Kenneth,

With FoxPro you can easily define whatever type of UI that you/your users want to design.

Most systems I've ever worked on used Tab to navigate fields. The objective of having a UI standard in Windows or Mac/OS or IBM mainframes is so that users that work with more than one system don't have to change mindset about what keys do what things. Your users are going to get really frustrated as they move to other apps and pressing enter closes the half finished dialog instead of moving to the next field. You should be making your users skills transfer between all the applications they use.

What's the real difference between using the left or right pinkie? Especially when a lot of users that I've observed are not touch typists anyway. *s* How many of those users hit enter at the end of each line in a word processor like they used to have to do soon after the bell rang on the typewriter? The point here is that UIs have changed over time.

I'd suggest for you to pick up Allen Cooper's "Essentials of User Interface Design" (I think that's the title I don't have it handy right now) there is a link on the Links page of my website with the exact title and ISBN for it. It's a very good book that talks about all facets of good UI design.

>PMFJI, but I have had the exact same experience as Diana, and have implemented a solution functionally equivalent to that suggested by David.
>
>But David, don't you think there is something weird about M$ postulating a "standard" UI in which normal intuitive behavior is now wrong? Not that I am picking an argument with you, just that it strikes me as very Orwellian, and wondering if you have the same notion. It seems only proper to suggest standard uses for ALT vs. CTRL, to take F1 as help, F10 as menu, etc. But it always struck me as weird that Windows so fundamentally modified the intent of the ENTER Key (to "submit" a form), and I have noticed that absolutely none of my users are interested in having me explain that to them, and they all want the ENTER key to be a navigation key.
>
>What's chances M$ will ever admit, in word or action, that this is counter-intuitive and offer an alternative?