> you can't exit the dang "window selection" ... This
> just doesn't take with "switchers" like QS and
> LiteSwitch, where pressing escape cancels the
> selection pane, and you can get on with your
Have you ever tried pressing [escape]? Because actually, you can exit the window selector by pressing [escape]. Please refer to the "Switching Windows -- Advanced" section of Witch's documentation.
Moreover, you can configure Witch to always show a "Cancel" item at the top/bottom of its windows list.
> Once I get in the app, I expect to move around
> a simple list of items, as I would any other finder
> list - use the up and down keys!!
Have you ever tried pressing those keys? Because actually, you can navigate the window selector by pressing [up arrow], [down arrow], [return]/[enter], and the abovementioned [escape] key, of course. Please refer to the "Switching Windows -- Advanced" section of Witch's documentation once more.
Moreover, you can navigate the window selector with your mouse.
Do you think it's fair to complain about the absence of a feature without even checking if it's actually there?
> The interface options are cool, but it all seems
> like aqua overkill, and the author should focus
> more on the core features.
I tend to think that's just a matter of taste. However, I'd like to make two points here:
1. It is actually very important to many users to customize the looks of system utilities, such as Witch.
2. Providing users with some controls to customize the looks of Witch is easy. With modern development tools --such as XCode, for instance-- doing so doesn't take very long. Thus, you can rest assured that I didn't really have to take my focus away from the core features.
> The author really needs to set some limits to
> the user, instead of prompting them with a
> flimsy warning, about how setting the "escape"
> key as a shortcut could effect other
> applications... not smart, even if the user is.
While developing Butler and --most importantly-- dealing with feedback from Butler's users, I have learnt a few things about shortcuts (a.k.a. "hot keys"). And one of these things is: "do NOT restrict the range of possible key combinations". Most users know what they are doing, but the developer might not be able to anticipate what they are trying to achieve.
Here's an example: I have recently heard about a user who uses Butler to fake a [return] keystroke by pressing [enter]. (His [return] key is broken.) Honestly, I would never have thought of this way of using Butler. But it would have been impossible if I had restricted shortcuts in such a way that [enter] would not have been a valid option.