Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

devblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 250 posts

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#161

Post by registeredcorn »

tuetuopay wrote: post #93
donatj wrote: post #14

As someone who prefers tabs (I'm not looking to argue), I once asked Brendan Eich on Twitter why he prefers spaces. His answer was more thoughtful than I'd expected. The tab key itself is hijacked by modern OS/UI behavior. It makes it complicated to actually type literal tab characters in certain contexts, particularly in the browser. I still prefer tabs (and I'm a Go developer), but he is absolutely correct about th…

Yeah but, even ones that don't use literal tab characters use the tab key to write code, right? RIGHT? Like, does he hit space N times? I somewhat get the argument, but if you're writing code in the HN textarea you're doing something wrong (for code where tab/space matters anyways). Like, any code editor will use the tab key properly. Though, it sills maddens me there's no somewhat universal tab-entry in OSes like we…

> it sills maddens me there's no somewhat universal tab-entry in OSes like we have with enter

That's a good point!

Were it up to me, I'd probably say something like: Ctrl+`, or maybe ` followed by escape, or something like that. Maybe one of the function keys? Eh...most if not all of those have been hijacked to mean various inane and stupid things too. :/

Hmm...oh! How about: Caps Lock+Shift ? I'm using an ergonomic keyboard, but I think the button press would still work pretty easily. I assume most styles of keyboard would have both, so it wouldn't lock people out if they are writing in a different language, either.

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#162

Post by Nition »

wvenable wrote: post #136
Nition wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a Linux subsystem for Windows so we'll call it Windows Subsystem For Linux.

For trademark safety, this is the correct approach. You can say "Blah for XXX" and that's fine but if you say "XXX blah" then you can get into trouble.

Is this really true, or is it just something people have repeated enough times like 'nuclear Ghandi'?

I mainly ask because Microsoft has another product called Linux Integration Services: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=551...

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#163

Post by jasomill »

Animats wrote: post #44
ch_123 wrote: post #13

I find this story odd because IBM was consistent with their keyboard nomenclature across multiple products, and the 3270 series mainframe terminals used the Tab key, located in the same place where you would find a tab key on a modern keyboard, to move the cursor to the next field. https://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/3278/GA27-2890-4_3278_Disp... (Page 73 of the PDF) As an aside, it's worth noting that moving between f…

Here's a real IBM 3270 keyboard.[1] Note the "Next field" key on the left, and the matching "Previous field" key on the right. The IBM 3270 was a device for filling up forms. The mainframe sent the terminal a form with blanks, and the terminal let the user fill in the blanks. The terminal hardware prevented the user from overwriting the static parts of the form, and could apply some other form constraints, such as nu…

My favorite feature of 3270/5250-style keyboard layouts is the separate carriage return and Enter keys, allowing for multiline text entry without special handling to avoid conflicts with the command to signify that input is complete.

With only a single combined Enter/Return key, it's hard to remember in any given context whether Shift+Enter or Control+Enter will open up a new line instead of immediately sending a message, dismissing a dialog box, completing input into a particular spreadsheet cell, editable filename, text object in a drawing program, etc., or whether I need to copy/paste a line break from another application because no such shortcut exists at all.

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#164

Post by protocolture »

AndrewStephens wrote: post #124

IBM was legendarily over-managed. This is second-hand but a guy I used to work with told a story of when he interned for a summer at IBM in London during the mid-90s doing what would now be called a QA engineering. At that time everyone wore suits to work but the culture was changing so the interns put in a request to be allowed casual Fridays. Bear in mind that they were locked in a back room somewhere without any c…

I have a few of these.

I asked to be excepted from a contract condition giving IBM first pick on any IP I develop in my own time.

Keep in mind, I was working in one of their technical support call centres. I had no access to IBM proprietary information, I had no role in developing it, I was a complete non risk on this front. I had more access to customer systems, no access to RED or BLUE networks, just an IBM lotus notes account I could use to slowly download information from HR.

Everyone I could physically speak to looked at my request and went, hey that's a really reasonable request.

It took 6 weeks for the first no to come back, my direct manager, whose stats I was apparently holding in place, apparently tried to intercede, adding 2 further weeks for a review. The answer was still no. This had apparently gone up through one line of reporting across to the US, branched out into legal and came back down that path. It was crazy.

So I left, so I could work on a small software project with a friend without risking IBM having an interest in it.

