>You can control them with pixel precision now (with Alt).
What can be more precise than that?

But I see it as adding a modifier key to something that
doesn't really need it... if I select a node handle and can
nudge it around with 1 finger via arrow keys, sweet...
having to hold Alt and then toggle between functions of
rotate/scale just seems more cumbersome than necessary (not
invalidating it's usefulness though).

>Not really more powerful than now, and besides the
rotation/scaling metaphor makes much more sense for handles
than x/y moving.

As with most things, I think that needs/workflow/process/use
dictate what makes more sense... I do soooo much tweaking of
nodes (and everything else) via the arrow keys and would do
the same to the handles if the ability was there. I don't
see why gradient handles (specifically for radial gradients)
are so different in your mind than node handles... they're
control handles anchored at some other point. Why does X,Y
not make sense for one, but it does for the other? I know
that with gradient handles specifically it has a locked
rotation, but it's really pretty similar as it's a control
handle of sorts.

>You can achieve alignment now, at least as well as you would
with arrow key movements.

I'm sorry, I wasn't too clear... the alignment I was
referencing would be through the align palette/dialog, not
via keys... if by keys, you are correct. But if you could
select node handles that weren't moved with precision to
begin with, it would be nice to be able to align them like
you can with objects & nodes (perhaps the distribution
function could even be used as a percentage based on
distance from nodes and the other available control handles).

>Of course, that's why I added []<> keys for handles.

I know those work well, but to be able to bump around via
arrows makes for much easier movement. It takes much less
thought for me to click on a handle and bump a couple times
one way and a couple in another (because the arrows point
the direction it would move), as opposed to having to think
about which Alt or Ctrl key to hold with using <>[].. which
aren't as straight forward unless you them frequently and
have already looked it up in the appropriate reference material.

>No. You can rotate/scale either each handle separately, or
both, depending on which modifiers you use. Look it up in
the keys&mouse reference. In this specific case, you can
achieve the same symmetry by pressing e.g. ] twice and the >
three times on each node, with corresponding Ctrls (left or
right) for each one.

You can do that on Linux, but not Win32... ; )  I'll go file
a bug report on it tonight... but if this can't be achieved
on win32, my solution would work perfectly in it's place.

>Exactly, this is why I added the scale/rotate keys for
handles, and Inkscape is indeed the first to have it :)

But having X,Y control on top of rotation/distance would
make it even better...

>This is true, and it has always been in my plans to add
numeric fields for nodes and handles to the node tool controls.

Perhaps I'll go file an RFE for it then if one doesn't
already exist so it doesn't have to only remain in your head.

I just think that if you can move pretty much everything
(including other types of control handles) in inkscape via
arrow keys, it seems more natural to be able to do that with
the node handles too... just like the gradient handles. I
agree that distance from node and angle of rotation make
sense for handles, but that doesn't mean that X,Y doesn't
also make just as much sense. And to be able to use either
method or both combined makes the toolset even more rich
than it currently is.

If you close this again, I guess I'll drop it, but I really
feel this does have a place in Inkscape... as I said,
people's workflows differ and I'm going based on how roughly
everything else in Inkscape behaves... and what I'd
expect/hope for with node handles. At the very least, if you
don't want to implement it but aren't completely opposed to
it... please leave it open.

-Josh