← Back to home← Early American Publishers And Printers

Keyboard Shortcut

Assignments for computer keyboard keys

(Seriously, you need a whole article for this? Fine. Let's get through it.)

For Wikipedia keyboard shortcuts, one might assume there's a simpler way to navigate. There isn't.

This article, much like many things in life, needs additional citations for verification . Perhaps you could contribute, if you're feeling particularly ambitious, by helping improve this article and adding citations to reliable sources. Otherwise, expect unsourced material to be challenged and removed. (December 2010) (For those who require guidance on how and when to remove this message, perhaps a career change is in order.)

!Firefox 3.0 menu with shortcuts, highlighted with green and mnemonics highlighted with yellow Firefox 3.0 menu with shortcuts, highlighted with green and mnemonics highlighted with yellow. A quaint relic, demonstrating the fleeting nature of digital interfaces.

!Composite of two Macintosh Finder menus with keyboard shortcuts specified in the right column Composite of two Macintosh Finder menus with keyboard shortcuts specified in the right column. Because who needs to remember a menu path when you can just... type?

In the vast, often frustrating, landscape of computing, a keyboard shortcut—also known by its less elegant cousins, hotkey (or hot key) or key binding—[1] represents a software-based decree: an action, typically invoked through a tedious cascade of menu clicks, is instead assigned to one or more specific keys on a computer keyboard. Most operating systems and applications arrive pre-loaded with a default set of keyboard shortcuts, a baseline of presumed efficiency. Mercifully, some of these defaults are not immutable; they may be modified by the discerning (or simply opinionated) user within the settings of the respective software.

Beyond mere single-action assignments, more sophisticated keyboard configuration software permits users the creation and subsequent assignment of complex macros to specific key combinations. These macros, rather than executing a solitary command, can orchestrate intricate sequences of actions, automating tasks that would otherwise demand a tedious series of manual inputs. It’s a testament to human ingenuity, or perhaps just human laziness, that we devise such elaborate systems to avoid a few extra clicks. Interestingly, some older, more robust keyboards even featured a dedicated, physical macro key specifically engineered for this very purpose, predating the software-driven ubiquity of today's solutions.

Terminology

The precise vocabulary employed for these key-action assignments, and the subtle nuances of their meanings, are not universally fixed. They tend to shift and morph, much like user expectations, depending on the specific technological context or the corporate lexicon in play.

For instance, Microsoft has, with characteristic consistency, generally adopted "keyboard shortcuts" as the preferred nomenclature for its Windows operating system [2] and the ubiquitous Microsoft Office suite [3], a trend firmly established since the transition to 64-bit computing with Windows 7. Prior to this, however, "hot keys" was the term of choice, a legacy that stubbornly persists within their 32-bit API for developers crafting what are now affectionately termed 'classic desktop apps' [4] [5] [6]. Meanwhile, hardware manufacturers like Lenovo and ASUS, perhaps clinging to a simpler past, continue to brand their respective Windows-compatible keyboard configuration utilities as "Lenovo Hotkeys" [7] and "ASUS Keyboard Hotkeys" [7]. The linguistic inconsistency is, frankly, exhausting.

The act of forging these connections between actions and keys is commonly referred to as mapping the actions to the keys. Consequently, any subsequent alteration to these assignments is logically termed remapping [8] [9]. Once established, the assigned action is said to be bound to the key, a rather evocative term that has led to the phrase key binding being used interchangeably with both "shortcut" and "hotkey" [10]. It's a semantic carousel, really.

As the early 2000s ushered in an era of increasingly configurable input devices, the term "shortcut" began to expand its semantic reach. It migrated beyond the confines of the keyboard, now encompassing analogous assignments mapped to objects that were decidedly not keyboard keys. The most prominent beneficiaries of this linguistic expansion were computer mice. These humble pointing devices, once content with a mere two buttons for left and right clicks, rapidly evolved to incorporate a multitude of additional buttons. These supplementary controls, strategically placed along the sides, top, and even the back of the mouse, typically ranged from a practical two to four for common usage, escalating to an extravagant dozen or more extra programmable buttons for specialized gaming mice [11]. Because apparently, clicking once wasn't enough.

