From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (qmail 28481 invoked from network); 1 Jan 1999 18:55:25 -0000 Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239) by lists.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Jan 1999 18:55:25 -0000 Received: from sholmes.phx.primenet.com (root@sholmes.phx.primenet.com [204.245.17.238]) by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA12889 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 13:38:31 -0500 Received: from unknown ([192.168.1.2]) by sholmes.phx.primenet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA04964 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 1999 11:38:45 -0700 From: sholmes@primenet.com (Steve Holmes) To: blinux-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: the glass tty model of human-computer interaction Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 11:39:16 -0700 Message-ID: <368e13e0.311578919@192.168.1.1> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: I've always prefered using full screen or "visual" editors. I always found line editors to be too okward and clumbsy for me. My favorite editor of all time is the semware editor for DOS and programmers file editor for windows a close second. The linux or unix full screen editors such as VI or emacs, have navigation commands far less intuitive than their DOS / windows counterparts. On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 21:37:12 -0800, mikek24@concentric.net (Mike Keithley) wrote: >>so, if you are blind and have used a line editor, please tell me = whether >>you prefer line editors or visual editors. >> >I've used line editors on Compuserve and HPUX in the days when I was >using the VersaBraille. I never did like them because I always got >lost. Vi is much nicer through a VT100 terminal, even working through a >slow derial connection. -- Holmes Tempe, Arizona USA