🚀 go-pugleaf

I think you missed my point, the original contention was that *any*
action that could be performed by only one input device was suspect.
The conclusion reached from this premise was that it was necessary to
be able to do any mouse action from the keyboard.

In your example, if the keyboard had been missing, would the demo have
been possible? The original claim was "and vice versa". As far as I can
tell, all you have claimed is that any mouse action should be available
from the keyboard, to support physically disadvantaged users. Now while
I think that this is a laudable goal, I don't believe that *all* of our
software should be tailored to support *all* physical limitations. For
example, must we restrict the use of color in user interfaces to
support colorblind people? How about people with more severe motor
difficulties, such that they cannot use a keyboard? The question
becomes one of degree. I don't think anyone would contend that we
should eliminate all CRT's and all use Braille printers to support
blind programmers. The demand that no interface can depend on a mouse
is exactly analagous.

I have used systems where you could both type with a mouse, and specify
position with the keyboard. It was a lot like watching a dancing bear.
The amazing thing was not how well it danced, but that it danced at all.

Modern input devices are optimized to perform particular functions. The
keyboard is primarily a text input device, the best one ever invented.
The mouse is a locator, and pointing device, and a very good one,
probably the best for workstation applications (see Card and Moran).
*Requiring* the pointing device to be able to input text, or the text
input device to be able to specify positions is as silly as requiring
your knob box to be able to scan images.

	-- Charles