Assigning hot keys to programs

On 12/12/2019 10:32 AM, Zaidy036 wrote:
On 12/12/2019 10:26 AM, Zaidy036 wrote:
On 12/12/2019 8:48 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/12/19 3:43 AM, wasbit wrote:
"Monty" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:42:49 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

Kind of disappointing to find out there's no way to assign a hot key
directly to the program file, unless I've missed something.

The hot key has to be done to a desktop shortcut.Â* And if the
shortcut
is not on the desktop, the hot key doesn't seem to work.Â* I even
tried
putting the shortcuts in a folder on the desktop.

The goal is to minimize the number icons on the desktop, not increase
them.

Any ideas on how to do this?

I do something similar to what you appear to be aiming to do.

Firstly, I created a desktop icon which I labelled " Little Used
Programs ".

Then I dragged all the icons I didn't want on the desktop and dropped
them onto the "Little Used Programs" icon.Â* I now have 51 icons in
that container.

To use any of those 51 programs, a single click (or double click if
required on your PC) on the "little Used Programs" icon opens up a
container with 51 icons.Â* Then a single click on any of those icons
will start the program belonging to that icon.

So I have one icon on my desktop which will allow me to choose from a
list of 51 programs.


I do similar using a created folder called Desktop Shortcuts &
populate it
with 'send to' shortcuts from each exe file.
Desktop currently has 40 shortcuts & about the same in the shortcuts
folder.
I call this basic housekeeping

I tried this already.Â* But when I move the icons from the desktop to
the folder, the hot key stops working.Â* It doesn't seem to matter if
I create the hot key before moving, or after moving, once the
shortcut is in the folder, and the system is rebooted, the hot key no
longer works.

I haven't tried this on a different system, in case there's something
weird there.


Make a batch file to do the hot key action and then a shortcut to it
in the "one folder".

Another alternative is StartDock''s ObjectDock which I find very
convenient.

Another alternative: Google "folder to toolbar"


FileBox eXtender
https://www.hyperionics.com/files/
may work on Win 10

--
Zaidy036

On 12/12/19 7:27 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"Ken Springer" wrote

| The need is to simplify program launching without having to find and
| click on an icon. Especially on smaller displays.
|
| And a solution that simple, as I may help others do similar.
|

I came up with a solution I call "Start Menu". I click
in the lower left and it opens a set of submenus
with names like Utilities, Media, Graphics, Office, etc.
All the programs I use are on those submenus. No need
to remember a hotkey combo.... You're welcome... Yes,
I am brilliant.

Oh! Gag me with a spoon! ROFL

(Actually, I almost always use Quick Launch. Those
sgortcuts are always visible with no clicking. I only
go to Start Menu for things I use less often.)

I used to love the Quick Launch bar, too. But, the sad truth is, I have
a hard time telling one small icon from another. And, I'm not the only
one. As a result, everything on the screen is now larger.

But now there's less space on the screen for icons. So I'm looking at
ways in the OS to compensate for the less screen real estate. This
problem really affects smaller laptop screens.

But if you want to do things the hard way....
I wrote a little test program and confirmed that a program
started from a hotkey gets no command line. That means
you can't just use one shortcut to a program that will
shell another. But there are things like AutoHotKey. I've
never used such a program and I'm not sure exactly how they
work. It sounds rather Rube Goldberg-esque to me. But
apparently it will do what you want if you don't mind a 4-key
hotkey.

Or, a simple macro recorder!!! Thank you! This is an option that had
never occurred to me!

This is an example of what brainstorming can accomplish.

Making changes to the Start Menu also helps.

My guess is that such a program installs a global keyboard
hook. Which means it gets access to all keystrokes, regardless
of what window has focus. Then, if you type the signal
combination it will check its list, start up the program that
accords with that combination, and "eat" the keystrokes by
not passing them along to be sent to the focused program.
So you just have to set up the hotkeys you want and that
program will run in the background, watching for a hotkey
combo. (A keyboard hook is common and harmless as long
as it's not malware and is written properly. It just inserts
a process into something like a bucket brigade of Windows
messages. The "intelligence" of programs works through
system messages that allow software to know when typing,
clicking, etc happen. A hook gets set into the message
system itself and gets first dibs on all messages of the
requested type.)

That's the only way I can see it working. If Explorer were
to do what you want then it would have to do a full file
search of LNK files on the system and check to see whether
any of them are activated by what you just typed. That would
be horrendously involved.

What I don't understand, why doesn't MS just make it work on the program
file itself, rather than the shortcut?


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

"Ken Springer" wrote

| I used to love the Quick Launch bar, too. But, the sad truth is, I have
| a hard time telling one small icon from another. And, I'm not the only
| one. As a result, everything on the screen is now larger.
|
Are you aware the QL context menu has View options?

| But now there's less space on the screen for icons. So I'm looking at
| ways in the OS to compensate for the less screen real estate. This
| problem really affects smaller laptop screens.
|
With sight problems why are you using a laptop? I got
a 27" monitor awhile back. Very nice.

On 12/12/19 2:55 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Ken Springer" wrote

| I used to love the Quick Launch bar, too. But, the sad truth is, I have
| a hard time telling one small icon from another. And, I'm not the only
| one. As a result, everything on the screen is now larger.
|
Are you aware the QL context menu has View options?

| But now there's less space on the screen for icons. So I'm looking at
| ways in the OS to compensate for the less screen real estate. This
| problem really affects smaller laptop screens.
|
With sight problems why are you using a laptop? I got
a 27" monitor awhile back. Very nice.

This research is for helping others, and so many, especially seniors,
have laptops.

My main monitors (2 ea.) are 24" 16:10 aspect ratio, ISP panel. I
would like to have 27", but physical space prevents that.

You may remember me mentioning a lady I'm currently helping, I really
think a 32" monitor would be best, but she has the same type of space
problem. So we'll be forced to "make do" with a 24" monitor.

--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:50:32 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 12/11/19 10:41 PM, Monty wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:42:49 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

Kind of disappointing to find out there's no way to assign a hot key
directly to the program file, unless I've missed something.

The hot key has to be done to a desktop shortcut. And if the shortcut
is not on the desktop, the hot key doesn't seem to work. I even tried
putting the shortcuts in a folder on the desktop.

The goal is to minimize the number icons on the desktop, not increase them.

Any ideas on how to do this?

I do something similar to what you appear to be aiming to do.

Firstly, I created a desktop icon which I labelled " Little Used
Programs ".

Then I dragged all the icons I didn't want on the desktop and dropped
them onto the "Little Used Programs" icon. I now have 51 icons in
that container.

What does "container" mean, in this case? The explanations I've found
all make it sound similar to a VM,


My dictionary (WordWeb Pro} has these definitions -
(definitions 1. and 2. are not relevant)

3. (computing) an instance of a data type that contains other objects


As I mentioned earlier, on my main PC I created an icon called
Little Used Programs and then relocated 51 icons which can be accessed
in Little Used Programs. That means that the space taken up by 51
programs now occupies the same space as one icon.

I have posted a picture (from a different PC where only 15 icons are
involved for demo purposes) to https://postimg.cc/2Lrzcz7P
Clicking any of those icons will fire up the program of your choice.

If this is what you are after, then go for it. Other people may offer
different suggestions - the choice is yours, of course. My objective
seems similar to yours but there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Good luck

On 12/12/19 4:40 PM, Monty wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:50:32 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 12/11/19 10:41 PM, Monty wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:42:49 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

Kind of disappointing to find out there's no way to assign a hot key
directly to the program file, unless I've missed something.

The hot key has to be done to a desktop shortcut. And if the shortcut
is not on the desktop, the hot key doesn't seem to work. I even tried
putting the shortcuts in a folder on the desktop.

