Re: [Fwd: Re: Your final comments on gswitchit in 2.4...]
- From: "Sergey V. Oudaltsov" <sergey oudaltsov clients ie>
- To: Christian Rose <menthos gnome org>
- Cc: "Andrew W. Nosenko" <awn bcs zp ua>, gnome-i18n gnome org,usability gnome org
- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Your final comments on gswitchit in 2.4...]
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:31:12 +0100
> Perhaps a better idea would be to just having different shortcuts fo
> the different layouts, and not use cycling at all. Or have cycling, but
> allowing the different layouts to be directly accessed by other
> shortcuts at the same time. Perhaps this is already possible (I haven't
> used gswitchit) but if so then I really don't see the problem.
Actually, having different shortcuts for different groups is highly
problematic in xkb (if you solve it in generic way). I tried to play
with keyboard grabbing at some point - it gave me no full success so I
have up (if anyone is interested, I can give more details but I do not
think this is a place to discuss that). So "no cycling" is IMHO better
here. And actually that is what "secondary groups" feature does - takes
some groups out from cycling.
> instead[1]. The flag customization and the secondary layout feature you
> describe very much sounds like such workaround functionality to me.
Well, flag customization issue is already solved here (remove pixmap
customization, use layout name label by default). I just have to
implement it ASAP:) Though I don't really understand why it is
workaround (which problem does it actually workaround?:)
Secondary layouts looks like a kind of workaround (in UI terms, no
internally:). But it works exactly the way people asked - so I'd say it
is just another feature:)
> functionality is currently present in gswitchit. We can't start by
> assuming everything in there needs to be there for good reasons, so
Yes. I agree. Probably we Cyrillic people look a bit too agressive here.
I could apologize for myself and others. We would just love one thing
West European people to keep in mind - if some feature is not easy to
understand, it does not necessarily mean it is useless - it probably
just means they never encounter problems the feature solves, OK?:)
BTW, Christian, what would be your opinion on postscript-based preview?
Sergey
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]