Another one. The HR forms were all written in the early 80s and digitised sometime in the 00s. Our team, not being customer facing, was super diverse. I know there was an attempt to try and get the HR forms updated to recognise other gender/pronoun combinations. This took like 12 weeks to be reviewed, and I think the eventual no was based entirely on the fact that no one wanted to try and figure out whose job it was to update the forms. Our team was full of LGBT people, and retention of them appeared to be critical. Hard no.

Also, our sexual harrassment training came on tape (in the year of our lord two thousand and ten) and implied that it was the updated version, previously it might have been vinyl or something.

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#165

Post by wvenable »

Nition wrote: post #162
wvenable wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For trademark safety, this is the correct approach. You can say "Blah for XXX" and that's fine but if you say "XXX blah" then you can get into trouble.

Is this really true, or is it just something people have repeated enough times like 'nuclear Ghandi'? I mainly ask because Microsoft has another product called Linux Integration Services: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=551...

It's not a rule, it's just convention. Trademark law is about whether there is confusion about who made the product but not specific wording. Using "Blah For XXX" wording just makes it clearer.

"Tool for Windows" vs "Windows Tool"

The latter sounds much more like it could come from Microsoft. People repeat this because it avoids this confusion but it is not mandatory. A few projects on Github have had to be renamed because they've been challenged and the accepted solution from the trademark holder has has been to switch it around and become "for XXX".

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#166

Post by Nition »

wvenable wrote: post #165
Nition wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really true, or is it just something people have repeated enough times like 'nuclear Ghandi'? I mainly ask because Microsoft has another product called Linux Integration Services: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=551...

It's not a rule, it's just convention. Trademark law is about whether there is confusion about who made the product but not specific wording. Using "Blah For XXX" wording just makes it clearer. "Tool for Windows" vs "Windows Tool" The latter sounds much more like it could come from Microsoft. People repeat this because it avoids this confusion but it is not mandatory. A few projects on Github have had to be renamed b…

That makes sense, although in that case personally I would have named it Windows Linux Subsystem.

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#167

Post by jasomill »

robocat wrote: post #128
ch_123 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpick: The terminology used by IBM on the 3270 family (including the 3277 whose keyboard you shared) was "Tab" and "Back tab", not "Next field" and "Previous field".

Yes: Page 30 of The Operator's Guide for IBM 3270 Information Display Systems calls it a Tab key. Tab also has typamatic capability that allows you to move the cursor quickly from field to field. The Back Tab key moves the cursor back to the first character position in an input field. If the cursor is already in the first character position of an input field, and if you press the Back Tab key, the cursor will then mo…

This is correct. It's also worth pointing out that the 3270 defaults to overwrite rather than insert mode, and has an "Erase EOF" key that deletes all text from the cursor position to end-of-field.

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#168

Post by atl_tom »

AndrewStephens wrote: post #124

IBM was legendarily over-managed. This is second-hand but a guy I used to work with told a story of when he interned for a summer at IBM in London during the mid-90s doing what would now be called a QA engineering. At that time everyone wore suits to work but the culture was changing so the interns put in a request to be allowed casual Fridays. Bear in mind that they were locked in a back room somewhere without any c…

My dad was am IBM lifer, when they said they could wear suits that weren't black he wore a blue suit and his boss asked him if he rode the bus to work.

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#169

Post by amelius »

donatj wrote: post #14

As someone who prefers tabs (I'm not looking to argue), I once asked Brendan Eich on Twitter why he prefers spaces. His answer was more thoughtful than I'd expected. The tab key itself is hijacked by modern OS/UI behavior. It makes it complicated to actually type literal tab characters in certain contexts, particularly in the browser. I still prefer tabs (and I'm a Go developer), but he is absolutely correct about th…

CTRL+I?

Re: IBM didn't want Microsoft to use the Tab key to move between dialog fields

#170

Post by peterfirefly »

jjmarr wrote: post #123
toast0 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A usability feature that your users cannot use or know about doesn't increase usability. Cannot is maybe doing a lot there. There's plenty of usability features that aren't really obvious or apparent unless you look very closely. Ex: pinball machines have timed shots, but there's almost always a grace period so if you contact the ball with your flipper around when the timer hits zero and it makes the shot, chances…

You're missing the historical context. Prior to patents, inventions would commercialized as magic tricks and the mechanisms hidden. Then the inventor died and the secrets were lost. For example, Cornelis Drebbel air conditioned Westminster Abbey in 1620. King James I (of the Bible) thought it was a cool party trick. But there was little ecosystem to commercialize and Drebbel moved on with his life, trying to sell oth…

> + a submarine

We still don't know how he solved the problem of carbon dioxide build up. We know he solved it, though!

Post reply on HN