IDEA Reference Card


Hi,
I made a reference card for IDEA and uploaded it to www.intellij.org. It
is based on the Default Keystroke Index in the IDEA 3.0 Overview PDF,
with some additions.

I will enhance it, there are still some keys missing and the layout
could be optimized. If anyone has any suggestions, let me know.

To someone from IntelliJ: should I include a copyright or a logo?

http://www.intellij.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IdeaReferenceCard


Best regards,
rolf

50 comments
Comment actions Permalink

What do you think, which one looks best and is most

efficient/user-friendly?

#2

Carlos


0
Comment actions Permalink

#2

Instead of "Ctrl", "Shift" and "Alt" you could use "C", "S" and "A"
in a different font. This would be similar to #5 but not with symbols.

The symbols in #4 and #5 are hard to read.

I don't think that the comments in the round parenthesis are needed.

Cheers,
Marius

Rolf Lohaus wrote:


Hi all,
I have uploaded a new version with a few more keystrokes and some minor
rearrangements (thanks to Kendall Collett) and I also uploaded some
layout suggestions based an the feedback from this thread
(http://www.intellij.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/LayoutSuggestions). The
layouts are not fully consistent, just to show the idea.

What do you think, which one looks best and is most
efficient/user-friendly?

regards,
rolf


Rolf Lohaus wrote:

>>
>> I will upload the examples on monday.
>>
>> nice weekend,
>> rolf
>>
>>
>> Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I have made some alternative layouts for discussion, should I post
>>> them here as attachments or to the wiki? They are not fully
>>> consistent, just to show the approaches.
>>>
>>> rolf
>>
>>
>>


0
Comment actions Permalink

Prefer #2. I find #3 and #4 very hard to read.

0
Comment actions Permalink

I was pretty skeptical about #4 when I looked in my browser, but it looks
better on paper. I vote for #4, with #2 as my second choice.

Kendall


0
Comment actions Permalink

I was pretty skeptical about #4 when I looked in my browser, but it looks
better on paper. I vote for #4, with #2 as my second choice.


Very good suggestion and one we feeble minds should have thought off :)

After looking at the printed result I very STRONGLY suggest everyone should
do the same.

I thereby revoke my previous vote for #2 as a misguided act fruit of a hasty
preview in an entirely unsuitable media (pdf on a monitor) and fully endorse
#4 as the one and only way to represent this reference card :)

Carlos


0
Comment actions Permalink

+1 here for #4 & #2!
Maybe both can be kept and updated in parallel ! One for reading on monitor
(2) and the other one for printing (4)...

Regards,
Armond

"Kendall Collett" <kcollett@jump.net> wrote in message
news:arccsn$jna$1@is.intellij.net...

I was pretty skeptical about #4 when I looked in my browser, but it looks
better on paper. I vote for #4, with #2 as my second choice.

>

Kendall

>
>


0
Comment actions Permalink


Hi,
ok, I think the votes go for #2 and #4 (on paper, on screen its surely
very ugly :)!). I can provide both styles, its only a switch in the
LaTeX source. So I will make them final in the next days and upload the
LaTeX source too. I will also have a look at the automatic generation
plugin. Any further comments or demands?

rolf


Rolf Lohaus wrote:


Hi all,
I have uploaded a new version with a few more keystrokes and some minor
rearrangements (thanks to Kendall Collett) and I also uploaded some
layout suggestions based an the feedback from this thread
(http://www.intellij.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/LayoutSuggestions). The
layouts are not fully consistent, just to show the idea.

What do you think, which one looks best and is most
efficient/user-friendly?

regards,
rolf


Rolf Lohaus wrote:

>>
>> I will upload the examples on monday.
>>
>> nice weekend,
>> rolf
>>
>>
>> Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I have made some alternative layouts for discussion, should I post
>>> them here as attachments or to the wiki? They are not fully
>>> consistent, just to show the approaches.
>>>
>>> rolf
>>
>>
>>


0
Comment actions Permalink

How about XML + XSLT...?

"Armond Avanes" <Armond333@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:arcmsi$vrm$1@is.intellij.net...

