- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
- Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 23:11:53 +0200
- To: timeless@gmail.com
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-webapps@w3.org Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Sebastian Markbåge <sebastian@calyptus.eu>
- Message-Id: <B0F5AF0C-76CB-441C-8D69-3F38231E3B04@activemath.org>
Le 14-août-09 à 10:00, timeless a écrit : > Paul Libbrecht< wrote: >> - drag and drop allows a precise visual target identification thus >> may be >> considered safer (and this is actually implemented so: you can faster >> drag-and-drop URLs than copy and paste them). > this isn't true. > depending on how friendly your drop target is, it theoretically could > be true, but in practice many apps do not make it easy to understand > precisely where you're dropping or precisely what effects a drop will > have. I should have said "drag and drop can allow a precise visual..." This is the app responsability. I'm claiming there are many apps that do so. The MacOSX Finder is definitely one of them, most Cocoa based text- editing apps do so as well, most picture processing programmes as well. > sometimes your entire document is replaced by the thing you > thought you were dragging. sometimes you get something you didn't > think you were dragging. that's when you can't identify the nature of things. The story you are telling below is a simple confusion: the CD icon on the left of Finder windows is not the same as the on either the desktop or the "computer" view: if you drag out from these icons you do so as if you were dragging out of a dock which has been much criticized, I know, it's just inaccomplished. > Unfortunately, the concept isn't as simple as that, it turns out (and > i finally understand it now [actually, i think i discover it ever > couple of weeks and then promptly forget), then there's a difference > between dragging the disk reference from the desktop to the trash and > dragging the item from a finder window's tray to the trash. the former > changes the trash to an eject icon and the latter doesn't. either way, > when you drag a usb volume to the trash, the volume disappears from > [....] > Keep in mind that this drop target is supposedly *friendly* it tells > me if it's actually going to eject by changing the icon of the target, > and yet, i still don't manage to get it right most of the time > (probably because my desktop is typically obscured, so i couldn't drag > or see the volume on the desktop). Apple has provided Exposé's "see desktop" to help you. > >> Copying, however, is simpler >> and better understood as long as the selection model is clear. > > yesterday i was merging two documents using a third window (a browser) > as a reference. > > mostly this meant a was copying an annotation ("# UNUSED") from > old-document to new-document > and copying an identifier from new-document to cross reference to > verify whether the identifier was indeed unused. > > I did this by having the browser (Camino.app) as approximately full > screen behind a text editor that supports multiple windows (XCode.app) > with two windows side by side. you describe this very well: you wish it was DnD because you don't want long-term storage but you cannot do it because it's using the keyboard: typically the keyboard is preferrable for selection and text navigation and is often better preferred by people that already keyboarding: hence Copy-and-paste is often understood as a keyboard bound thing while DnD is not: you can't specify the exact target (unless you are simulating it all). > The process was basically: > * in right editor window (new-document) > 1. use the down arrow to move to the next identifier > 2. use alt-right to select the identifier > 3. use cmd-tab to switch to Camino > * in Camino > 4. double tap into the xref search field (this is about 10% down the > screen and 10% to the right of the left edge) > 5. use cmd-v to paste > 6. use enter to start the search > 7. use cmd-tab to switch back to XCode.app > * in XCode > 8. use cmd-` to switch to old-document > 9. use cmd-c to copy "# UNUSED" > 10. use cmd-` to switch to new-document > 11. use cmd-left to go to the start of the line > 12. use cmd-v to paste > 13. loop > > In this process, i have two things which have to be in my "clipboard", > obviously neither is in my clipboard as "long term storage", it's in > fact merely drag and drop, but the coordinates of my drag source and > drag targets are too disparate for me to use a mouse for most of them > (and if i was really a keyboard user, i might have arranged it so that > i could use a keyboard to focus the search field in the browser, or > used the urlbar. I'm a power user, not a keyboard user, so i used the > mouse for this step. > > the fact is that this process is really drag and dropping between > three windows, i'm only using the keyboard because it's expensive to > retarget and focus each of these areas. > >> - copy-and-paste is aimed at long term storage: if you write to the >> clipboard you have to write all the flavours you think a recipient >> would >> ever make use of! The clipboard often survives computer-restarts. > > That's a clipbook, not a clipboard. Most clipboards do not survive > restarts, heck half the time they don't survive apps quiting. I am sorry that's not true: a system clipboard is filled independently of the application. See here: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CopyandPaste/Articles/pbFundamentals.html#/ /apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40004254 Many applications have internal clipboards, which allows a no-loss, no- duplication copy-and-paste but when leaving the application you have to export these. >> - drag-and-drop is aimed at direct negotiations: generally, only at >> the end >> of the drag is the actual data produced. In case this is running >> over a >> network-based conversion this is significant I feel. > > I don't understand this. In java at least, a dragEnd allows the drag-receiver to only pull one flavour. I know of no framework that explicitly allow pulling several flavours from a DnD transfer while the system clipboard trivially does (because you can re-pull it). >> So I would insist to split the two set of events while keeping >> common, of >> course, some of the interfaces to denote what can be transferred. > > Insisting isn't how we do things here. Provide use cases, provide > explanations, try to convince with real data. I agree and I wanted to make videos to more convince but I just did not manage. paul
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Saturday, 22 August 2009 21:12:44 UTC