The Inbox: Collections-bf.496.mcz
Locked
12
12
 
|
A new version of Collections was added to project The Inbox:
http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Collections-bf.496.mcz ==================== Summary ==================== Name: Collections-bf.496 Author: bf Time: 6 December 2012, 7:15:56.137 pm UUID: 1d1e83a0-08fb-427a-ae24-3fcd3029b8f2 Ancestors: Collections-ul.495 Cmd-0 should remove text colors. =============== Diff against Collections-ul.495 =============== Item was added: + ----- Method: TextColor>>dominatedByCmd0 (in category 'scanning') ----- + dominatedByCmd0 + "Cmd-0 should remove text color" + ^ true! |
Re: The Inbox: Collections-bf.496.mcz
|
|
Bert, could you please explain why you want this? I hate this because
it means now there is no way to un-Italicize, un-bold, or un-underline, colored text and leave it colored. These types of text decoration two are totally independent of each other, now they're commingled? Also, what if I'm doing base white-on-black, you want to hard-code us to black text so we end up with black-on-black and unable to even see it. It's already so easy to switch text color to black: Command+6 + Enter. Isn't that easy enough without making it impossible for folks writing documents in Squeak that contain colored text? On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:27 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote: > A new version of Collections was added to project The Inbox: > http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Collections-bf.496.mcz > > ==================== Summary ==================== > > Name: Collections-bf.496 > Author: bf > Time: 6 December 2012, 7:15:56.137 pm > UUID: 1d1e83a0-08fb-427a-ae24-3fcd3029b8f2 > Ancestors: Collections-ul.495 > > Cmd-0 should remove text colors. > > =============== Diff against Collections-ul.495 =============== > > Item was added: > + ----- Method: TextColor>>dominatedByCmd0 (in category 'scanning') ----- > + dominatedByCmd0 > + "Cmd-0 should remove text color" > + ^ true! > > |
Re: The Inbox: Collections-bf.496.mcz
|
|
On 2013-05-23, at 18:20, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Bert, could you please explain why you want this? Cmd-0 is supposed to make something into plain text. Colored text is not plain text. > I hate this because > it means now there is no way to un-Italicize, un-bold, or > un-underline, colored text and leave it colored. These types of text > decoration two are totally independent of each other, now they're > commingled? > > Also, what if I'm doing base white-on-black, you want to hard-code us > to black text so we end up with black-on-black and unable to even see > it. Cmd-0 does not mean black text, it means use the default foreground color, by removing the color from the text. > It's already so easy to switch text color to black: Command+6 + Enter. Sure, but I don't normally want to set the text to black. I want to make it plain. > Isn't that easy enough without making it impossible for folks writing > documents in Squeak that contain colored text? Don't use Cmd-0 if you want to use text containing different colors. It's *supposed* to make the whole selection look uniform. For a differently-colored background plain text should be displayed in color possibly different from black, I agree. But that color should *not* be encoded in the text itself, it should be a property of its display container, the one providing the background color. - Bert - > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:27 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote: >> A new version of Collections was added to project The Inbox: >> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Collections-bf.496.mcz >> >> ==================== Summary ==================== >> >> Name: Collections-bf.496 >> Author: bf >> Time: 6 December 2012, 7:15:56.137 pm >> UUID: 1d1e83a0-08fb-427a-ae24-3fcd3029b8f2 >> Ancestors: Collections-ul.495 >> >> Cmd-0 should remove text colors. >> >> =============== Diff against Collections-ul.495 =============== >> >> Item was added: >> + ----- Method: TextColor>>dominatedByCmd0 (in category 'scanning') ----- >> + dominatedByCmd0 >> + "Cmd-0 should remove text color" >> + ^ true! >> >> |
Re: The Inbox: Collections-bf.496.mcz
|
|
>> Bert, could you please explain why you want this?
> > Cmd-0 is supposed to make something into plain text. Colored text is not plain text. Look at the consecutive key-sequence across the top-row of the keyboard. In order from left-to-right we have: Command+7 = Bold, no color change Command+8 = Italicize, no color change Command+9 = Kern, no color change Command+0 = Normalize, PLUS a color change!
Command+_ = Underline, no color change Command+= = Strikeout, no color change. I think Command+6 should be the universal, one-stop, "Text Colorization" / "Decolorization" function and leave the rest of it elegantly consistent by operating solely on emphasis attributes.
The new Cmd+0 affects the gesture-usage of the system too. Before, all combinations of going from any format+color to any another other format+color utilized a consistent sequence of gestures. Now, we have an exceptional case for removing emphasis from colored text (e.g., going from Bold+Red to Normal+Red).
