GNU bug report logs - #39847
Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as browser

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 39847 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 39847 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as browser
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 07:06:25 +0800

Please add to (info "(emacs) Text Scale"):

The reader might be wondering "Why can't I directly do C-+ like in my
browser? Why do I have to do C-x C-+? C-+ is unbound in emacs. What do I
have to bind it to to make it act like it does in my browser? I bet
binding it to something will then mess up C-x C-+ ... but that wouldn't
matter to me, as I would now have C-+." (Note C-+ equals C-=.)

"Why do I have to do something in .emacs to do this. Why don't the emacs
authors make that unbound key match other programs?"

Then the user might ask the same about C-- (CTRL+-).
The case is the same except that that key is already bound to something.

Message #8 received at 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Cc: 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#39847: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as
 browser
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 05:39:40 +0200

> From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson
>  <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
> Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 07:06:25 +0800
> 
> Please add to (info "(emacs) Text Scale"):
> 
> The reader might be wondering "Why can't I directly do C-+ like in my
> browser? Why do I have to do C-x C-+? C-+ is unbound in emacs.

We don't explain the rationale for key bindings in the manual, and I
don't think we should start doing that now.

Message #11 received at 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#39847: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as
 browser
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 13:23:52 +0800

>>>>> "EZ" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
EZ> We don't explain the rationale for key bindings in the manual, and I
EZ> don't think we should start doing that now.

See also #28182 .
http://emacs-fu.blogspot.com/2008/12/zooming-inout.html
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5533110/emacs-zoom-in-zoom-out

Well then just add the bindings. Thanks.

Apparently if users add them on their own it will mess things up.

Message #14 received at 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Cc: 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#39847: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as
 browser
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 17:45:18 +0200

> From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
> Cc: 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 13:23:52 +0800
> 
> >>>>> "EZ" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> EZ> We don't explain the rationale for key bindings in the manual, and I
> EZ> don't think we should start doing that now.
> 
> See also #28182 .
> http://emacs-fu.blogspot.com/2008/12/zooming-inout.html
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5533110/emacs-zoom-in-zoom-out

Those are very old.

> Well then just add the bindings. Thanks.

The Ctrl-mwheel bindings are already provided.

Message #17 received at 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#39847: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as
 browser
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 08:23:20 +0800

>>>>> "EZ" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

EZ> The Ctrl-mwheel bindings are already provided.

OK then all there is left is providing the keyboard bindings too.
Apparently it is not just a simple define-key job...

Message #20 received at 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jidanni <at> jidanni.org
Subject: Re: bug#39847: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as
 browser
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 22:37:23 -0500

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > > The reader might be wondering "Why can't I directly do C-+ like in my
  > > browser? Why do I have to do C-x C-+? C-+ is unbound in emacs.

  > We don't explain the rationale for key bindings in the manual, and I
  > don't think we should start doing that now.

I agree about that -- but I also wished that C-+ and C-- would scale
the screen, just a few months ago.

Perhaps we don't need C-- to make the argument negative.  Perhaps
it is enough that M-- does that.



-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Message #23 received at 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: rms <at> gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jidanni <at> jidanni.org
Subject: RE: bug#39847: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as
 browser
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 07:32:46 -0800 (PST)

> I also wished that C-+ and C-- would scale
> the screen, just a few months ago.
> 
> Perhaps we don't need C-- to make the argument negative.  Perhaps
> it is enough that M-- does that.

My preference would be against doing that.
It's true that `M--' does the same thing -
so we may not _need_ `C--'.  But Control
is very handy for prefix args.

---

There are lots of things that users are
used to with browsers, which conflict with
Emacs bindings.

Wrt zooming, my guess is that more users
use a mouse wheel to zoom in a browser (and
in other applications) than use C-(+/-).
I use that (mouse wheel) all the time in
Emacs to zoom.  For me it's handier than
`C-x +/-'.  (But different people prefer
different things.)

Message #26 received at 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#39847: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as
 browser
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 00:31:11 +0800

I don't want to have to pick up a mouse just to zoom text.

In all browsers I can do CTRL++ and CTRL+- to zoom and unzoom text.

If even in all browsers I can do it with just the keyboard, why should I
have to go find and plug in a mouse to do it in emacs, of all things?

Or, why... should I have to use the current "most curious" key sequence
to zoom text... for somebody's historical reasons.

So curious that it needs a big explanation in the manual, as no new user
would have imagined more keys than just CTRL++ and CTRL+- are needed.

And no recipe of how to untangle things shall ever even be documented,
until the very last user of "C-- to make the argument negative" kicks
the bucket or something.

Nope, no recipe of how a user could make emacs just use CTRL++ and
CTRL+- shall ever be added to the manual. As the user is supposed to
engineer it himself as if it was as simple as binding functions to keys.

Message #29 received at 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms <at> gnu.org,
 28182 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jidanni <at> jidanni.org
Subject: Re: bug#39847: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as
 browser
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 20:55:37 +0100

(Sending a copy also to Bug#28182 where this has been previously
discussed.)

Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:

>> I also wished that C-+ and C-- would scale
>> the screen, just a few months ago.
>> 
>> Perhaps we don't need C-- to make the argument negative.  Perhaps
>> it is enough that M-- does that.
>
> My preference would be against doing that.
> It's true that `M--' does the same thing -
> so we may not _need_ `C--'.  But Control
> is very handy for prefix args.

I suggest binding this to s-- and s-+.  Would that be an acceptable
compromise?  It would be backwards compatible, and these keys are
currently unbound.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message #32 received at 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 28182 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 rms <at> gnu.org, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#39847: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as
 browser
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 04:03:25 +0800

>>>>> "SK" == Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

SK> I suggest binding this to s-- and s-+.  Would that be an acceptable
SK> compromise?  It would be backwards compatible, and these keys are
SK> currently unbound.

It's a deal. As long as you also document how the user can also make
them c-- and c-+ safely.

Message #35 received at 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms <at> gnu.org,
 28182 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jidanni <at> jidanni.org
Subject: RE: bug#39847: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as
 browser
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 12:24:28 -0800 (PST)

> >> I also wished that C-+ and C-- would scale
> >> the screen, just a few months ago.
> >>
> >> Perhaps we don't need C-- to make the argument negative.
> >> Perhaps it is enough that M-- does that.
> >
> > My preference would be against doing that.
> > It's true that `M--' does the same thing -
> > so we may not _need_ `C--'.  But Control
> > is very handy for prefix args.
> 
> I suggest binding this to s-- and s-+.  Would that be an acceptable
> compromise?  It would be backwards compatible, and these keys are
> currently unbound.

If you're asking me, then my answer is no.  I
don't see how it would be a compromise (at all),
and I don't see how it would be backward
compatible.  How so?

My reasons against this proposal:

1. It doesn't help with the argument currently
   being given, which is that users are used to
   `C-+/-'.  `s-+/-' doesn't help at all, given
   such a habit, does it?

2. We already have `C-x +/-'.  Why would we need
   or want two such sets of keys, by default?

3. Given the choice (if we were to pick only one)
   between `C-x +/-' and `s-+/-', the former is
   better, IMO:

   a. It's been the default binding for a long time;
      Emacs users are already used to it.
   b. Some platforms may not have a `Super' modifier
      key, by default.
   c. Using a repeatable key (`+/-') that's on a
      prefix key doesn't waste a repeatable key that's
      not on a prefix key.  IOW, if on a prefix key,
      `+/-' remains available without the prefix key,
      for some other repeatable action (by "repeatable",
      here, I mean by just holding down a key).
   d. If `+/-' is on keymap `ctl-x-map' then it's easy
      to move or copy it and the other keys on that
      map to another prefix key.

Just one opinion.

Message #38 received at 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms <at> gnu.org,
 28182 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jidanni <at> jidanni.org
Subject: Re: bug#39847: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as
 browser
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 21:51:36 +0100

Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:

> I don't see how it would be backward
> compatible.  How so?

I mean that it would not change the current binding for C--.

> 1. It doesn't help with the argument currently
>    being given, which is that users are used to
>    `C-+/-'.  `s-+/-' doesn't help at all, given
>    such a habit, does it?

I personally agree with Richard that C-- and C-+ is a better default
and I also think it's okay if negative prefix argument is only on M--.
However, Eli has stated in Bug#28182 that he doesn't want a backward
incompatible change.

AFAICT, s-- and s-+ has some precedence.  It's used in Sublime
Text.  Atom and VSCode use C-- and C-+.  This is from searching the
web.

> 2. We already have `C-x +/-'.  Why would we need
>    or want two such sets of keys, by default?

Familiarity and ease of use.  BTW, we have more than two such keys:

     C-x C-+         text-scale-adjust
     C-x C--         text-scale-adjust
     C-x C-0         text-scale-adjust
     C-x C-=         text-scale-adjust

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message #41 received at 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 28182 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 rms <at> gnu.org, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#39847: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as
 browser
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 05:04:06 +0800

>>>>> "SK" == Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:
SK> AFAICT, s-- and s-+ has some precedence.  It's used in Sublime
SK> Text.  Atom and VSCode use C-- and C-+.

Never heard of them. But I heard of Chrome.

Message #44 received at 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rms <at> gnu.org,
 28182 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jidanni <at> jidanni.org
Subject: RE: bug#39847: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as
 browser
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 13:13:08 -0800 (PST)

> > I don't see how it would be backward
> > compatible.  How so?
> 
> I mean that it would not change the current binding for C--.

I see.  Yes, thanks.  (You meant that,
unlike changing C-+/-, it wouldn't be
backward incompatible.)

> > 1. It doesn't help with the argument currently
> >    being given, which is that users are used to
> >    `C-+/-'.  `s-+/-' doesn't help at all, given
> >    such a habit, does it?
> 
> I personally agree with Richard that C-- and C-+ is a better default
> and I also think it's okay if negative prefix argument is only on M--.
> However, Eli has stated in Bug#28182 that he doesn't want a backward
> incompatible change.
> 
> AFAICT, s-- and s-+ has some precedence.  It's used in Sublime
> Text.  Atom and VSCode use C-- and C-+.  This is from searching the
> web.

OK, but it won't help with a habit of using
`C-+/-' to zoom.  That was my point here.

> > 2. We already have `C-x +/-'.  Why would we need
> >    or want two such sets of keys, by default?
> 
> Familiarity and ease of use.

That might be an argument for switching to `s-+/-'
_instead_ of `C-x C-+/-' (familiarity, at least
for Sublime users).  But I don't see how it argues
for having both, by default.

> BTW, we have more than two such keys: 
>      C-x C-+         text-scale-adjust
>      C-x C--         text-scale-adjust
>      C-x C-0         text-scale-adjust
>      C-x C-=         text-scale-adjust

Yes.  And the `C-0' behavior would still be
needed, using some key sequence.

Which is (IMO) another argument against using
`C-+' and `C--'.  `C-x' followed by `C--',
`C-0' or `C-+' kinda makes sense (mnemonic).
Where would we put the `C-0' behavior, for
the proposal to change to `C-+/-'?

Likewise, for convenience, a `s-=' alias
would also still be needed/wanted for `s-+',
for the same reason - no need to use `Shift'.

So we would be talking about some key (maybe
`s-0'?) for what `C-x C-0' does, plus
sacrificing `s-+', `s-=', and `s--'.  So four
keys.

Plus apparently keeping `C-x C--', `C-x C-0',
`C-x C-+', and `C-x C-='.

Message #51 received at 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: rms <at> gnu.org, jidanni <at> jidanni.org, 39847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 28182 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,
 Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#39847: Document how users can make text-zoom keys same as
 browser
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 14:08:26 +0200

It was suggested to bind `s-+' / `s--', but as many (most?) computers
don't have that keystroke, I don't think that's a solution.

And, as explained many times, we can't rebind `C--' and therefore we
can't rebind `C-+'.

So I'm closing this bug report.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.