what *is* broken, saves us all some time. Not that I have anything against vendors like H-P or Apple providing ways of simulating three-button mice. Bill -- Bill Janssen janssen@parc.xerox.com (415) 494-4763 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304