Question: How will users keep the same custom-color when all they want to do is remove an underline? This use-case is now very difficult for the user if not impossible. >> It's already so easy to switch text color to black: Command+6 + Enter. >
> Sure, but I don't normally want to set the text to black. I want to make it plain. Ok, how about adding "default color" to the Alt+6 menu then? Or, how about an alternate key-sequence for "Normalize + Decolorize"? Shift+Command+0 is available! This would be perfect compromise. >> Isn't that easy enough without making it impossible for folks writing
>> documents in Squeak that contain colored text? > > Don't use Cmd-0 if you want to use text containing different colors. It's *supposed* to make the whole selection look uniform. But what do I use now if want to maintain different colors but just want to remove emphasis? To do that before, it was the same consistent gesture-sequence as anything else. Command+0, Command+6, Enter. Done. Now that's broken, especially for custom-colors.
> For a differently-colored background plain text should be displayed in color possibly different from black, I agree. But that color should *not* be encoded in the text itself, it should be a property of its display container, the one providing the background color. I'm on-board with having a "nil" color as a text that causes it to render in whatever it's container says it should and having a gesture to set it such. Glad we agree about that.
Would you please compromise with me -- it seems the shift key is used as an "enhanced" version of several hot-key functions throughout the system, and so Shift+Command+0 to inject the decolorization and leaving original Command+0 to remain consistent with [7] thru [=] to only remove emphasis, seems ideal, what do you think?
|
Re: The Inbox: Collections-bf.496.mcz
|
|
On 2013-05-23, at 21:35, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
Now you're being ridiculous: Command+6 = Color, no underline change Command+7 = Bold, no underline change Command+8 = Italicize, no underline change Command+9 = Kern, no underline change Command+0 = Normalize, PLUS an underline change! Command+_ = Underline change Command+= = Strikeout, no underline change Outrageous ;)
You seem to think of color as something special. I don't. It's just another way to make text fancy, instead of plain. Cmd-0 is intended to make text plain.
Just like you do it in all other text editors: toggle underlining on and off: hit "Cmd _" twice.
Huh?
No. A more special operation should have a more complicated shortcut. "Remove all embellishments" is more general than "remove all embellishments but preserve colorization", so if you really need that special mode, that could be your new shortcut.
But then you would need many more command sequences: a) remove all text attributes except color b) remove all text attributes except underlines/strikethrough c) remove all text attributes except bold/italic ... etc ... This is obviously ridiculous. I just don't see why you think text color is so special that it needs to be treated completely differently than all the other text attributes.
As I tried to explained above the only consistent way is for CMD-0 to remove all these text attribute. You're welcome to add "remove-all-but-color" as a special operation. I have *never* needed that, but I always was annoyed when I wanted to remove style, e.g. because a class comment was saved as all-red. Seriously, I don't even understand how you could think this is controversial. Removing all text attributes *obviously* should remove text colors. - Bert - |
Cmd-0 (was: The Inbox: Collections-bf.496.mcz)
|
|
Giving this thread a proper subject (and one further comment below). On 2013-05-24, at 11:43, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Also, Chris, please read the command-key help, which explicitly states that Cmd-0 is intended to reset all Cmd-6 properties. I merely fixed a bug. It is unfortunate that you learned to rely on the buggy behavior. But I'm sure you're a great learner :) - Bert - |
Re: Cmd-0 (was: The Inbox: Collections-bf.496.mcz)
|
|
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Your list is not analogous to mine. I do indeed regard color as a more-general form of emphasis than italics. Any kind of informational object such as a line or chart can have color, but only Text can be italicized, underlined or struckout. Previously, all of Cmd+7 thru Cmd+= only affected Text-specific emphasis. Now, one of them also changes color.
For some reason, I thought the toggling was broken -- that Cmd+7 would only add bold, not remove it. I just tried it again and, it worked. So, the situation is not as bad as I thought.
Still, the idempotent property of setting emphasis is now broken for colored text. Not a huge deal, but still a downgrade.
I can see the root of our disagreement lies in our regard whether color is an equal-footing embellishment as the text-specific embellishments (italics/underline/strikeout/bold) on the hot-keys. At least I understand your POV now, I'm glad it's slightly less ridiculous than I thought. :)
I don't get this, but, whatever..
Again, if you want to modify color, then invoke the color-modifying operation (Cmd+6), not an emphasis-modifying operation. The comment might have had something underlined and so you just blew that away when all you said you wanted to do was remove the red.
Since the toggling works afterall, it's not controversial, but a downgrade because I see Cmd-0 now as inconsistent treatment of the text compared to the other emphases operations.
I had already read it and determined that's where the "fix" should have been applied rather than in the behavior. Our decisions as a community are based on current, logical discussions like this one to determine which is wrong, not old documentation.