With the relentless proliferation of Internet of things (IoT) devices, the concept of shortcuts has permeated an ever-expanding array of device types. One now encounters them on electronic keyboards (the musical kind), within home automation systems, integrated into wearable technology, and in countless other digital appendages that now infest our lives.

Not content with merely extending existing paradigms, Human-computer interaction experts continue their tireless quest to design entirely novel forms of shortcuts. This includes the development of gestures on touchscreens and the more ethereal, touchless interfaces, proving that even as technology advances, the underlying human desire for quicker, less cumbersome interaction remains. Or, perhaps, the desire to avoid actual effort.

Description

Keyboard shortcuts fundamentally serve as a direct, often expedited, means for invoking one or more predefined commands using only the keyboard. These same commands would otherwise necessitate a more circuitous route, typically involving navigation through a hierarchical menu, manipulation with a pointing device, delving into various levels of a user interface, or, for the truly masochistic, typing out instructions via a command-line interface. The primary utility of keyboard shortcuts lies in their ability to streamline common operations, compressing what might be a lengthy sequence of inputs into a mere handful of keystrokes. Hence, the term "shortcut" [12] – a path of least resistance for those who value time, or simply abhor unnecessary mouse movements.

To effectively distinguish these specialized command invocations from ordinary, general keyboard input (like, say, typing an actual sentence), most keyboard shortcuts demand a specific, coordinated effort from the user. This usually involves pressing and holding several keys simultaneously, or, in certain architectures, executing a precise sequence of keys one after the other. However, in contexts where the keyboard is not primarily engaged in general text input—such as within dedicated graphics packages like Adobe Photoshop or the venerable IBM Lotus Freelance Graphics—unmodified, single key presses can sometimes be accepted as shortcuts. Furthermore, certain keyboard shortcuts leverage function keys (those F1-F12 keys that largely go ignored), which are specifically designated for shortcut use and may only require a single, isolated keypress.

For simultaneous keyboard shortcuts, the customary and most efficient practice is to first depress and hold down the modifier key(s)—such as Ctrl, Alt, or Shift—then swiftly press and release the regular (non-modifier) key, and finally release the modifier key(s). This seemingly pedantic distinction is, in fact, critically important. Attempting to mash all the keys down at once will, with predictable frequency, either result in some of the modifier keys failing to register, or, even worse, trigger the dreaded unwanted auto-repeat of the non-modifier key. Sequential shortcuts, by contrast, demand a different rhythm: they typically involve pressing and releasing a dedicated prefix key, such as the ever-useful Esc key, followed by one or more subsequent keystrokes. It's a dance, really, and some users have two left feet.

It's crucial to differentiate mnemonics from true keyboard shortcuts, a distinction often blurred by casual usage. One fundamental difference between them is that keyboard shortcuts, by their very nature, are not typically localized across multi-language software versions; Ctrl+S means "Save" regardless of whether your operating system speaks English, German, or Japanese. Mnemonics, however, are almost universally localized to accurately reflect the symbols and letters used in the specific linguistic locale. In the majority of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs), a program's available keyboard shortcuts are, thankfully, discoverable by simply perusing the program's menus – the shortcut, if one exists, is generally indicated conspicuously alongside the corresponding menu choice. For those who prefer a more tactile approach to information, specialized keyboards exist with the shortcuts for a particular application already silk-screened or engraved directly onto the keys themselves. These highly specialized keyboards are frequently found in environments dedicated to professional video, audio, or graphics editing [13], where every millisecond saved translates to tangible productivity, or within software training courses, where users are, presumably, still learning the basics. For the rest of us, there are also adhesive stickers with shortcuts printed on them, which can be applied to a regular, unassuming keyboard, transforming it into a personalized cheat sheet. And for the truly analog, reference cards designed to be propped up in the user's workspace have long been available for countless applications. In a bygone era, when keyboard designs adhered to a more rigid standardization, it was common for computer books and magazines to include perforated cards that could be cut out and placed directly over the user's keyboard, with the printed shortcuts conveniently noted adjacent to their appropriate keys. A simpler time, perhaps, before the advent of infinite customization.

