Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!shelby!agate!agate!adrianho From: adrianho@barkley.watt.berkeley.edu (Adrian J Ho) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Toolkit for Open Look *and* OSF/Motif Look and Feel [why I don't believe] Message-ID: Date: 1 Mar 91 21:24:22 GMT References: <910224211300.1528@alphalpha> <100920304@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com> Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 32 In-Reply-To: ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com's message of 28 Feb 91 18:05:49 GMT In article <100920304@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com> ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) writes: >What occurs to me is that what we really need is to attach the X >"focus" to the user focus. The focus ought to go to where I'm looking. >The ideal traversal model needs to use some of the same technology that >the military uses for targeting. Here's a few situations when it's *not* suitable: 1) You're not a touch-typist. Then you'd be looking at the keyboard and that's where the focus will be. 8-) 2) You're a secretary, or anyone who *can* touch-type but has to transcribe printed matter to electronic form (you only need to do this once for user focus to become a *major* annoyance). Then you'd be looking at the printed matter, with the same effect as (1) above. 3) _____ (fill in the blanks, there are probably more examples) For user focus to be truly workable, you'd have to be able to lock and unlock it at will. Means a footswitch, probably, or a key-combination (urk!) unless someone can come up with a working, *remote* biofeedback sensor (no way you'll catch me sticking wires on myself at work 8-). Of course, everything I've said could be hogwash, but I'm sure there's a kernel of truth somewhere in there. 8-) >Anybody out there want to build and market such an input device? I'll >buy at least one. I probably would, too, provided the engineering problems outlined above have been solved.