After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 653094 - Navigation of application search with direction keys
Navigation of application search with direction keys
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 640779
Product: gnome-shell
Classification: Core
Component: general
3.0.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gnome-shell-maint
gnome-shell-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2011-06-21 10:38 UTC by Simon Booth
Modified: 2011-06-21 10:57 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Simon Booth 2011-06-21 10:38:22 UTC
When searching for applications, the filtered list is only navigable with u/d arrow keys, not l/r.


On fc15 using a short search which returns a number of applications and settings, I would expect l/r direction keys to navigate left & right through the applications, and the down direction key to move down a row to settings (or recent files etc). Instead, one must use the down arrow key to tab right through the applications to get to settings (or recent docs).  Similarly, if only a few apps are returned by the search, you must use the u/d to navigate left and right rather than l/r direction keys.

It seems counter-intuitive (to me at least) to use up and down keys to move left and right, whilst left and right keys have no function.
Comment 1 Milan Bouchet-Valat 2011-06-21 10:57:46 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> It seems counter-intuitive (to me at least) to use up and down keys to move
> left and right, whilst left and right keys have no function.
No function? Think about it a little more: they're actually used by the search entry. ;-)

We already bumped into this silly detail some time ago. It was already said that the arrow keys aren't that useful in the search entry, but no decision has been made so far.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 640779 ***