[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-dat
From: |
Alfred M. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date) |
Date: |
21 Apr 2002 13:25:01 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.50 |
* Michael Toomim writes:
> There's a thing called "user-centered design". In modern times, it
> is generally accepted to be good.
Maybe you should call it "new user-centred design"? Because it surely doesn't
make any sense on changing the name of such a basic concept like "buffer" to
"document" or "file" when you are already familiar with Emacs. The whole
terminology is so hard coded into Emacs that it would be a pitta to change,
and would cause more harm than good. Think of all the old time users, they
would still call buffers for buffers, and new users would ask what a buffer is.
Maybe the entry in the Emacs manual (Glossary) should be fixed to describe
what a buffer is so that it makes more sense to a user, but changing it to
something totally different? No. That would be like rewriting Emacs.
Buffer
The buffer is the basic editing unit; one buffer corresponds to
one text being edited. You can have several buffers, but at any
time you are editing only one, the `current buffer,' though
several can be visible when you are using multiple windows (q.v.).
Most buffers are visiting (q.v.) some file. *Note Buffers::.
Personally, I think it is pretty clear, do you have any ideas on how one could
improve this?
--
Alfred M. Szmidt
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), (continued)
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Kyle Jones, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Terje Bless, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Michael Toomim, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Miles Bader, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Nix, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Eli Zaretskii, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Terje Bless, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Michael Toomim, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date),
Alfred M. Szmidt <=
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Terje Bless, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Robert J. Chassell, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Terje Bless, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Serge Wroclawski, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Brady Montz, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Matt Tucker, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Richard Stallman, 2002/04/20