The goal is to minimize the number icons on the desktop, not increase them.

Any ideas on how to do this?

I do something similar to what you appear to be aiming to do.

Firstly, I created a desktop icon which I labelled " Little Used
Programs ".

Then I dragged all the icons I didn't want on the desktop and dropped
them onto the "Little Used Programs" icon. I now have 51 icons in
that container.

What does "container" mean, in this case? The explanations I've found
all make it sound similar to a VM,


My dictionary (WordWeb Pro} has these definitions -
(definitions 1. and 2. are not relevant)

3. (computing) an instance of a data type that contains other objects

I looked up container in Wikipedia, and the article there says container
is similar to a VM. Your image simply looks like a folder, to me.

The latest Mac OS uses container in their system too, and it isn't a
folder, from what I can tell. But I haven't had the time to try to
figure out just what a container is when it comes to the latest Mac OS.
And, it may be tied to Apple's latest HD filesystem.

So, maybe we are talking the same thing, but using different words.
(Sometimes the English language really sucks! LOL)

As I mentioned earlier, on my main PC I created an icon called

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are actually doing when you say you
"created an icon".

Little Used Programs and then relocated 51 icons which can be accessed
in Little Used Programs. That means that the space taken up by 51
programs now occupies the same space as one icon.

I have posted a picture (from a different PC where only 15 icons are
involved for demo purposes) to https://postimg.cc/2Lrzcz7P
Clicking any of those icons will fire up the program of your choice.

The image you posted looks like a simple folder, to me. If my thought
above is correct, and what I am calling a folder you are calling a
container, then that doesn't work. As soon as I put the desktop
shortcut om the folder, the hot key is broken.

I just noticed this... The icons in your screenshot are not the normal
shortcut icon. They look like regular icons. Shortcut icons have the
bent arrow in the lower left corner.

If this is what you are after, then go for it. Other people may offer
different suggestions - the choice is yours, of course. My objective
seems similar to yours but there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I think we are trying to do the same idea, just a different method. I'm
trying to use shortcuts w/ hot key capability, and it looks like you are
using program icons. Program icons do not have a shortcut options when
you click Properties. At least, I've yet to find one.


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/12/19 2:55 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Ken Springer" wrote

| I used to love the Quick Launch bar, too. But, the sad truth is, I
have
| a hard time telling one small icon from another. And, I'm not the only
| one. As a result, everything on the screen is now larger.
|
Are you aware the QL context menu has View options?

| But now there's less space on the screen for icons. So I'm looking at
| ways in the OS to compensate for the less screen real estate. This
| problem really affects smaller laptop screens.
|
With sight problems why are you using a laptop? I got
a 27" monitor awhile back. Very nice.

This research is for helping others, and so many, especially seniors,
have laptops.

My main monitors (2 ea.) are 24" 16:10 aspect ratio, ISP panel. I
would like to have 27", but physical space prevents that.

You may remember me mentioning a lady I'm currently helping, I really
think a 32" monitor would be best, but she has the same type of space
problem. So we'll be forced to "make do" with a 24" monitor.


They make 4K monitors at 24".

"Ultra HD 3840 x 2160 resolution"
https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Monitor-.../dp/B00PC9HFNY

Needs a new video card (HDMI2 or DP1.4 or the like).
Don't buy without verifying specs of sender and receiver.

Whether that's helpful, I don't know enough about eye defects
to know when that isn't a good idea. But it does allow
squeezing a lot of pixels into a small space.

Paul

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

Then I dragged all the icons I didn't want on the desktop and dropped
them onto the "Little Used Programs" icon. I now have 51 icons in
that container.

What does "container" mean, in this case? The explanations I've found
all make it sound similar to a VM,

given the context, it's almost certainly a folder.

My dictionary (WordWeb Pro} has these definitions -
(definitions 1. and 2. are not relevant)

3. (computing) an instance of a data type that contains other objects

I looked up container in Wikipedia, and the article there says container
is similar to a VM. Your image simply looks like a folder, to me.

the term 'container' normally refers to docker:
https://www.docker.com/resources/what-container

The latest Mac OS uses container in their system too, and it isn't a
folder, from what I can tell. But I haven't had the time to try to
figure out just what a container is when it comes to the latest Mac OS.
And, it may be tied to Apple's latest HD filesystem.

app sandbox, and it's been around for many years.

So, maybe we are talking the same thing, but using different words.
(Sometimes the English language really sucks! LOL)

As I mentioned earlier, on my main PC I created an icon called

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are actually doing when you say you
"created an icon".

given the context, it's almost certainly a folder.

Little Used Programs and then relocated 51 icons which can be accessed
in Little Used Programs. That means that the space taken up by 51
programs now occupies the same space as one icon.

I have posted a picture (from a different PC where only 15 icons are
involved for demo purposes) to https://postimg.cc/2Lrzcz7P
Clicking any of those icons will fire up the program of your choice.

The image you posted looks like a simple folder, to me. If my thought
above is correct, and what I am calling a folder you are calling a
container, then that doesn't work. As soon as I put the desktop
shortcut om the folder, the hot key is broken.

the screen shot is further proof he means a folder.

On 12/12/19 6:52 PM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/12/19 2:55 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Ken Springer" wrote

| I used to love the Quick Launch bar, too. But, the sad truth is, I
have
| a hard time telling one small icon from another. And, I'm not the only
| one. As a result, everything on the screen is now larger.
|
Are you aware the QL context menu has View options?

| But now there's less space on the screen for icons. So I'm looking at
| ways in the OS to compensate for the less screen real estate. This
| problem really affects smaller laptop screens.
|
With sight problems why are you using a laptop? I got
a 27" monitor awhile back. Very nice.

This research is for helping others, and so many, especially seniors,
have laptops.

My main monitors (2 ea.) are 24" 16:10 aspect ratio, ISP panel. I
would like to have 27", but physical space prevents that.

You may remember me mentioning a lady I'm currently helping, I really
think a 32" monitor would be best, but she has the same type of space
problem. So we'll be forced to "make do" with a 24" monitor.


They make 4K monitors at 24".

"Ultra HD 3840 x 2160 resolution"
https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Monitor-.../dp/B00PC9HFNY

Needs a new video card (HDMI2 or DP1.4 or the like).
Don't buy without verifying specs of sender and receiver.

Whether that's helpful, I don't know enough about eye defects
to know when that isn't a good idea. But it does allow
squeezing a lot of pixels into a small space.

Well, isn't this interesting... Based on the model number, I'd be
willing to bet the monitor is actually made by Asus, as the numbering
scheme appears to be identical. I'm using an Asus monitor, and the
model number is PA248. There's a couple more letters, but I don't
remember them.

Visited the Dell page and found something interesting. It says the
maximum resolution is 1280 X 1026. But native resolutions is 3840 X 2860.

Dell's info buttons say

"Maximum Resolution
Maximum resolution refers to the highest number of pixels that a screen
can process and display. Higher resolution signals produce more detailed
images."

"Native Resolution
Native resolution of a screen refers to its single, fixed resolution.
Sometimes screens must scale an image up or down in order to fit the
native resolution. This can cause a loss of resolution or detail.

I don't see any inputs listed other than HDMI, on either the Dell or
Amazon page. But the Dell page does say a display port cable is
included, so at least 2 ports are available.

The monitor is also no longer available in new condition from Dell. The
new ones available on Amazon are all $400+, more than what I paid for
this Asus PA248.

If you are into graphics, I'd bet this monitor would be a real giant
killer!!

However, for eye issues, often the most important thing is, how large
physically can you make the text display? For that, a physically larger
monitor with fewer pixels will work better. More pixels would make the
text sharper, but sharpness won't make up for not being able to see it.


