GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 611739
Allow activating typeahead fine without '?' press
Last modified: 2010-03-03 22:35:19 UTC
Created attachment 155160 [details] Part of Banshee, where I would like to enter names directly. Steps to reproduce: 1. Select a list of music in the left column. 2. Click in the album list or in the artist list 3. Type the first letters of your favorite album/artist. Expected behaviour: The album/artist will be selected. Current behaviour: The key strokes are interpreted as commands and will be executed. The behaviour is unknown and not expected. Other applications (in every Gnome drop-down-box) choose the options. This enhancement would increase usability and smoothens the experience with Gnome and Banshee.
This is supported, but you have to type '?' first (aka shift-/ on an en-US keyboard). It was introduced in Banshee 1.5.3. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 399655 ***
Thanks Gabriel for this hint. I'm afraid I don't think this is the expected behaviour. I would never have guessed to type '?' and then search for the artist. It will work for me, but it's not an expected behaviour. Isn't it possible to implement this without the ? key?
Guerda: maybe, but it's tricky since Banshee uses single chars as keybindings - eg space pauses/plays. See the duplicate bug for a more in depth discussion.
Hm... I see it's tricky. I'm a simple user, not a Banshee developer, so I can talk naive about internal behaviour... Would it work if the commands were deactivated, if one of the two controls are focused?
Yeah, that could work. One concern w/ doing that is it could be confusing and decrease the value of those one-button shortcuts. I'll re-open this and re-title it, to make it about getting rid of the ? requirement.
In that case, this is actually a duplicate of 608897. Thanks for the bug report. This particular bug has already been reported into our bug tracking system, but please feel free to report any further bugs you find. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 608897 ***
Oops, or maybe not 608897. How about 608879? *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 608879 ***