GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 108689
Bind multiple keys to same command?
Last modified: 2006-04-01 19:19:18 UTC
It might be nice if this dialog allowed you to assign multiple shortcuts to the same command, or if at least the underlying framework supported it (maybe it does already, in which case close away :) E.g. on Solaris GNOME we have the Open key (aka F17) assigned to "Minimize", but this precludes the more standard Alt-F9 from working as well. We'd really like to assign both keys to the Minimize function, so that the user can still minimize their windows even if they're using a Solaris box with an Open-key-less keyboard. If we did this though, we'd need to incorporate some scheme for choosing which of the multiple shortcuts was shown on the window menu (in the case of window manager shortcuts).
This would be useful for supporting standard Windows Super+ shortcuts, for instance Super(windows key)+R normally opens the run dialog, Super+E opens the file manager (so, the home directory would be fine) etc etc.
Right... we have that problem in JDS today, where we'd like both Ctrl-Esc and Windows/Super to open the Launch menu. (We plumped for Ctrl-Esc only for now, but in my experience more Windows users actually use Windows/Super.)
This would definitely be a nice feature. However, there are problems to consider first. 1) I'm not clear what the ui would look like. Clearly the 1:1 mapping in the current treeview is insufficient unless we make the multiple bindings internal only 2) Some of the keys are currently implemented by changing the keysym to a symbolic name. It would look a smidge strange to have multiple keys with the same sym. Propose a solution and we add this
This bug is actually a symptom of the problem described in bug 144477.
*** Bug 139998 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This is especially a problem when you want to map the Start key on the keyboard to the Gnome application menu because there are two Start keys, and you can only map one since it distinguishes between left and right.
Bug #164831 contains discussion and some potential backend/UI design for this... can we close this as a dup?
*** Bug 164945 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 164831 ***