changing the default for --keyid-format

[reynt0]

On Tue, 29 May 2012, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
  . . .
> Tabular data is the Right Thing To Do in two major use cases.
>
> The first is when you have a noninteractive display of identical
> field(s) for multiple pieces of data.  Consider a printed almanac: if it
> wants to convey a list of countries and populations, the best way to do
> it is with a table.  Different records (countries), identical fields
> (population), and since the paper is noninteractive, the table is a win.
  . . .
> The second Big Win for tables is when data must be contextualized by
> other data.  Consider a spreadsheet showing profits and losses for
> different divisions of a business: if all you know is that a given
> division made $X, you don't know if that's your most profitable
> division, your least profitable division, or what-have-you.  The other
> data is necessary to put the data you're interested in into a larger
> context.
  . . .

In general, being able to examine variation of content within
uniformity of structure is also a way to legitimate the
specific content of interest.  If someone feeds you just one
answer "Special, just for you!", you may feel happy and relaxed,
but you missed the chance to see if the result you got makes
sense compared to other results.  The question of legitimation
is actually a broad and significant issue.

Referring to RJH's later long description of his work, might
this kind of consideration be one possible factor in "experts' 
liking tabular display more than newbies did?  Context would
mean more to people who know how to evaluate it.  Eg seeing
tabular output, they are always a little verifying the
current correctness of how the server is working, and so on.

If I understand RJH's description corectly, it seemed to me
that the interface he described was presenting a combination
of context and focus, including some user control over extent
of context (possibly not effectively clued control, but that
is not unusual for a pilot version of anything).