+1 here for #4 & #2!
Maybe both can be kept and updated in parallel ! One for reading on

monitor

(2) and the other one for printing (4)...

>

Regards,
Armond

>

"Kendall Collett" <kcollett@jump.net> wrote in message
news:arccsn$jna$1@is.intellij.net...

I was pretty skeptical about #4 when I looked in my browser, but it

looks

better on paper. I vote for #4, with #2 as my second choice.

>

Kendall

>
>

>
>


0
Comment actions Permalink

I think, printed, #4 looks good .... you should just order them
alaphebetically now for each section.... instead of haveing it like:

F4
Alt +
Ctrl
Ctrl
Alt +
Shift +
Ctrl
Shift +

Make it:

F4 (single keys first)
Alt +
Alt +
Ctrl +
Ctrl +
Shift +
Shift +

My 2-cents.

David
"Rolf Lohaus" <rolf.lohaus@epost.de> wrote in message
news:ard47r$llv$1@is.intellij.net...
>

Hi,
ok, I think the votes go for #2 and #4 (on paper, on screen its surely
very ugly :)!). I can provide both styles, its only a switch in the
LaTeX source. So I will make them final in the next days and upload the
LaTeX source too. I will also have a look at the automatic generation
plugin. Any further comments or demands?

>

rolf

>
>

Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>

Hi all,
I have uploaded a new version with a few more keystrokes and some minor
rearrangements (thanks to Kendall Collett) and I also uploaded some
layout suggestions based an the feedback from this thread
(http://www.intellij.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/LayoutSuggestions). The
layouts are not fully consistent, just to show the idea.

>

What do you think, which one looks best and is most
efficient/user-friendly?

>

regards,
rolf

>
>

Rolf Lohaus wrote:

>
>>
>> I will upload the examples on monday.
>>
>> nice weekend,
>> rolf
>>
>>
>> Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I have made some alternative layouts for discussion, should I post
>>> them here as attachments or to the wiki? They are not fully
>>> consistent, just to show the approaches.
>>>
>>> rolf
>>
>>
>>
>

>


0
Comment actions Permalink

Actually, I'd want the same information duplicated in two different
layouts...

One is totally alphabetically (so I can easily find what is mapped to a
certain key)

The other is functionally (so I can easily find the key to do what I want to
do)

I'd say that two different reference cards would be great, one for each
purpose.

"Rolf Lohaus" <rolf.lohaus@epost.de> wrote in message
news:ard47r$llv$1@is.intellij.net...
>

Hi,
ok, I think the votes go for #2 and #4 (on paper, on screen its surely
very ugly :)!). I can provide both styles, its only a switch in the
LaTeX source. So I will make them final in the next days and upload the
LaTeX source too. I will also have a look at the automatic generation
plugin. Any further comments or demands?

>

rolf

>
>

Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>

Hi all,
I have uploaded a new version with a few more keystrokes and some minor
rearrangements (thanks to Kendall Collett) and I also uploaded some
layout suggestions based an the feedback from this thread
(http://www.intellij.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/LayoutSuggestions). The
layouts are not fully consistent, just to show the idea.

>

What do you think, which one looks best and is most
efficient/user-friendly?

>

regards,
rolf

>
>

Rolf Lohaus wrote:

>
>>
>> I will upload the examples on monday.
>>
>> nice weekend,
>> rolf
>>
>>
>> Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I have made some alternative layouts for discussion, should I post
>>> them here as attachments or to the wiki? They are not fully
>>> consistent, just to show the approaches.
>>>
>>> rolf
>>
>>
>>
>

>


0
Comment actions Permalink

Some more keys:

Editing:
ctrl shift W - Decrease current selection to previous state.

Navigation:
ctrl shift F4 - Close active run/messages/find/... tab.
ctrl F4 - Close active editor.
ctrl F7 - Find usages in file.


Suggestion:

Move ctrl alt O "Optimize imports" before ctrl alt L "Reformat Code". They
belong together.


0
Comment actions Permalink

Good Idea! I do agree...
Armond

"Z" <david_fire4@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ard591$r66$1@is.intellij.net...

How about XML + XSLT...?