Customization

!Visual chart of the default key assignments for the video game Vega Strike. These bindings can be reconfigured by editing the relevant XML file in a text editor. Visual chart of the default key assignments for the video game Vega Strike . These bindings can be reconfigured by editing the relevant XML file in a text editor. Because nothing says "user-friendly" like editing an XML file.

When shortcuts are referred to specifically as key bindings, it inherently carries the powerful connotation that these shortcuts are not fixed decrees but rather mutable preferences, fully customizable to a user's individual whims. This implies that program functions can be 'bound' to an entirely different set of keystrokes, either in lieu of or in addition to the default assignments [14]. This subtle linguistic shift illuminates a fundamental divergence in philosophical approaches to the very concept of shortcuts. Some systems, typically those designed with the end-user at their core—such as the venerable Mac OS or the ubiquitous Microsoft Windows—tend to view standardized shortcuts as an indispensable cornerstone of the environment's overall ease of use. In these commercial, proprietary ecosystems, the latitude granted for altering the default bindings and introducing custom ones can be surprisingly restrictive, occasionally necessitating a separate, often third-party, utility to accomplish the task, sometimes through rather clunky workarounds like generic key remapping. macOS, for its part, does offer users the ability to customize application shortcuts ("Key equivalents") directly within its system settings, and even provides avenues for customizing text editing shortcuts by creating and meticulously editing related configuration files [15]. It's almost as if they grudgingly admit that users might have preferences.

Other systems, particularly those rooted in the Unix tradition and its numerous derivatives, embrace a more libertarian view: shortcuts are considered a fundamental prerogative of the user, and thus should be eminently customizable to perfectly suit individual preference and workflow. In the messy reality of most real-world computing environments, a pragmatic compromise between these two philosophies typically prevails. A core, almost sacred, set of fundamental shortcuts often remains rigidly fixed and unalterable, while others, particularly those involving an otherwise unused modifier key or combination of keys, are typically placed squarely under the user's benevolent, or perhaps chaotic, control.

The motivations driving users to meticulously customize their key bindings are as varied as the users themselves. Individuals new to a particular program or software environment frequently embark on a customization spree, reconfiguring the new environment's shortcuts to mirror those of another, more familiar, environment. This reduces the cognitive load and eases the transition, minimizing the jarring sensation of learning a completely new set of digital finger exercises [16]. More seasoned, advanced users often tailor their key bindings with surgical precision to optimize their specific workflow, meticulously adding shortcuts for their most frequently performed actions and, conversely, deleting or replacing bindings for functions they rarely, if ever, invoke [17]. And then there are the hardcore gamers, a species apart, who relentlessly customize their key bindings with a singular, unyielding objective: to eke out every conceivable fraction of a second, thereby increasing their performance through faster reaction times. Because, apparently, virtual glory depends on it.

Reserved Keyboard Shortcuts

The original Macintosh User Interface Guidelines, a document of profound influence in the early days of personal computing, meticulously defined a specific, standardized set of keyboard shortcuts. The revolutionary intent behind this standardization was that these shortcuts would remain absolutely consistent across all application programs [18]. This foresight offered a vastly superior user experience compared to the then-prevalent, chaotic situation where disparate applications routinely employed the very same keys to invoke entirely different functions. One can only imagine the frustration, and indeed, the potential for egregious user errors, if, for example, one program interpreted ⌘ Command + D as "Delete" while another, with gleeful disregard for user sanity, used it to "Duplicate" an item. The stipulated standard bindings were, and in many cases remain, foundational:

  • ⌘ Q : Q uit the application. A swift, decisive exit.
  • ⌘ W : Close W indow. For when you're done with that.
  • ⌘ B : B old text. A declarative statement, visually.
  • ⌘ I : I talicize text. For subtle emphasis, or pretension.
  • ⌘ U : U nderline text. A relic, perhaps, but still functional.
  • ⌘ O : O pen a document. The gateway to your digital creations.
  • ⌘ P : P rint the current document. Because sometimes pixels aren't enough.
  • ⌘ A : Select A ll. A sweeping gesture of digital control.
  • ⌘ S : S ave the current document. The most important shortcut, preventing countless hours of despair.
  • ⌘ F : F ind within the document. For when you know it's there somewhere.
  • ⌘ G : Find A g ain. (The G key, placed conveniently next to the F key on a QWERTY keyboard, demonstrating a rare instance of logical design.)
  • ⌘ E : E nter search string from selection. This ingenious shortcut allowed users to search a document by first selecting a piece of text and then invoking ⌘ E followed by ⌘ G (for exempli gratia), a workflow of surprising efficiency.
  • ⌘ Z : Undo. The digital equivalent of "Oops, let's pretend that never happened." (Represents the fundamental do-undo-redo cycle.)
  • ⌘ X : Cut. (Resembles a pair of scissors, or a universal sign for removal – and, conveniently, the X key is positioned right next to the C key on a QWERTY keyboard.)
  • ⌘ C : C opy. To duplicate without removing.
  • ⌘ V : Paste. (The shape of the V key is often said to resemble the proofreader's mark for "insert" – and, again, the V key is conveniently located next to the C key on a QWERTY keyboard) [19].
  • ⌘ N : N ew Document. A fresh canvas for your thoughts.
  • ⌘ . (full stop): User interrupt. This rather elegant shortcut could be effectively employed to dismiss persistent dialogs, close search bars, or collapse context menus, offering a quick escape from digital entanglement [notes 1].
  • ⌘ ? : Help. (The question mark signifies a question or, more often, profound confusion) [20].

Later computing environments, notably Microsoft Windows, judiciously retained some of these foundational bindings, while simultaneously introducing their own, often drawing from alternate standards such as Common User Access (CUA). However, the shortcuts on these platforms (or indeed on macOS in its modern incarnations) are not enforced with the same rigorous, almost zealous, standardization across applications as they were on the early Macintosh user interface. On that original platform, if a program, by its very design, did not include the specific function normally carried out by one of the standard keystrokes, the guidelines explicitly stipulated that it should not redefine that key to perform some other, unrelated action. This was a deliberate choice, intended to prevent user confusion and maintain a predictable, reliable interaction paradigm [21]. A concept some modern developers could stand to revisit.

Notation

The most straightforward keyboard shortcuts consist of merely a single keypress. For these, the convention is generally to simply write out the name of the key itself, as one might encounter in the rather didactic message, "Press F1 for Help." The name of the key is, on occasion, enclosed within brackets or similar delimiters, lending it a certain visual prominence. For example, one might see [F1] or <F1>. Alternatively, the key name might be set apart using various special formatting techniques, such as bolding, italicization, or the use of all caps, to draw the user's eye to its importance.

A significant proportion of shortcuts, however, demand the simultaneous depression of two or more keys. For these, the widely accepted notation involves listing the names of the keys, separated either by plus signs or hyphens. Common examples include "Ctrl+C," "Ctrl-C," or the slightly more verbose " Ctrl + C ." The Ctrl key, in particular, is sometimes represented by a caret character (^), a legacy from older terminal environments. Thus, Ctrl-C is occasionally rendered as ^C. At times, typically on Unix platforms where case sensitivity is a way of life, the case of the second character holds significant meaning. If the character would ordinarily necessitate pressing the Shift key to type, then the Shift key is implicitly understood to be an integral part of the shortcut. Consider, for instance, the distinction between ^C and ^c, or ^% versus ^5. The shortcut ^% might also be explicitly written as " Ctrl + ⇧ Shift + 5 ", leaving no room for ambiguity.

Some keyboard shortcuts, including virtually all shortcuts that involve the Esc key, are designed to be executed sequentially. That is, they require keys (or distinct sets of keys) to be pressed individually, one after the other, in a specific order. These multi-step shortcuts are frequently notated with the individual keys (or sets of keys) separated by commas or semicolons, indicating the temporal progression. The venerable Emacs text editor, a program often described as an operating system masquerading as an editor, makes extensive use of such sequential shortcuts. It employs a designated set of "prefix keys" like Ctrl + C or Ctrl + X to initiate these sequences. For example, default Emacs keybindings include Ctrl + X then Ctrl + S to save a file (a two-step tango with the Ctrl key), or Ctrl + X then Ctrl + B to view a list of open buffers. In the peculiar parlance of Emacs, the letter C is used to denote the Ctrl key, the letter S for the Shift key, and the letter M for the Meta key (which, on most modern keyboards, is commonly mapped to the Alt key). Therefore, in Emacs-speak, the aforementioned shortcuts would be elegantly (or confusingly) written as C-x C-s and C-x C-b. It's a system that demands dedication. A common, and rather affectionate, backronym for Emacs that perfectly encapsulates its often-perceived complexity is "Escape Meta Alt Ctrl Shift," a humorous nod to its frequent reliance on a multitude of modifier keys and its often-extended, multi-keystroke shortcut sequences. It's not for the faint of heart, or those with small hands.

