🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1013@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, gilbert@glasgow.UUCP writes:
> In article <1798@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >Why are you always going to run out of mouse-buttons?

> Excuse my elipsis - if you want to keep a one-to-one mapping between
> button presses and logical operations (e.g. select, extend-select,
> move, stretch, pop-up-a-menu, help etc. etc.), then you need a mouse
> button for every logical operation.

But why do you need to maintain this mapping? By means of real pop-up
menus you can map an indefinite number of operations to the "menu" button
without taking up any extra screen space.

> So, *for one-to-one mappings* (a good thing *all things being equal*)
> new operations are bound to exhaust the supply of mouse buttons.

But all things aren't equal, are they? And is it such a good thing? You
have to have some sort of cueing to let the user know what they just did,
anyway. Why not use the selection process itself?

> Although the respondent rarely uses his keyboard, this cannot be the
> case for programs such as spreadsheets (need the keypad), text
> processors and programming environments (need the whole keyboard).

What makes you think that I rarely use the keyboard? In fact, when I'm
doing something keyboard intensive I rarely use the mouse. They're both
useful tools, but effective typing really requires the use of both hands,
which tends to rule out the mouse.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva      `-_-'      ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.