Rethinking global shortcuts

[Mark]

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Aaron J. Seigo <aseigo at kde.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 7, 2013 14:32:06 Marco Martin wrote:
>> So an application could listen for global named shortcuts and then register
>> own if those are not enough
>
> +100
>
>> then shortcuts could all have names like
>>
>> org.kde.common.media.forward
>> org.kde.common.fullscreen
>> org.kde.workspace.switchDesktop
>> org.kde.workspace.closeWindow
>> org.kde.workspace.executeCommand
>> org.kde.application.amarok.shuffle (or some other own action that is not
>> under org.kde.common.*)
>
> nice idea indeed.
>
> though i wonder if we need reverse domain for everything, including built-ins?
> applications and add-ons would then use reverse domain to avoid collision. sth
> like:
>
> media.forward
> workspace.*
> org.kde.amarok.shuffle
>
> this is more terse, and prevents the "oddness" of a Qt or other application
> needing to use "org.kde.common.media.forward".
>
> if we are concerned about collisions with someone having "media.forward" as a
> reversed domain (unlikely imho), we could simply preface with a '.' as in
> ".media.forward"
>
>> when a new shortcut is registered it's checked for duplicates, if found the
>> user gets asked what to do with it:
>
> i'm concerned this will create a new source of notification spamming, followed
> by the need to figure out a complex question and give an answer. i just see
> this annoying more people than helping .. particularly as some people may not
> even be aware (or care) that some applications have shortcuts.
>
> so if we can at all avoid bothering the user ...

Perhaps only bother the user if there are two running applications
that both listen to the same global shortcut? That would limit
notifications to those situations where it''s useful to see a
notification.