From: "jeff zeitlin" <jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal
Subject: turbo vision keys?
Date: 24 Dec 92 02:57:53 EST
Reply-To: "jeff zeitlin" <jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Executive Networks Information

GB::>>So why the heck are they not using ENTER for 'Next Field'?????

  CUA was designed to be standard across all platforms.  Note the word 
  "all."  Many mainframe environments operate in what is called "block 
  mode," where pressing ENTER (which is distinct from NewLine) 
  transmits a whole screen of information from the terminal to the 
  processor.  I would assume that block mode was designed to utilize 
  the processor more efficiently in such environments, but I don't 
  know for sure.

  The PC, the Mac, and many other smaller-than-mainframe environments 
  don't handle things this way, and hence don't need an ENTER key 
  (what is called ENTER usually is interpreted as a 0x0D, 0x0A, or 
  both) in the mainframe sense.

GB::>I agree, I agree! Doesn't the problem lie with the standard? The point of
  ::>a standard is to have some sort of similar operation between software.
  ::>But if the standard is counter to what a lot of people think, it just
  ::>confuses the issue, and the standard should be changed.

  Except that the "intuitive" solution leads to a different problem:  
  How do I signal the system that I have completed data entry, and 
  wish to let the machine proceed with processing?  I can't use ENTER 
  (or NewLine, or RETURN, or NEXT - I've seen this key marked in all 
  of these ways); I've designated that for moving from field to field.  
  It doesn't make sense to use TAB.  Not all machines have an END key, 
  and those that do, it will probably be allocated as a text editing 
  key.  I can't count on having an ENTER/NewLine/etc. key on a numeric 
  keypad that can be distinguished from the one on the main portion of 
  the keyboard.  I can't even count on having a numeric keypad.  The 
  SysReq key doesn't exist on all keyboards, and may not be easy to 
  detect anyway (it is handled by a totally different interrupt from 
  the rest of the keyboard on a MS-DOS PC).  I have seen systems that 
  don't have function keys.  Using the Esc key is counterintuitive; 
  normally, it means "cancel this operation; I screwed up."  What's 
  left?  Using a "shifted" key? Shift-Enter/Ctrl-Enter/Alt-Enter?  No 
  way; the system may not support modification of process control 
  keys, not to mention the possibility that the keyboard may not have 
  an ALT key to start with.

GB::>And who thought of this standard anyway? Was it Microsoft (insert your
  ::>appropriately unresponsive similar software company here), when they
  ::>introduced this absolutely stupid idea in Microsoft Windows, and then
  ::>told everyone else it was now a new standard? Or, are you telling me it wa
  ::>IBM who came up with this brilliant idea?

  Yes, it _WAS_ IBM, in fact.  Because they wanted to have a 
  consistent interface across all of their platforms - PC, AS/400, 
  mainframes, System 3x, and anything else they might come up with in 
  the future.  Unfortunately, that meant designing for the lowest 
  common denominator, which [BEGIN Bash_IBM_Mode] in IBM's case can be 
  pretty low [END Bash_IBM_Mode].

  Actually, given what they set out to do, I think they did a pretty 
  good job.  Certainly better than I could do without a number of 
  years of study devoted entirely to user interface design and 
  ergonomics...

  J/
  jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
---
  QMPro 1.0 41-4533  Never play Go and eat M&Ms at the same time...
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal