[comp.windows.x] knowing what's broken

janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) (12/08/90)

In article <1563@pai.UUCP> erc@pai.UUCP (Eric Johnson) writes:

       [A discussion regarding systems that have fewer than three mouse buttons
       and what to do about it, since so many X programs wrongly assume three 
       mouse (pointer) buttons are available...]

       No offense, but I really don't care what's considered broken and what 
       isn't. What I worry about includes time and hassles. How much time and

This is the kind of attitude that gives us all more hassles.  If the
writers of applications would stop to think about the possibility that
a user may have one-button, two-button, and three-button (or more)
mice, and make their application work properly in these cases, one
wouldn't have to worry about various work-arounds that may turn
otherwise-nicely-designed application interfaces into torture traps.
Doing it right, and knowing what *is* broken, saves us all some time.

Not that I have anything against vendors like H-P or Apple providing
ways of simulating three-button mice.

Bill
--
 Bill Janssen        janssen@parc.xerox.com      (415) 494-4763
 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California   94304