>

"Armond Avanes" <Armond333@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:arcmsi$vrm$1@is.intellij.net...

+1 here for #4 & #2!
Maybe both can be kept and updated in parallel ! One for reading on

monitor

(2) and the other one for printing (4)...

>

Regards,
Armond

>

"Kendall Collett" <kcollett@jump.net> wrote in message
news:arccsn$jna$1@is.intellij.net...

I was pretty skeptical about #4 when I looked in my browser, but it

looks

better on paper. I vote for #4, with #2 as my second choice.

>

Kendall

>
>

>
>

>
>


0
Comment actions Permalink


Hi Paul,
I don't really see the value of the alphabetical order. How often would
you look up what functionality is mapped to a key, so that you really
need a reference card for it respectively have to cards pinned on the wall?
But maybe I'm just not working that way and I can surely make one
without much effort. One question about the ordering: how would you
order it exactly, witout any sections (editing, navigation, ...), single
keys first, then with one accelerator key and with two accelerators in
the end? How about the live templates?

regards,
rolf


Paul Bradshaw wrote:

Actually, I'd want the same information duplicated in two different
layouts...

>

One is totally alphabetically (so I can easily find what is mapped to a
certain key)

>

The other is functionally (so I can easily find the key to do what I
want to
do)

>

I'd say that two different reference cards would be great, one for each
purpose.

>

"Rolf Lohaus" wrote in message
news:ard47r$llv$1@is.intellij.net...

>

>Hi,
>ok, I think the votes go for #2 and #4 (on paper, on screen its surely
>very ugly :)!). I can provide both styles, its only a switch in the
>LaTeX source. So I will make them final in the next days and upload the
>LaTeX source too. I will also have a look at the automatic generation
>plugin. Any further comments or demands?
>
>rolf
>
>
>Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>I have uploaded a new version with a few more keystrokes and some minor
>>rearrangements (thanks to Kendall Collett) and I also uploaded some
>>layout suggestions based an the feedback from this thread
>>(http://www.intellij.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/LayoutSuggestions). The
>>layouts are not fully consistent, just to show the idea.
>>
>>What do you think, which one looks best and is most
>>efficient/user-friendly?
>>
>>regards,
>>rolf
>>
>>
>>Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I will upload the examples on monday.
>>>
>>>nice weekend,
>>>rolf
>>>
>>>
>>>Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>I have made some alternative layouts for discussion, should I post
>>>>them here as attachments or to the wiki? They are not fully
>>>>consistent, just to show the approaches.
>>>>
>>>>rolf
>>>
>>>
>>>

>
>

0
Comment actions Permalink


I still more prefer ordering them functionally instead of the mixing we
get by ordering them alphabetically within each subsection like in the
example below. Any opinions from others? Some votes?
Maybe a total alphabetical order like Paul Bradshaw suggests makes
sense, but see my comments on his post.

F3 Find Next
Alt + F3 Incremental Search
Ctrl + F Find
Ctrl + R Replace Text
Ctrl + Shift + F Find in Path
Ctrl + Shift + R Replace in Path
Shift + F3 Find Previous

cheers,
rolf


David J. Stennett wrote:

I think, printed, #4 looks good .... you should just order them
alaphebetically now for each section.... instead of haveing it like:

>

F4
Alt +
Ctrl
Ctrl
Alt +
Shift +
Ctrl
Shift +

>

Make it:

>

F4 (single keys first)
Alt +
Alt +
Ctrl +
Ctrl +
Shift +
Shift +

>

My 2-cents.

>

David
"Rolf Lohaus" wrote in message
news:ard47r$llv$1@is.intellij.net...

>

>Hi,
>ok, I think the votes go for #2 and #4 (on paper, on screen its surely
>very ugly :)!). I can provide both styles, its only a switch in the
>LaTeX source. So I will make them final in the next days and upload the
>LaTeX source too. I will also have a look at the automatic generation
>plugin. Any further comments or demands?
>
>rolf
>
>
>Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>I have uploaded a new version with a few more keystrokes and some minor
>>rearrangements (thanks to Kendall Collett) and I also uploaded some
>>layout suggestions based an the feedback from this thread
>>(http://www.intellij.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/LayoutSuggestions). The
>>layouts are not fully consistent, just to show the idea.
>>
>>What do you think, which one looks best and is most
>>efficient/user-friendly?
>>
>>regards,
>>rolf
>>
>>
>>Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I will upload the examples on monday.
>>>
>>>nice weekend,
>>>rolf
>>>
>>>
>>>Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>I have made some alternative layouts for discussion, should I post
>>>>them here as attachments or to the wiki? They are not fully
>>>>consistent, just to show the approaches.
>>>>
>>>>rolf
>>>
>>>
>>>

>
>

0
Comment actions Permalink


Carlos, see below

Carlos Costa e Silva wrote:

Some more keys:

>

Editing:
ctrl shift W - Decrease current selection to previous state.

>

Navigation:
ctrl shift F4 - Close active run/messages/find/... tab.
ctrl F4 - Close active editor.


Its there, but under "Editing". I know it doesn't really fit there, but
it isn't a good fit anywhere, so I left it there (and I also wasn't
satified with introducing a new section "Windowing").

>

ctrl F7 - Find usages in file.

>
>

Suggestion:

>

Move ctrl alt O "Optimize imports" before ctrl alt L "Reformat Code". They
belong together.



This was the case in the first version, but Kendall Collett suggested to
move "Reformat Code" underneath "Auto-indent lines" (style manipulation)
and "Optimize imports" underneath "Surround with" (on the theory that
Optimize Imports is a "code manipulation" function) and I don't mind.
So we have a deathmatch here :)!

cheers,
rolf

0
Comment actions Permalink


Hi,
I will provide both, its no effort.
On "XML + XSLT", seemed a little bit to heavyweight for only producing
the static cards, LaTeX was less effort with qualitative output. I
thought of XSL-FO for the automatic generation from within IDEA but for
this also iText seems to fit better.

Anyway I myself like the XML + XSLT approach in general and particularly
among IDEA users it should be easier to process than LaTeX.

regards,
rolf

Armond Avanes wrote:

Good Idea! I do agree...
Armond

>

"Z" wrote in message
news:ard591$r66$1@is.intellij.net...

>

>How about XML + XSLT...?
>
>"Armond Avanes" wrote in message
>news:arcmsi$vrm$1@is.intellij.net...
>
>>+1 here for #4 & #2!
>>Maybe both can be kept and updated in parallel ! One for reading on
>
>monitor
>
>>(2) and the other one for printing (4)...
>>
>>Regards,
>>Armond
>>
>>"Kendall Collett" wrote in message
>>news:arccsn$jna$1@is.intellij.net...
>>
>>>I was pretty skeptical about #4 when I looked in my browser, but it
>
>looks
>
>>>better on paper. I vote for #4, with #2 as my second choice.
>>>
>>>Kendall
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

>
>

0
Comment actions Permalink

How often? Frequently. Emacs has always had this with "what-is" and
"where-is"

It's especially handy when you're trying to decide how to mape some keys,
and you want to just get an idea of what's already "taken".

Another example is you just accidently pressed a key and something
happened... and you want to know what the heck you just did :)

"Rolf Lohaus" <rolf.lohaus@epost.de> wrote in message
news:arh247$u68$1@is.intellij.net...
>

Hi Paul,
I don't really see the value of the alphabetical order. How often would
you look up what functionality is mapped to a key, so that you really
need a reference card for it respectively have to cards pinned on the

wall?

But maybe I'm just not working that way and I can surely make one
without much effort. One question about the ordering: how would you
order it exactly, witout any sections (editing, navigation, ...), single
keys first, then with one accelerator key and with two accelerators in
the end? How about the live templates?

>

regards,
rolf

>
>

Paul Bradshaw wrote:

>

Actually, I'd want the same information duplicated in two different
layouts...

>

One is totally alphabetically (so I can easily find what is mapped to a
certain key)

>

The other is functionally (so I can easily find the key to do what I
want to
do)

>

I'd say that two different reference cards would be great, one for each
purpose.

>

"Rolf Lohaus" wrote in message
news:ard47r$llv$1@is.intellij.net...

