Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Re^2: Xerox sues Apple!
Message-ID: <1943@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Date: 21 Dec 89 14:23:24 GMT
References: <172@comcon.UUCP> <7326@ficc.uu.net> <9320@hoptoad.uucp> <462@uwslh.UUCP>
Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 29
Reply-exos:@crdgw1:To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)

In article <462@uwslh.UUCP> lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Brain-fried after too much hacking) writes:

| Yes, I agree with this completely!  Now let see, does
| control-middle-mouse pop up the terminal menu in xterm and
| control-left-mouse the signal menu, or is it the other way around?

  But this is as easy to remember as shift-option-click-click. And
shortly you continue to agree with me...

| This depends: it is fairly easy to keep straight which button selects
| an object and which activates the menus on the amiga, since they are
| the same 99% of the time.  Consistency is the key.

  I don't think we have a major disagreement here at all. The Amiga
works really well, as to some experimental window systems based on a
three button mouse. I prefer the three button, since it allows one
button (usually the right) to be dedicated to interfacing with the
window, not the application. That leaves a "two button application
mouse" paradigm, hopefully broken down to a consitant 'activator' and
'action' interface.

  I don't see why this can't be done in X, actually, it just takes some
consideration of the user. The same rules hold for clicking convensions,
such as click to take most common action, push and hold for menu.
-- 
bill davidsen	(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called
'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see
that the world is flat!" - anon