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

However, for eye issues, often the most important thing is, how large
physically can you make the text display? For that, a physically larger
monitor with fewer pixels will work better. More pixels would make the
text sharper, but sharpness won't make up for not being able to see it.

yes it will. make the font as big as needed. more pixels doesn't always
mean smaller.

On 12/12/19 8:06 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

However, for eye issues, often the most important thing is, how large
physically can you make the text display? For that, a physically larger
monitor with fewer pixels will work better. More pixels would make the
text sharper, but sharpness won't make up for not being able to see it.

yes it will. make the font as big as needed. more pixels doesn't always
mean smaller.

Not if the monitor's physical size prevents making the text large enough
and still have a display that is usable.


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:


However, for eye issues, often the most important thing is, how large
physically can you make the text display? For that, a physically larger
monitor with fewer pixels will work better. More pixels would make the
text sharper, but sharpness won't make up for not being able to see it.

yes it will. make the font as big as needed. more pixels doesn't always
mean smaller.

Not if the monitor's physical size prevents making the text large enough
and still have a display that is usable.

someone would need to have really bad vision for that to be a problem.

more pixels, particularly when they're smaller than what the human eye
can resolve, makes both graphics and text sharper, independent of the
size of the display, which is desirable for all users, not just those
with vision issues.

On 12/12/19 8:34 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:


However, for eye issues, often the most important thing is, how large
physically can you make the text display? For that, a physically larger
monitor with fewer pixels will work better. More pixels would make the
text sharper, but sharpness won't make up for not being able to see it.

yes it will. make the font as big as needed. more pixels doesn't always
mean smaller.

Not if the monitor's physical size prevents making the text large enough
and still have a display that is usable.

someone would need to have really bad vision for that to be a problem.

Yep, and like ghosts and aliens, Santa and M&Ms, they do exist.

more pixels, particularly when they're smaller than what the human eye
can resolve, makes both graphics and text sharper, independent of the
size of the display, which is desirable for all users, not just those
with vision issues.



--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 12/13/19 3:31 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-12-12 10:13 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/12/19 8:34 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:


However, for eye issues, often the most important thing is, how large
physically can you make the text display?Â* For that, a physically
larger
monitor with fewer pixels will work better.Â* More pixels would make
the
text sharper, but sharpness won't make up for not being able to see
it.

yes it will. make the font as big as needed. more pixels doesn't always
mean smaller.

Not if the monitor's physical size prevents making the text large enough
and still have a display that is usable.

someone would need to have really bad vision for that to be a problem.

Yep, and like ghosts and aliens, Santa and M&Ms, they do exist.

more pixels, particularly when they're smaller than what the human eye
can resolve, makes both graphics and text sharper, independent of the
size of the display, which is desirable for all users, not just those
with vision issues.




Yep, As Ken says, they do exist (looks in Mirror).

Hi, Rene.

I was wondering if you were reading this thread.

It applies even more, after a couple strong rum and Cokes! LOL

What do you think of my idea of hot keys as being a part of addressing
visual accessibility? This might be a discussion that's too OT for
some, so if you want to contact me by email, do it. The address is valid.


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 2019-12-12 10:13 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/12/19 8:34 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:


However, for eye issues, often the most important thing is, how large
physically can you make the text display?Â* For that, a physically
larger
monitor with fewer pixels will work better.Â* More pixels would make
the
text sharper, but sharpness won't make up for not being able to see
it.

yes it will. make the font as big as needed. more pixels doesn't always
mean smaller.

Not if the monitor's physical size prevents making the text large enough
and still have a display that is usable.

someone would need to have really bad vision for that to be a problem.

Yep, and like ghosts and aliens, Santa and M&Ms, they do exist.

more pixels, particularly when they're smaller than what the human eye
can resolve, makes both graphics and text sharper, independent of the
size of the display, which is desirable for all users, not just those
with vision issues.




Yep, As Ken says, they do exist (looks in Mirror).

Rene