X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com From: geda AT psjt DOT org (Stephan =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6ttcher?=) To: "Britton Kerin \(britton.kerin\@gmail.com\) \[via geda-user\@delorie.com\]" Subject: Re: [geda-user] exactly how is moving between sides/layers supposed to work, and more generally... References: <201602250321 DOT u1P3Lbr3003187 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <201602250338 DOT u1P3cpuB003688 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:08:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Britton Kerin's message of "Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:19:50 -0900") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id u1P98rN4026806 Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" writes: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Stephan Böttcher wrote: >> "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" >> writes: >> >>> Ok. I think the overloading on B is good. >> >> No. Shift-X acts on selection, X acts on object under the mouse. If > > The overloading I was referring to on B is already there. Neither X > nor Shift-X are bound to anything in the shipping arrangement so far > as I can tell. What do they do for you? For X in (Del, B, M, H, J), at least, the behaviour is as described. >> you weaken that priciple the user experience will become worse, not >> better. > >> Make the features more discoverable. But please do not try to >> "optimize" them in isolation. > > I'm not, I'm going through and finding all the inconsistencies they > have with respect to one another. I'd like them to be more > consistent, not less so. Maybe take a look at my original post. Sure, there you proposed: > How I think it should work: > > Like 2. above, with the additional behavior that if nothing is selected > the hovered element is sent. I thought, this is the overloading you referred to. Please don't. -- Stephan