>

>Hi,
>ok, I think the votes go for #2 and #4 (on paper, on screen its surely
>very ugly :)!). I can provide both styles, its only a switch in the
>LaTeX source. So I will make them final in the next days and upload the
>LaTeX source too. I will also have a look at the automatic generation
>plugin. Any further comments or demands?
>
>rolf
>
>
>Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>I have uploaded a new version with a few more keystrokes and some

minor

>>rearrangements (thanks to Kendall Collett) and I also uploaded some
>>layout suggestions based an the feedback from this thread
>>(http://www.intellij.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/LayoutSuggestions). The
>>layouts are not fully consistent, just to show the idea.
>>
>>What do you think, which one looks best and is most
>>efficient/user-friendly?
>>
>>regards,
>>rolf
>>
>>
>>Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I will upload the examples on monday.
>>>
>>>nice weekend,
>>>rolf
>>>
>>>
>>>Rolf Lohaus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>I have made some alternative layouts for discussion, should I post
>>>>them here as attachments or to the wiki? They are not fully
>>>>consistent, just to show the approaches.
>>>>
>>>>rolf
>>>
>>>
>>>

>
>

>


0
Comment actions Permalink

I guess it depends on the intent of the reference card. For me, a reference
card is reminder of the most common/useful keyboard shortcuts, and I use it
to help me memorize the shortcuts contained on the card. In particular, I
do not expect a reference card to contain every shortcut, just a good
"starter set".

As such, a reference card wouldn't work for the uses you describe below
because it wouldn't be complete. (I'm not saying the functionality that you
describe wouldn't be useful; having something like Emacs' describe-bindings
and describe-key would be extremely handy for the use-cases you cite. I'm
just not sure if a reference card is the best way to get there.)

Kendall

"Paul Bradshaw" <pbradshaw@vignette.com> wrote in message
news:arm7tb$gg2$1@is.intellij.net...

How often? Frequently. Emacs has always had this with "what-is" and
"where-is"

>

It's especially handy when you're trying to decide how to mape some keys,
and you want to just get an idea of what's already "taken".

>

Another example is you just accidently pressed a key and something
happened... and you want to know what the heck you just did :)

>



0
Comment actions Permalink

Getting actual keymapping should be possible via our current Open API. No
need to look into keymap files.

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

"Guillaume Laforge" <glaforge@reflexe.fr> wrote in message
news:ar2jol$dtk$1@is.intellij.net...
>

"Rolf Lohaus" <rolf.lohaus@epost.de> a ?crit dans le message de news:
ar2ejg$4ft$1@is.intellij.net...
>

Yep, that would be really great and definitely the best solution.
Is it possible to get the actual keymapping with the Open API, I'm not
much into it?
I could generate the LaTeX source, but I think it is not possible for
everyone to process it to get the PDF. A better way would be to use
XSL-FO and FOP to directly produce a high quality PDF.

>

Well, I did not delve lately into OpenAPI, but whether it is available or
not through it, I guess the easiest way to get the correct keymap could be
to have a look at the keymap files in the user's IntelliJ config folder.
We'd simply have to parse an XML file.
On the FOP aspect of the story, I think it's a bit heavyweight. Certainly
iText would fit best for the task.
I've had problems with FOP in the past because of different versions of
packages, including or not including this and that classes because of
licence issues, and such...
In ~/.IntelliJIdea/config/options/, there is keymap.xml that tells wich
keymap is currently active.
And in ../config/keymaps/, there are the different available custom

keymaps.

But only the overriden shortcuts are there.
We need first to know what are the default ones. And as far as I know,

it's

not yet possible to have access to these default shortcuts through

OpenAPI.

Am I wrong ? seomone ?

>

Guillaume

>
>


0
Comment actions Permalink


Hi,
have been very busy lately but finally I have just uploaded the LaTeX
source of the reference card (version 1.0) to the wiki (the PDFs of
version 1.0 are already there for about two weeks).
I'm still willing to have a look at the automatic generation plugin, but
this may take awhile, cause I'm having not much time for it at the moment.

regards,
rolf

0

Please sign in to leave a comment.