4 ms·

> function keys were no more difficult to use than any other key shortcut That's a bold statement. I think most users would disagree, and the voted with their

by mmooss 2y ago

> function keys were no more difficult to use than any other key shortcut That's a bold statement. I think most users would disagree, and the voted with their feet/fingers, and UI designers seem to agree. Why? Some guesses: Nothing about F# indicates what it does, making it hard to learn; ctrl+S makes sense. And after you learn it, few can touch type function keys which means, 1) you have to look away from the document and, 2) there's much less muscle memory involved.

bluGill 2y ago
ui designers moved graphicics for good reason. conrotl-s makes sense - now what is the shortcut that makes sense for any of the other thousand things someone wants to do in word processor? There will always be some that don't make sense.
int_19h 2y ago
Using F-keys for the most shortcuts was standard across DOS apps. As far as discoverability, the common UI pattern was to show a single row of function key labels on the bottom of the screen (and update it when the user pressed and held Shift/Ctrl/Alt to allow for combinations), often with an option in settings to hide it once the user has gotten accustomed to the shortcuts. I don't recall any issues touch typing F-keys, either, especially on typical keyboards from that era which had the entire row split into groups of 4, making it easy to find the right key without ever looking. I'm not sure what you mean by "much less muscle memory involved" wrt F-keys. I still, to this day, have muscle memory of F2=save from using Norton/Midnight Commander so much.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > Using F-keys for the most shortcuts was standard across DOS apps. That doesn't make it a good idea. In UI design, people don't say 'we're using this because it was used in 1980s DOS programs'. You may find it to be fine - I don't mind function keys, but I they aren't nearly as efficient. But we're talking about the general public.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Better options didn't exist. Wordperfect was expected to work on a 4mhz computer with a low resoluion screen and be fast. f keys or contorl shortcuts - both were not good options but given the constraints fkeys are better - f keys had a place to put your cheet sheet.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      I'm not criticizing WordPerfect, though I wonder why they didn't use accelerator keys and the keyboard (e.g., ctrl+s) - or was that an option in WP? Regardless, my point was that their keyboard UI wasn't as efficient as Vi. WP still made the right choice - no way the general public was learning Vi!
shakna 2y ago
OS and hardware designers seem to agree function keys were a good idea. And have extended them as one click short cuts for brightness, airplane mode, opening your calculator, and all other kinds of things.

by mmooss 2y ago

bluGill 2y ago

ui designers moved graphicics for good reason. conrotl-s makes sense - now what is the shortcut that makes sense for any of the other thousand things someone wants to do in word processor? There will always be some that don't make sense.

int_19h 2y ago

Using F-keys for the most shortcuts was standard across DOS apps. As far as discoverability, the common UI pattern was to show a single row of function key labels on the bottom of the screen (and update it when the user pressed and held Shift/Ctrl/Alt to allow for combinations), often with an option in settings to hide it once the user has gotten accustomed to the shortcuts. I don't recall any issues touch typing F-keys, either, especially on typical keyboards from that era which had the entire row split into groups of 4, making it easy to find the right key without ever looking. I'm not sure what you mean by "much less muscle memory involved" wrt F-keys. I still, to this day, have muscle memory of F2=save from using Norton/Midnight Commander so much.

mmooss 2y ago
> Using F-keys for the most shortcuts was standard across DOS apps. That doesn't make it a good idea. In UI design, people don't say 'we're using this because it was used in 1980s DOS programs'. You may find it to be fine - I don't mind function keys, but I they aren't nearly as efficient. But we're talking about the general public.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Better options didn't exist. Wordperfect was expected to work on a 4mhz computer with a low resoluion screen and be fast. f keys or contorl shortcuts - both were not good options but given the constraints fkeys are better - f keys had a place to put your cheet sheet.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    I'm not criticizing WordPerfect, though I wonder why they didn't use accelerator keys and the keyboard (e.g., ctrl+s) - or was that an option in WP? Regardless, my point was that their keyboard UI wasn't as efficient as Vi. WP still made the right choice - no way the general public was learning Vi!

shakna 2y ago

OS and hardware designers seem to agree function keys were a good idea. And have extended them as one click short cuts for brightness, airplane mode, opening your calculator, and all other kinds of things.