Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

One keyboard shortcut for review modes #3392

Closed
nvaccessAuto opened this issue Jul 31, 2013 · 15 comments
Closed

One keyboard shortcut for review modes #3392

nvaccessAuto opened this issue Jul 31, 2013 · 15 comments

Comments

@nvaccessAuto
Copy link

@nvaccessAuto nvaccessAuto commented Jul 31, 2013

Reported by ondrosik on 2013-07-31 18:39
Currently, we are using nvda+page down and page up for switching between rewiev modes. My idea is as follows: Use only one shortcut which will cycle between available modes. There are just three and sometimes only two available modes so cycling is not so time consuming. In addition, NVDA will not tell us "no next rewiev mode" and comfuse user to remember whichone was the lastone. We will also get one free binding.

@nvaccessAuto
Copy link
Author

@nvaccessAuto nvaccessAuto commented Jul 31, 2013

Comment 1 by driemer.riemer@... on 2013-07-31 19:48
+1

@nvaccessAuto
Copy link
Author

@nvaccessAuto nvaccessAuto commented Jul 31, 2013

Comment 2 by jteh on 2013-07-31 22:33
We did consider this. I'd certainly prefer this myself. However, it breaks backwards compatibility for existing users. As it is now, existing users get exactly the same as they always did.

We're now frozen for 2013.2, so this probably shouldn't be changed for that release. It might be something to consider again in future.

@nvaccessAuto
Copy link
Author

@nvaccessAuto nvaccessAuto commented Jul 31, 2013

Comment 3 by ateu on 2013-07-31 22:41
Hi

I agree with the reporter.
Some days ago, I've considered to open a ticket about this, but was missing time to do such.
i think the own users will like this, as I think to shortcuts will causes certain confusion.

@nvaccessAuto
Copy link
Author

@nvaccessAuto nvaccessAuto commented Aug 1, 2013

Comment 4 by briang1 on 2013-08-01 07:02
I'm easy either way myself, but one can at least leave as is and see if the idea gains ground later on.
Changes:
Changed title from "One keyboard shortcut for rewiev modes" to "One keyboard shortcut for review modes"

@nvaccessAuto
Copy link
Author

@nvaccessAuto nvaccessAuto commented Aug 2, 2013

Comment 5 by ondrosik on 2013-08-02 15:44
About backwards compatibility the nvda+page up should stay as the switcher, we should just leave nvda+page down.

@nvaccessAuto
Copy link
Author

@nvaccessAuto nvaccessAuto commented Apr 18, 2014

Comment 6 by nvdakor on 2014-04-18 08:06
Hi,
For keyboard commands, I recommend NVDA+Numpad plus so that NVDA+Numpad 1/7 for desktop can be free for future use. For laptops, I'd say NVDA+Backslash or something similar for cycle review command.
As for implementation: we sort of do have it already. One thing we need to worry about would be when switching from somewhere to a webpage and vice versa to avoid switching issue between object and document review modes.
I'm willing to work on it in May or June with collaboration from one or two other programmers (preferably a beginner so that we can pass down our expertise).

@nvaccessAuto
Copy link
Author

@nvaccessAuto nvaccessAuto commented Apr 19, 2014

Comment 7 by nvdakor on 2014-04-19 09:01
Hi,
To anyone implementing this feature:
I suggest the following steps:

  1. Modify review.nextMode() so that when we're at the end of the review modes list, go back to object review (first item in the review modes list).
  2. Add a new global command (possibly named switchReviewModes) that is a slight modification of reviewNext command. For backwards compatibility, it should be a separate command for now with a separte gesture.
    @jteh and @mdcurran: do you think there are consensus from others that this feature could go forward in development?
    Thanks.

@nvaccessAuto
Copy link
Author

@nvaccessAuto nvaccessAuto commented Apr 19, 2014

Comment 8 by jteh on 2014-04-19 10:26
If this is going to be implemented at all, the old commands should be removed. Otherwise, it just wastes possible keys. It should also be mapped to one of the existing keys to make the transition easier. Still, whether this should be done at all needs further thought.

@bhavyashah
Copy link

@bhavyashah bhavyashah commented Jul 22, 2017

Given that our concerns about consumption of keyboard shortcuts by NVDA has grown with NVDA's evolving feature set and functionality over time, and since @jcsteh did mention in 2013 that this could be reconsidered in the future, I would like to request discussion on the same while we are in the year 2017. As an NVDA user who started using NVDA in a big way post the flat review era, plus the fact that it has been several years that NVDA has adopted the more modern review modes approach as opposed to flat review, I doubt whether backwards compatibility would even be a worry. I agree with @josephsl that NVDA+PgUp/PgDn should be scrapped and something more generic and singular like NVDA+/ should be used. @leonardder @derekriemer @Qchristensen Thoughts?

@derekriemer
Copy link
Collaborator

@derekriemer derekriemer commented Jul 31, 2017

I see no reason from a usability point why we shouldn't do this.

@derekriemer
Copy link
Collaborator

@derekriemer derekriemer commented Jul 31, 2017

Closing in favor of #3958 because it's much more abstract. @feerrenrut do you know who should prioritize this?

@bhavyashah
Copy link

@bhavyashah bhavyashah commented Jul 31, 2017

@derekriemer
Copy link
Collaborator

@derekriemer derekriemer commented Aug 1, 2017

Nope, I need to mark it as a duplicate though. I have a comment explainin why I closed it, because #3958 is more abstract and general.

@bhavyashah
Copy link

@bhavyashah bhavyashah commented Aug 1, 2017

Figured. BTW, #3908 is not what you meant in your last comment. Feel free to edit.

@derekriemer
Copy link
Collaborator

@derekriemer derekriemer commented Aug 1, 2017

@bhavyashah commented on Jul 31, 2017, 9:00 PM MDT:

Figured. BTW, #3908 is not what you meant in your last comment. Feel free to edit.

Nice catch, thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants