 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> There are several things VI does (and always has) that bug me, but if
> anyone changed it, I'd be completely screwed, because I've trained
> myself to avoid the problem. (Sort of like what would happen if you put
> the control key back where it belongs at this point.)
Heh. Kind of like the Java code that's *designed* to work around the
bugs in the standard APIs, and actually breaks if Sun fixed them...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New escreveu:
>>> just said the UI is hard to learn and to remember, which I think
>>> you'll find most people agree with. In part because it *does* do so
>>> much.
>>
>> Yeah, but I was just pointing out there's some easily remembered
>> mnemonics to go with each keycombo.
>
> Sure. But you have to remember the mnemonics. Unlike, say, arrow keys,
> which need no mnemonic to remember which is which. And they're not all
> mnemonics, either, which also makes it difficult.
Then buy an Optimus keyboard. I'm sure someone must have made a Blender
layout for it. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 12/18/09 13:20, Darren New wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> who remembers the time when this was not the default behavior of apps.
>>
>> Dude, the guys who invented menus did it this way. It has never *not*
>> been the way to do it. :-)
>
> So tell me: How do you right click on a Mac?
You press the right mouse button, if your mouse has one. Or you hold Ctrl
while clicking.
Or, on modern laptop Macs, you can click while another finger is on the
trackpad (if that mode is enabled). Or click on the bottom right corner of
the trackpad area (if that mode is enabled).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I believed I tried it also, and it was similarly non-intuitive to
>> operate.
>
> You know, I thought they were all unintuitive until I played with it a
> bit and figured out the operations.
Other modellers I've used seemed reasonably intuitive (once you grok the
basic way the abstractions work). It's only really Wings and [now]
Blender that seem baffling.
Then again, I don't think The GIMP is especially user-friendly...
> Really, go thru (say) the
> gingerbread man tutorial, or the "create a blue alien guy" tutorial, and
> then suddenly it seems to make sense.
I made a gingerbread man. (Not that it looked remotely like the example
picture, mind you.) It's nice that you can put 6 cubes together and get
something that vaguely approximates a recognisible object, but it still
doesn't really tell me how you're supposed to construct the ludicrously
complex shapes everybody claims you're supposed to be able to put
together in 30 seconds flat...
>> (But I don't recall it having any documentation, whereas Blender
>> clearly does.)
>
> It has an entire 130-page textbook it comes with.
Really? I had no idea. When I installed it, it didn't seem to provide
any documentation. (Unlike Blender, which has a big "help" button on it
even if you're too daft to notice the prominent links right there on the
website you just downloaded it from...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Heh. Kind of like the Java code that's *designed* to work around the
> bugs in the standard APIs, and actually breaks if Sun fixed them...
Yep, that's exactly the why you can talk all you want about "upward
compatible changes" and how to write version numbers and all that, and it's
still not going to work. Hence MS's "side by side" stuff.
In particular, in vi, moving the cursor left after you insert something is
*wrong* but also the sort of thing that I've found breaks my fingers in the
version I found where they'd "fixed" that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> There are several things VI does (and always has) that bug me, but if
>> anyone changed it, I'd be completely screwed, because I've trained
>> myself to avoid the problem. (Sort of like what would happen if you put
>> the control key back where it belongs at this point.)
>
> Heh. Kind of like the Java code that's *designed* to work around the
> bugs in the standard APIs, and actually breaks if Sun fixed them...
Two words: CSS hack.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> together in 30 seconds flat...
I don't think people say 30 seconds.
>> It has an entire 130-page textbook it comes with.
>
> Really? I had no idea.
That's because you never tried google. :-)
http://voxel.dl.sourceforge.net/project/wings/manual/1.6.1/wings3d_manual1.6.1.pdf
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Heh. Kind of like the Java code that's *designed* to work around the
>> bugs in the standard APIs, and actually breaks if Sun fixed them...
>
> Two words: CSS hack.
One word: hack.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> I can't think of any programmer that uses something like Notepad to
>> write code.
>
> {...Shuffles back into the corner...}
I know of lots of other types like Andrew who enjoy being miserable
while editing code.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote in message
news:4b2ba981@news.povray.org...
> On 12/18/09 01:32, scott wrote:
> Somehow, I've never been sympathetic to this kind of complaint. Maybe
> I'm an "old fart" (who's not that old in age) who remembers the time
> when this was not the default behavior of apps.
It's not a matter of liking this or that. I'm not crazy about driving on the
right or 110V. And it was a bad old time when software did not follow UI
standards - I don't remember having to learn hundereds of different and
incompatible key combinations fondly. Standards are, most of the time,
somewhat arbitrarily established. But them's the standards, and makes life
easier for all if followed.
> From my perspective, the question isn't "Does this conform to the
> Windows interface standard (which may not be that great)?" but "Is it
> really hard to learn?"
Yes it is, and it's hard to retain, when everybody else follows a standard.
If one's life revolves around Blender, that's different, but many
professionals and amateurs alike use several different applications to get
their work done. Switching between them is no fun when they all implement
arbitrary interfaces and try to be overly clever or cute.
> and "Is their choice of deviating from the
> standard efficient?"
No, hardly. No matter how efficient or consistent Esperanto may be, if you
speak Esperanto on your establishment and everybody in the country speaks
English, it's not efficient when you consider the big picture, even if it
might be efficient for those who never leave the office.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