- Chris |
|
|
On 2013-05-24, at 17:43, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
Progress ;)
I think we have made our respective positions clear. Let's poll others: A) Argh: I don't care [note: that's a fine opinion, but please do not reply] B) Bert: Cmd-0 should remove all text attributes C) Chris: Cmd-0 should remove all text attributes except coloring Since A is the default we only need to tally B's and C's :) - Bert - |
|
|
Hi All,
On 13-05-24 09:29 , Bert Freudenberg wrote: > On 2013-05-24, at 17:43, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: > [snip] > I think we have made our respective positions clear. Let's poll others: > > A) Argh: I don't care [note: that's a fine opinion, but please do not reply] > B) Bert: Cmd-0 should remove all text attributes > C) Chris: Cmd-0 should remove all text attributes except coloring > > Since A is the default we only need to tally B's and C's :) > I've always felt that '0' was a fine mnemonic for 'zero attributes', regardless of whether colour is special. Count me as a B. And just for a nit - lines can have all kinds of attributes besides colour - thickness (i.e. bold), solid/dotted (i.e. italic), wavy (i.e. font face), tapered (i.e. slant), etc. I really don't think colour should be considered a special attribute just because it can apply to things besides text. > - Bert - Regards, -- Tom Rushworth |
|
|
On 24-05-2013, at 9:49 AM, Tom Rushworth <[hidden email]> wrote: > I've always felt that '0' was a fine mnemonic for 'zero attributes', > regardless of whether colour is special. Count me as a B. > > And just for a nit - lines can have all kinds of attributes besides > colour - thickness (i.e. bold), solid/dotted (i.e. italic), wavy (i.e. > font face), tapered (i.e. slant), etc. I really don't think colour > should be considered a special attribute just because it can apply to > things besides text. <AOL>Me too</AOL> tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim "Bother" said Pooh as he said f**k in the wrong conf. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2013-05-24, at 17:43, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: > I think we have made our respective positions clear. Let's poll others: > > A) Argh: I don't care [note: that's a fine opinion, but please do not reply] > B) Bert: Cmd-0 should remove all text attributes > C) Chris: Cmd-0 should remove all text attributes except coloring > > Since A is the default we only need to tally B's and C's :) Also from the point of view of developing meta tools and things, a clear way to make sure the stuff in methods and class comments be perfectly plain is very desirable. (That need was the origin of this patch if I remember correctly.) (It could be at another key combination but) B. -- -- Yoshiki |
|
|
B +1 On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 2013-05-24, at 17:43, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: > I think we have made our respective positions clear. Let's poll others: > > A) Argh: I don't care [note: that's a fine opinion, but please do not reply] > B) Bert: Cmd-0 should remove all text attributes > C) Chris: Cmd-0 should remove all text attributes except coloring > > Since A is the default we only need to tally B's and C's :) Also from the point of view of developing meta tools and things, a clear way to make sure the stuff in methods and class comments be perfectly plain is very desirable. (That need was the origin of this patch if I remember correctly.) (It could be at another key combination but) B. -- -- Yoshiki |
Yoshiki Ohshima ---05/24/2013 12:56:32 PM---On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Bert Freudenberg <|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
The way you worded the ballot is from your position. For fairness, I submit a version of the ballot that is worded from my position:
A) Argh: I don't care [note: that's a fine opinion, but please do not reply] B) Bert: Cmd-0 should adjust Text emphasis, plus make a color-change. C) Chris: Cmd-0 should remove Text emphasis, preserving the selected color.
|
|
|
On 2013-05-24, at 19:07, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hehe. How about this for compromise - I only changed mine. A) Argh: I don't care [note: that's a fine opinion, but please do not reply] B) Bert: Cmd-0 should remove Text emphasis, and remove all selected colors. C) Chris: Cmd-0 should remove Text emphasis, preserving the selected color. - Bert - |
|
|
In reply to this post by Yoshiki Ohshima-3
Yoshiki, if you say it can be another key combination, then that would be a vote for what I want.. There seems to be some confusion about what we're voting about.
B) Cmd+0 = remove all emphasis attributes including color. Shift+Cmd+0 = remove all Text-specific emphasis. C) Cmd+0 = remove all Text-specific emphasis.
Shift+Cmd+0 = remove all emphasis attributes including color. If you previously were voting about semantics and this changes your vote, please vote again. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Yoshiki Ohshima <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
|
|
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yoshiki, if you say it can be another key combination, then that would be a > vote for what I want.. > > There seems to be some confusion about what we're voting about. > > A) Don't care. > B) > Cmd+0 = remove all emphasis attributes including color. > Shift+Cmd+0 = remove all Text-specific emphasis. > C) > Cmd+0 = remove all Text-specific emphasis. > Shift+Cmd+0 = remove all emphasis attributes including color. > > If you previously were voting about semantics and this changes your vote, > please vote again. The trouble is that shift-0 has some other characters in different keyboards. I'd think that Cmd-0 should remove all emphasis attribute including color (clear and simple feature to a clear and simple place) and then some other key combination, and then find somewhat more obscure place to put the other feature. -- -- Yoshiki |
|
|
How about a three state toggle?
It seems Cmd+0 is less likely to be toggled back to "and back to everything it was before ... what ever it was". A three state toggle can suggest a progression from all attributes, to less attributes, to no attributes.
Just document the tri-state in the help. - Darius |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
B
|
|
|
B 2013/5/24 Tobias Pape <[hidden email]>
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
> A) Argh: I don't care [note: that's a fine opinion, but please do not reply]
> B) Bert: Cmd-0 should remove all text attributes > C) Chris: Cmd-0 should remove all text attributes except coloring +1 for B Stef |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |