Mouse Gestures in Javascript

christodd writes "I have become big fan of mouse gestures, a feature included in Opera, Mozilla, and MyIE2. There's even a plugin for IE. Other programs like StrokeIt and Cocoa Gestures are also based around the concept. I can't believe nobody else has thought of this before, but what about mouse gestures in javascript? Turns out that it is incredibly simple to implement, and really handy for those 'feature incomplete' web browsers. Unfortunately, for the total user experience, we'd have to upgrade the whole internet..."

Comments

FVWM

[Anonymous Coward]

dont forget fvwm, create your own mouse gestures, 'Strokes', and bind them to any action/command.

KICKS ASS.

Browser Level == Better

[dolo666]

I'm all for the idea of faster, better, stronger ways of browsing. I happen to think that mouse gestures and browser level code should be based in the browser, and controlled by the browser. Like look at all the gestures you get with Mozilla.

(mo: Don't invent the wheel: we have it already)

The problem I forsee with the jscript use, is a misuse of the mouse gesture jscripts by unethical sites. Because it's the planet Earth, and The Internet, half of the sites will impliment this correctly, the other half will use it as a joke, or for annoying adverts (browser interstitials) and thus cause the whole thing to be crap.

If it's at a browser level, websites can't fuck with it. So ideally, browsers will want to add the ability to block javascript mouse control, and promptly add this cool feature at a browswer level. I'm all for the idea of mousegestures, but I'm against the ability to tell a website to fuck off using them. (mo: KISS).

Re:Browser Level == Better

[Anonymous Coward]

I can easily forsee a new pop-up hell.

var calls=new Array();
calls['left']='launchAd()';
calls['left ->up']='launchAd()';
calls['right']='launchAd()';
calls['up->down']='launchAd()';
calls['up']='la unchAd()';
calls['up->left']='launchAd()';
calls ['up->right']='launchAd()';
calls['down']='launch Ad()';
calls['down->up']='launchAd()';
calls['do wn->right']='launchAd()';
calls['down->left']='la unchAd()';

function launchAd() {
newWin=window.open("http://www.adserver.com/ad. html", "Buy my product!");
newWin.focus();
return false;
}

Re:Browser Level == Better

[Zeinfeld]

The problem I forsee with the jscript use, is a misuse of the mouse gesture jscripts by unethical sites.

I think that is the problem with Jscript full stop. why netscape thought it a good idea to allow any site an almost arbitrary level of control over my browser is beyond me.

The idea of doing mouse guestures or any other browser extension in JScript, except as a demo is idiotic. The whole value of these systems comes from consistency. Apple do know some things about UIs, the value in the Apple UI is that every program work the same way and you don't have to spend lots of time relearning.

If I go to one site that has mouse guestures and then another that does not or worse implements them a different way ... yuk!

But back to the original issue, Jscript sucks. The command set should be partitioned according to the security considerations. Popping up a window has a significant security impact, it can be used to launch a trojan. The toolbars on the browser window are my toolbars, no web site should be able to disable them.

I use the feature of IE that allows Jscript to be turned off by default and enabled selectively site by site. But this is not as effective as it could be because you often come across idiotic sites using jscript for everything - including navigation. The idea being to force the site designers idea of a user interface down the user's throat.

Insert code with proxy...

[KrispyKringle]

Or you could have your filtering proxy (like Proxomitron or Privoxy) insert the JavaScript code on every page. Though personally, I'd just use a browser that suppots it.

Re:Insert code with proxy...

[yerricde]

if you can get proximitron or privoxy to insert javascript code into a jpg

I could do it if I knew proxomitron's or privoxy's architecture. Just rewrite links to images (as opposed to inlining of images) to wrap them in an HTML page.

Oh yay!

[xSquaredAdmin]

Another annoying feature that wannabe web designers can add! Oh well. At least I don't have to worry about it. *Makes sure Disable Javascript is checked*

Re:Oh yay!

[DeadSea]

I tried some of the mouse gestures on that page and they conflict with other things for which I use the mouse. For example, try selecting a paragraph of text on the page. It activates one of the mouse gestures causing the page to scoll.

Really annoying.

Re:Oh yay!

[dasmegabyte]

Word. The dumbest features ever thunk up by man are all tied to Javascript...the images that swirl around your cursor, preventing you from clicking on links. The script which loads everything at the same time, which means you wait forever for the one broken image. Cascading menus that don't disappear. Or do disappear, just as you are about to click on them.

And worst of all, blocking the right mouse button (or as I like to call it, "the button i use to navigate the fucking internet") in the name of "copyright protection." Every time I see this monstrosity, I download all of the images from the site, stick them in a zip file, and email it to the webmaster. "Your copyright protection didn't work. Neither did the mouse button I use to open links in a new window. One of these things can be easily fixed."

Re:Oh yay!

[PetiePooo]

... users like you who view the world in only black and white are going to slow down its adoption and dampen the usefulness of javascript webpages.

First off, see the comments above regarding accessibility and the hurdles it causes for accessibility.

Second, don't tell me (or xSquaredAdmin) how my browser should or should not be configured. That's one of my biggest pet peeves; seeing sites that say, for example, "Best viewed at 800x600 resolution on Internet Explorer." As if I'm going to tailor my system for your stinking little spot on the web.. Hah!

I suppose you're also the type that develops Flash intro screens with no way to bypass without loading Flash. I don't even have Flash installed. I refuse! I've seen too many annoying flash-based ads..

You've got to keep in mind the target audience of your website. The more technologically advanced they are, the more likely they are to fiddle with browser settings. I personally set my browser security settings pretty darn high and run things through Privoxy. If that messes up your website, so be it. That's a viewer that YOU lost through your attempt to introduce too much eye candy or dependancy on cookies/tags. My intent in doing this is specifically to, as you say, "slow down its adoption and dampen the usefulness of javascript webpages."

CN: lets do a poll. Lets see what percentage of our /. readers simply move on to another site when they hit a flash splash screen..

Re:Oh yay!

[PetiePooo]

Sure, Javascript has some useful features. Such as:

-- Hiding the real URL of a link as the mouse hovers over it. Real useful. Thanks.

-- Drop down menus. There are plenty of ways that do this without hiding the submenues from browsers used by the handicapped. Check into CSS (or even plain HTML!) for alternatives.

-- Opening/resizing/closing browser windows. I've got the capability of doing that myself, thanks. If I want to open it within a new tab, this "feature" prevents me from doing that.

-- Playing MIDI files while I view photos of your pet dog. AAaaaaiiieeeeeeee! (that's me screaming as I hit Alt-F4.)

Now that we have those out of the way, I admit that there are some useful features. However, for each feature, there are alternatives that, in my mind, provide just as good or better ways to do it. The potential for abuse is too great, and some browsers provide too few abilities to limit abuse while retaining the usefulness. Mozilla and Privoxy in combination are doing a decent job for me for now.

In effect, your second statement is what I'm saying by simply "Voting with my Back Button." If your web site annoys me, sometimes I'll give you the courtesy of emailing to tell you why I moved on. More often, I'll just silently move on.. and my $$$ goes somewhere else than feeding your progeny.

Its hard to make something foolproof; fools are so ingenious! The advertisers/spammers will always figureout someway to screw it up..

Re:Oh yay!

[dublin]

As a web developer myself, I feel that javascript's time has come (one third of mozilla is written in Javascript), but users like you who view the world in only black and white are going to slow down its adoption and dampen the usefulness of javascript webpages. Certainly 1/3rd of Mozilla isn't gimmicky cruft...

Six months ago, I thought JavaScript was a joke, a toy scripting language that just pretended to have real capbilities. I am now FIRMLY convinced that JavaScript may well be the MOST important asset that we have in opposing anyone's efforts to take over, control, or "proprietize" the web, as Microsoft and Macromedia are rolling ahead to do, with .NET and the new Flash.

Several reasons why I think JavaScript is the best choice for much app development today:

• Ubiquitous environment: It's the closest thing we have to a universal platform. There is nothing else that even approaches its ubiquity and reach. Mac, Windows, Unix/Linux, whatever, it's there and it just works. No other environment is so pervasive. Like the Bourne Shell in the Unix world, you can count on its presence and rely on it to get the job done, regardless of the platform. No other environment can credibly make that claim today, and I see no other real challengers on the horizon from a cross-platform point-of-view.
  
  
• Capability: There is very little you can't do with it (except the few things network-delivered code has no right doing in the first place, and that's a good thing!) In general, it's safer than Java because it's "sandbox" restricts it to the browser, limiting damage even if something does go wrong. In the better implementations (like Mozilla's) it is capable of absolutely staggering things - but doing so requires a good understanding not only of JavaScript, but also the DOM, CSS, and possibly XML. In reality, you need to know these things anyway, as they ensure your app is platform agnostic.
  
  
• Compatibility: There are far fewer problematic incompatibilities across all the varying JavaScript/JScript/ECMAscript implementations than there are across different versions of the JRE, for instance. If Microsoft would pay some attention to web standards in IE, much of what's pain now would go away. I'm convinced this is why they refuse to fix many obvious bugs - it would weaken their efforts to force .NET on their customers.
  
  
• Object Orientation: While not as snazzy as some other environments, JavaScript does have real objects, and you can do real oo work with it. I suspect the reason we haven't seen more acknowledgement of this is that the elite types turn up their nose at it before they even bother to find out what it can do... As Mozilla has clearly shown, JavaScript is up to doing the heavy lifting, and it's time for the effete snobs that claim otherwise to reassess their own bigotries.
  
  
• Ease of use: JavaScript is not a hard language to get started in. It's easy to do many useful and interesting things with little effort. There is even a huge and rapidly growing base of JavaScripts to be leveraged out there - nothing as comprehensive as CPAN, but several that, taken together, are close.
  
  
• Momentum: JavaScript is finally being recognized for its real abilities, rather than it's image as somethign best suited for only toys. Combined with the factors above, I think JavaScript is the most important development environment in the world today, and the only one that has a real chance of helping make sure that the web stays based on open standards and protocols.

If you still think JavaScript is a steaming pile, commit to spending a few dozen hours cheking out what it can *really* do before giving up on what may well be the best hope for the open, interoperable future that is of the greatest benefit to us all.

Re:Oh yay!

[Moraelin]

No, actually what you can count on, is that a helluva lot of us have it disabled. Why? Because:

(1) it is used for pop-unders, on-close pop-ups, taking control of the browser, changing my home-page, adding crap to my links, and other annoyances.

(2) because in reality it's not needed. I know that to every clueless manager and newbie web designer, it may look like "hey, cool, we can make our site an exciting experience." In practice, most of us _don't_ want an exciting experience, we just want a comfortable and familiar experience, and to have an easy time getting to the actual information. We actually _want_ the text black on white, the links blue, and we also want it all to download quickly.

The same, incidentally, goes for the idiots who make an information site in flash. Like I go to simply find information about a PS2 game. I want the _information_. But I'm treating to a flash bonanza, which:

- is uncomfortable to navigate, _and_

- forces me to browse with some tiny text, in some tiny window, instead of letting me use the whole 1600x1200 on this big monitor and zoom the fonts, _and_

- treats me to a 30 second wait to download each page

So it's not that I don't know what it can do. I know. I've programmed JavaScript. (Against my vocal protests, I might add.) It's that I don't _want_ it in my browser.

If you're a web designer, take a look at some of the most successful sites. Slashdot, Google or Amazon, for example. What do you see? Plain black-on-white sites, without any flashy effects, without horrible JavaScript navigation, etc. And people like them that way.

Again, what Joe Average wants on that site, is simply to get to the information. No more, no less.

And the easiest for him is to have a consistent interface, so he can apply his existing skills immediately, instead of figuring it out again for each page. (E.g., if links are always blue and underlined, Joe instantly knows which are the links. That's comfortable.)

Here's some more free clue, for those clueless marketroid types: a web site is not a publicity clip, nor a marketing brochure. If someone is already on your site, you got his attention already. Now what you want to do is let him get quickly and easily to the information. Forcing him to go through a horribly funky scripted interface, is already testing his patience. Forcing him to go through pages of marketing bulls**t before he gets to the actual info, doubly so. And taking control of his browser is the easiest way to royally piss him off. So unless you're one of those scammers who just want to install spyware, don't even _think_ about it.

"But how does he know the info is even there? We must advertise it to him! We must make him interested in reading it!", I can already hear some of the clueless marketroid crowd. Not so, my friends. If he's already on the site, you'll _only_ want to provide him with plenty of opportunity to _find_ that information, if and when _he_ wants it. Such as having a clear index of products/articles/whatever. That's good. Full text search is a must too. A site map is also good. Etc.

But do _not_ force-feed your ego to the customer.

Gestures == Handy

[deadmonk]

I did something like this a dozen years ago for a CAD program - was seriously happy stuff. In that environment, it was excellent to have the common operations mapped to simple gestures that could be done anywhere on the screen.

In the world of a clumsy third button on the mouse, it's a little stickier. Handy goodies, is about time someone cooked up the same ideas in a more 'portable' form.

Accessability

[goldspider]

While mouse-gestures sounds really neat to a lot of folks, 'features' like this only means more and more websites that are less accessable to people that require assistive technology such as screen-readers (most Javascript features are notorious for being inaccessable).

It would be nice if, for once, web technology was developed that made content more accessable to people with disabilities instead of less.

Re:Accessability

[josephgrossberg]

Furthermore, if the mouse gestures are simple enough, they could be triggered accidentally by users who have no idea why the browser just sent them back to their home page, when they really meant to highlight some text.

RSI

[Space cowboy]

I've never been much of a fan of mouse gestures. Whenever you see someone using them, there's a rapid flick of the wrist in some angled direction... that can't be good for you if repeated often...

In general I don't have much sympathy for RSI sufferers. (I was going to put sufferers in quotes, but thought better of it :-).

I use a keyboard something like 8 hours a day, and have done for the last 15 years, programming computers. If anyone is a prime candidate, it's me, and no RSI as yet. On the other hand, I'm reasonably careful - I don't hammer the keyboard, and I try to rest all my forearms on the desk in front of the keyboard. Sensible things to minimise the effect... unlike "gestures", which are just a disaster waiting to happen, IMHO.

Simon

Re:RSI

[rotomonkey]

Actually, my personal experience with mouse gestures has been the opposite. I have been using them fairly extensively in Maya for about six years now without problems. Because the gestures need only be approximate, I can execute them with a much more ergonomic arm movement than I can when I need to get the cursor to a specific pixmap to open a menu. In addition, the mouse actually travels considerably less distance when gesturing.

Granted, Maya can be an incredibly complex interface, with common tools appearing on a sub-menu of a sub-menu of a menu. You could make a strong case that a browser is a much simpler interface that doesn't need it, but I've found that I do start to develop wrist problems when I'm repeatedly using that nested menu item I'm too lazy to make a gesture for. When I'm gesturing, everything is fine.

For a pure coder, who spends a majority of their time pounding keys, gestures might seem frivolous, but if you mainly mouse, as is the case in graphics work, gestures can actually help reduce RSI.

Is that site supposed to be a demo?

[pointym5]

If that site is supposed to be a demo, it does not serve the purpose well; it doesn't work at all in Mozilla (1.5).

Re:... uses? ...

[Savagemutt]

Because moving the mouse all the way up to the "back" button is exhausting. Personally, I won't be satisfied until all computer control is done via blinking.

Pie menus

[Russ Nelson]

Actually ... mouse gestures are better implemented as Pie Menus.
-russ

Re:Pie menus

[eggz128]

And Mozilla users can get an excellent pie menu extention here .

Browsing just doesnt feel right without it :)

KDE 3.2

[10Ghz]

In KDE 3.2 you can control the entire desktop with mouse-gestures, not just browser.

Why this is stupid.

[cybermace5]

Honestly, it's a pretty stupid idea. Let me illustrate why: scroller mice. Once you get used to a scroll mouse, then you have to use a computer that just has a normal mouse, it's a major pain.

If you depend on every web page to implement mouse gestures, then you'll get this effect from page to page while you're browsing! It would be annoying to no end. And it's not an easily visible thing you can check for, unless each web page also uses some kind of cheesy "Gestures Enabled" logo. And each site might implement it differently, so that strokes mean different things from page to page. I repeat: stupid idea.

A user interface tool should be just that: part of the user interface. Just like a keyboard or mouse, gestures take time to become accustomed to. A user interface feature needs to act the same way no matter what you're doing.

Re:Why this is stupid.

[cybermace5]

I'm not slamming the concept of mouse gestures in general; some people like them and do find them useful. What I'm looking at here is making the user interface decision up to the web developer, and not the user. Going from page to page and either having mouse gestures, not having them, or having some wierd implementation; that's annoying.

It will be the final straw that kills Javascript (if this becomes slightly popular), as people will turn off Javascript in order to take back control of their user interface. I already have....

Re:Why this is stupid.

[cybermace5]

This is a user interface feature that randomly turns on and off or changes behavior, depending on which web page you're on. How popular do you think the mouse would be, if for random periods it switched directions, reversed buttons, or turned off completely?

My first ooops...

[Dave21212]

My first ooops with javascript gestures: I tried to select/copy the text to send it to a few pals so that in case (more like when) it get's slashdotted they can read it. I selected the text at the top, pulled down and to the right, and the window closed (as it should).

It only took a few seconds to notice the status bar at the bottom which indicates if a gesture will be activated when you release the click... keep an eye on that when using using these. You can see if the gesture is 'blank' = it's not going to run an action. Quite handy, pretty cool. I've already grabbed the .js file !

In other words == mo

[dolo666]

(mo: in other words, modus operandi, Mozilla)

Rather than say ie, which is a sick twisted way for Microsoft boobs to get in my head, I replace it with mo, for Mozilla. It doubles for the term modus operandi, but in a kind of twisted way to mean "in other words", or the "specific meaning".

Okay you can all laugh at me now.

Re:In other words == mo

[plumby]

The two aren't particularly equivalent - i.e. is short for id est - meaning "that is", or "that is to say".

Modus operandi, on the other hand, means "the way of working", not really applicable in your message.

Don't let Microsoft make you misuse your Latin abbreviations.
</pedant>

Re:In other words == mo

[metalhed77]

<pedant mode=Latin>

What the hell kind of pedant uses HTML 4 syntax? Quote all of your attribute elements! And don't forget your doctype either :)

Actually...

[interiot]

Actually... Mozilla's gestures *are* implemented in javascript. Download the Optimoz MozGest .xpi file (or find it on your hard drive), open the .xpi file in winzip, and there's all the .js implementation for it.

Re:... uses? ...

[etully]

I'm a HUGE fan of mouse gestures. I used them for 3 years with a program called Pointix on Windows - which I dearly miss now that I'm on Linux.

It worked at the OS level so the gestures worked in EVERY program.

Circle left was the back button in ANY web browser. Circle right was the forward button.
Right Click + Drag scrolled ANY window in the direction of the drag.

Text editors, email clients, spreadsheets, Photoshop. It worked everywhere because all the programs used a function in the OS for the scroll bars.

I could use my computer 10% faster - it made my life easier. How's that for a use? (I never use things just because "they're cool". That's not enough reason for me.)

It's been done!

[jvmatthe]

I can't believe nobody else has thought of this before, but what about mouse gestures in javascript?

Well, if that were only the case.

A quick search through the USPTO database shows that in fact Amazon has already claimed the mouse-gestures patent, specifically referencing Javascript. Not only that, but they've also patented the one-gesture purchase, apparently to be implemented on their site at some point in the future.

It doesn't stop there, however. IBM claims that they patented this back in the 1980s, but didn't specifically mention a mouse but rather a generic input device. And SCO, in one of their counterclaims, says that gestures are part of the original UNIX and that in fact there are over a million instances of copyright infringement in both IBM and Amazon's patent filings.

And, if only that were the end of it. Disney has jumped into the fray with claims that Steamboat Willie has mouse gestures in it, reducing this to a boiling cauldron of copyright, patents, and trademark issues.

Perhaps the author of the Javascript code should look more carefully into possible IP infringement issues before posting what amounts to a boast on Slashdot about how novel and clever they've been.

Hope this helps.

No, no, no, no, no. STANDARDS.

[websensei]

This is inane.

Repeat after me:
"Web Standards."

It belabors the obvious to point out that this will never be implemented my more than a tiny fraction of sites, that it actively interferes with normal point/click/drag behaviors (like highlighting text? click, drag left->right?) and that learning PER-SITE navigation is simply ridiculous.

It's not that no-one's thought of it before, it's that it's a bad idea on the face of it.

Re:No, no, no, no, no. STANDARDS.

[SeaGK]

You are absolutely right. Instead of trying to "patch" the sites (or the browser for that matter), we MUST insist in web (HTML) standards.
We would be much better off by sending (as I do if the site has any use to me) a polite request to the webmaster cc to the marketing/client relation dept. asking them to FIX the site so it would work in well behaved browsers.

Gestures are a Thneed.

[HomerJayS]

A Thneed's a Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need!
It's a click. It's a scroll. It's a forward. It's a back.

But it has OTHER uses. Yes, far beyond that.

You can use it for cookies. For bookmarks! For links!
Or reloads! Or about anything you can think!"

-- appologies to Dr Seuss.

Gestures... I don't get it

[Cereal Box]

I don't get the fascination with mouse gestures. Is it really that much more convenient than clicking a button or pressing a key? From the Mozilla gestures page:

View Source - Left-Down-Right-Down-Left (draw a squarish S)

Is right-clicking and choosing "view source" such a chore that you'd rather draw "S" shapes instead?

Reload (bypass cache) - Up-Down-Up

I dunno, pressing "F5" always seemed to work for me.

Personally I think the obsession with mouse gestures boils down to the typical geek fascination with things that, impractical and useless they may be, are just "exciting" for some reason.

Hey look, Slashdot implemented gestures.

Submit post - Left-Right-Up-Down-Down-Down-Up-Left-Down-Right-Up -Right. How did I ever live without these things?

You're right, but you're self-righteous

[ianscot]

In general I don't have much sympathy for RSI sufferers. (I was going to put sufferers in quotes, but thought better of it :-).

You're right that these "gestures" we're talking about do sound like exactly what the medical literature says causes RSI problems. Wrist-turning moves, over and over, are the basic cause of computer-related RSIs.

But your sample of one is a crock when it comes to dismissing everyone who has pain from this. Extremely useful "knowledge," that -- except all it does is arm you to dismiss other people and feel smug about not having been unlucky yourself. I used to work in bookstores in college, and some of the older clerks had RSI pain from shelving. Not something they were privileged to avoid in their jobs.

To think people are submitting articles to JAMA (003 Jun 11;289(22):2963-9 -- "Computer use and carpal tunnel syndrome: a 1-year follow-up study") trying to figure out whether carpal tunnel is associated with keyboards or mice or a combination. All we had to do was ask you and you could tell us it was a matter of being "reasonably careful." (Note -- those are quotes.)

Hey, guess what that study (and others) have indicated? It's mouse use, not the keyboard, that seems to be a main culprit. RSIs from computer use are almost always related to wrist movement. Trackballs (with a wrist rest especially) seem to be less problematic. Hmm, maybe we could use this information to prevent other people from undergoing a lot of pain, encourage trackballs instead... Oh, sorry, we don't have any sympathy for those people, 'cause they injure themselves out of a lack of common sense. No need to publish medical recommendations to guide businesses in their purchasing, for example. Morons. Let 'em "suffer."

Re:I personally find it aggravating...

[NickFitz]

yet another reason why javascript should be retired

And as I've asked before, is a virus written in C++ a reason why C++ should be retired?

You're right, you don't get it.

[freeweed]

Don't pick some of the more obtuse and complicated mouse gestures and then say "Hey, this sucks!" Of course you wouldn't like them if they were all like that!

I can't speak for Moz, as I haven't used it with gestures much, so this is Opera-related:

I'll tell you why mouse gestures rule. Page navigation. I tend to flip back and forth between pages a LOT, especially on sites like Slashdot. Click into a story, check out some comments, read a sub-comment, go back to the main story comments, go forward to see if I've read it correctly, go back, etc.

In Opera, going back and forth is a simple right-click and drag left or right, to go backwards and forwards in history respectively. MUCH nicer than constantly having to move mouse up the the back button, click. Move mouse down to comment link, click. Move mouse up to the back button, click.

Now, there may be keyboard shortcuts for back and forth than some people find handy, but for me, those 2 mouse gestures alone are like a scroll wheel. I'd never live without, and when forced to, it really, really sucks.

Really..? (was:RSI is not caused by keyboarding)

[Half-pint HAL]

Perhaps you don't know what really causes RSI. Keyboarding doesn't, or we would have seen RSI cases decades ago, long before computers existed.

Actually, current thinking disputes this. The reason RSI didn't affect typists (on mechanical typewriters) is due to the extra weight of the keys. The key return supplied enough movement that you wouldn't have to use any effort to lift your fingers the keys did it, whereas now you raise and lower the fingers in quick succession with a serious of poorly-coordinated muscle movements, causing pulling and straining. (This is also why most concert pianists find it impossible to play on a cheap Casio keyboard -- the poor return action means extra work leading to an inability to play fast.)

As an RSI sufferer (albeit mostly recovered) I find that I can't use a laptop keyboard for more than 15 minutes.

That said, I find the keyboard vastly preferential to the mouse. (I use the keyboard to navigate Windows menus -- there's a tip for the guy and his Maya gestures.) Also, one of the worst things I found was click-and-drag. The short travel buttons on a mouse need a not-inconsiderable amount of pressure to hold down....

Stupid.

[SharpFang]

Note MozGest adds much more functionality besides "moving the mouse".
- Rockers: Hold one button, press other to perform action
- Wheel rockers: Hold a button and rotate wheel to perform action
- Custom gestures: You don't like some? Remove it! You'd prefer it done otherwise? Modify assignment. You have a new amazing idea? Write it, bookmarklet style in "custom gesture" field. Pissed off with LMB disturbing with selection? Switch to RMB!

Plus for those who protest against "flick of wrist" - I think moving your hand 2mm left to launch "back" is less stressing than moving it 5cm, to reach the "back" button.

Problem: Performance. With multiple heavy pages opening, on average hardware, it slows down seriously and sometimes gestures don't get recognised.

Why'd they do it? Money.

[Inoshiro]

"why netscape thought it a good idea to allow any site an almost arbitrary level of control over my browser is beyond me."

It's 1994. The top of the line computers are 66Mhz. You want to market a server product that allows people to serve thousands of computers, without requiring super big iron support. You have a client program (Netscape Navigator) to go with your server product (Netscape webserver). Suddenly, it becomes clear to you -- distributed computing. Have the client side do some of the heavy lifting; it also allows other automation features on the client side not possible with HTML (at the time). You make this "Javascript" which is to other scripting languages as Java was to C and C++, and market it aggresively as a product solution.

Most people end up using it to have a trail of images after your mouse cursor, or the equivalent of xsnow ;)

Only now are people even bothering to say, "maybe I don't want web pages being able to do absolutetly anything via a scriptable interface" However, there are still beneficial uses for Javascript (such as making web forms "smarter" about doing a first check before submitting it [since it costs more CPU/transfer time for the server to do it, this saves modem users the pain of a typo returning an error page], or seeding things with values), I don't think it should totally be stripped out. Just redesigned with security in mind, ala Java applets.

"next page" tag in HTML?

[kavau]

What I'd much rather see is a "next page in a series" tag in HTML. Imagine reading a multipage article. At the end of the page, instead of finding that stupid link (which often seems to be where you least expect it), you could just press ALT-RIGHT (or right-click/next, or mouse:right-down, or whatever) to go to the next page. Maybe I could even configure my browser to automatically preload that next page.

HTML and all its extensions should focus on providing the document's contents and structure. The method of navigation is entirely up to the browser application, and should not be decided by the web designer.

Re:"next page" tag in HTML?

[Idarubicin]

Opera has already implemented this functionality in its newer versions. There's now a Fast Forward button on the toolbar. It's pretty good at figuring out what the next page should be. In Slashdot's site, it pulls up the comments for the next story; on Google it returns the next page of results. I don't know anything about the algorithm behind it, however.

Re:"next page" tag in HTML?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to imagine. It's been in HTML 4 spec for ages:
<LINK REL="next" HREF="url">
<LINK REL="prev" HREF="url">
So you should focus on learning and using existing standard instead of whining.

Reread what I wrote.

[Inoshiro]

" (your server MUST check input, forget about doing that in javascript)."

"(such as making web forms "smarter" about doing a first check before submitting it [since it costs more CPU/transfer time for the server to do it, this saves modem users the pain of a typo returning an error page],"

I did not say "Don't ever check on the server side." I said, "additional checking which allows users on slow links to not be punshed for typos that can be corrected by a little client-side scripting."

More checks are better than fewer.

Re:Smart forms... not for doing input checks

[Zeinfeld]

No, the best uses I've seen help with the flow between form elements when you Tab/Shift-Tab, focus/blur, etc... bring up hidden layers when you click a checkbox, bring the focus to a field when you mouse over a region but haven't started typing.

This could all have been handled much better with a declarative constraint based forms validation extension. Then the features you describe above could be built into the browser where they belong rather than being invented differently on every damn web site.