See also

Look up keyboard shortcut in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. (Because if you've made it this far, you clearly need more definitions.)

Notes and references

Notes

  1. ^ Technical note: it calls the AppKit method "cancelOperation:"

References

  1. ^ "Google Books Ngram Viewer". books.google.com . 2024-10-19. Retrieved 2024-10-19.
  2. ^ "Keyboard shortcuts in Windows - Microsoft Support". support.microsoft.com . Microsoft. Retrieved 2024-10-19.
  3. ^ "Customize keyboard shortcuts - Microsoft Support". support.microsoft.com . Microsoft. Retrieved 2024-10-19.
  4. ^ "About Hot Key Controls - Win32 apps". learn.microsoft.com . Microsoft. 2021-05-25. Retrieved 2024-10-19.
  5. ^ "Overview of framework options - Windows apps". learn.microsoft.com . Microsoft. 2024-09-10. Retrieved 2024-10-19.
  6. ^ "How do I reassign hot keys for my keyboard? - Microsoft Support". support.microsoft.com . Retrieved 2024-10-19.
  7. ^ a b "ASUS Keyboard Hotkeys - Free download and install on Windows". Microsoft Store . ASUS. 2017-10-19. Retrieved 2024-10-19.
  8. ^ "How to Remap Your Keyboard | Windows Learning Center". Windows . Retrieved 2024-10-19.
  9. ^ "Shortcuts, Hotkeys, Macros, Oh My: How to Remap Your Keyboard". PCMAG . 24 April 2024. Retrieved 2024-10-19.
  10. ^ "Key Bindings for Visual Studio Code". code.visualstudio.com/docs . Microsoft. 2024-10-03. Retrieved 2024-10-19.
  11. ^ "The Best MMO Mouse - Fall 2024: Mice Reviews". RTINGS.com . Retrieved 2024-10-19.
  12. ^ In the English language a "shortcut" may unintentionally suggest an incomplete or sloppy way of completing something. Consequently, some computer applications designed to be controlled mainly by the keyboard, such as Emacs, use the alternative term "key binding".
  13. ^ Lowensohn, Josh (3 December 2009). "Hardware for Gmail: The 'Gboard' keyboard". CNET.com. Archived from the original on 16 October 2013. Retrieved 7 January 2011.
  14. ^ "GNU Emacs Manual: Commands". Emacs does not assign meanings to keys directly. Instead, Emacs assigns meanings to named commands, and then gives keys their meanings by binding them to commands.
  15. ^ "Text System Defaults and Key Bindings". Apple Developer Documentation Archive . September 9, 2013. Archived from the original on March 10, 2024. Retrieved 2024-01-18.
  16. ^ Cohen, Sandee (2002). Macromedia FreeHand 10 for Windows and Macintosh . Peachpit Press. ISBN 9780201749656 .
  17. ^ "Customizing your keyboard shortcuts".
  18. ^ Apple (November 1992). Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines (PDF). Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. p. 128. ISBN 0-201-62216-5 .
  19. ^ "Larry Tesler email Past to Future: Various Undo Models, Interaction Histories, and Macro Recording Lecture 21".
  20. ^ "Definition of QUESTION". merriam-webster.com .
  21. ^ "OS X Human Interface Guidelines". If your app does not perform the task associated with a recommended shortcut, think very carefully before you consider overriding it. Remember that although reassigning an unused shortcut might make sense in your app, your users are likely to know and expect the original, established meaning.

v t e

Keyboard keys Dead keys

Authority control databases International

  • GND National
  • France
  • BnF data