2 ms·
The standard you refer at is at a lower level in the "stack": it is mainly about how a terminal would handle drawing stuff on screen or how user input will be c
by badsectoracula 3y ago
The standard you refer at is at a lower level in the "stack": it is mainly about how a terminal would handle drawing stuff on screen or how user input will be communicated back to the server.
The CUA standard is at a higher level in the "stack": it is about the user interface commands, shortcut keys, etc a program will provide as to have a user interface that users will already have some idea how to work with based on their existing knowledge of having worked with other programs that follow CUA. Things like using Shift+Ins to paste text for example, pressing F1 would show help, F5 would refresh the currently viewed contents (if that makes sense), F10 would open the menu, Enter activate a dialog box's default action, Escape cancels of the dialog box, etc.
These are not mutually exclusive - or even related really. You can have a program that uses the VT100 to implement a CUA interface.
- reactordev 3y agoMy point is that CUA didn't come about until after the migration to GUI's. Afterwards, no one used terminals like we do today, outside of sys-admins. So I'm aware that it's lower in the stack but my point is that the ANSI standards paved the way for any/all of this TUI goodness that the OP wants a standard for (like CUA).
- p_l 3y agoCUA originated on terminals, specifically it was made to unify different approaches used across block terminals, character terminals, DOS apps, and early PC GUI apps. It's also explicitly a Human Interface Guideline, whereas ANSI terminal standards are just interoperability instructions on how to drive a character terminal and declare nothing about how to actually use them for application UI.
- reactordev 3y agoNow it all makes sense. It's like design standards not implementation standards. MaterialUI over I-can-haz-ui. For some reason it didn't click.