so to set things straight, if i have a fireball spell and a thunder spell on the d-pad, and i hit the fireball spell then left trigger, my left trigger will use that spell? and if i hit the thunder spell on the d-pad then hit right trigger, it will use the thunder spell?

Yep, I think there must've been a confusion somewhere along the line that cause everybody to think that you could not block with a one handed weapon, however I think if you dual wield two weapons then you can still block, I think the not being able to block only applies if you have a spell in one hand.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1167563-so-uh-why-can-only-shields-and-twohanders-defend/

Some much better information & speculation in that thread.

Edit: Err... linked the wrong thread above, though I guess that does too.
http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1167518-official-playstation-magazine/ discussion thread contains some much better information and speculation.

You don't block with a sword. You parry.

A parry is the act of directing a swords motion in a direction that will not harm you. Blocking is the act of stopping a object dead in its tracks. They are two completely different things and yes you can block with a sword, you can even use a sword as a mace. You should pick up the medieval fight guide, it is a copy of a old book that literally dates back to the medieval ages and talks about sword tactics, ax tactics, mace tactics and even has a lot of schematics for some devices that I honestly don't think would have proved useful in a war, but he wrote them down anyways. I found it insetting not only the stuff people did with swords in combat, but also that back then fighting dirty was the only way to fight.

It worked quite well in Oblivion with master in sneak, probably a bit overpowered.
Yes if you target members in a group they should react but with a good range they stopped searching after some time.
But yes sometimes it did not work, other times you had to be close as it was no way to hit from a distance, you then had two options use a melee weapon or do a fighting redraw.

If they improve the anims, why not just go back to percentile rolls to hit, miss, block, dodge.. etc.

I know why they won't and I understand it, but it would solve the whole, block, parry, evade shtick going on.
As an awkward player as well, running around trying to get the exact swing and or block can get frustrating when the AI can run it without having to worry about RL going ons.

This is true -- and I need to check out that book! -- but I think people are using the term "block" (and "parry," "deflect," "defend," etc) interchangeably, since Bethesda are calling the ability to defend with an equipped item the "Block" action.

So I'd say characters should be able to use the block action with a short sword as readily as with a shield (albeit less effectively), because blocking with a short sword is parrying (when/if a literal "block" isn't appropriate). Even with a shield, I would think you'd want to let an opponent's weapon slide off (or catch onto) it rather than taking every impact square on. I could be wrong, but in any case I don't think "blocking = squarely stopping dead a blow" is a very valid way to argue against blocking with small or one-handed weapons. Not least because we're discussing gameplay in the heroic fantasy genre, as opposed to medieval warfare simulation.

I've pulled my post from the parrying thread:

You can parry with a shield too.
Parry is a form of blocking,that just redirects the force.
It's a cross between a block and a dodge.

For those that say you can't block with one handed weapon.
I believe you can,aslong as your left hand is empty,or you have a shield.
But if you have a sword in your right and a spell taking up the left hand,then you can't block.
Ok,try to see it this way.
A warrior,will have a shield and a sword,is only means of attack is his sword,or an occasional shield bash. ( good defence,decent attack) and remember he can only fight close quarters,in that style.
Now....a battle mage: he will have a sword and a spell assigned,meaning he his ( in my view ) ultra offensive,but can't block.
To me this seems fair,because he will have so much offensive strength,he can fight ranged and close quarters,so he his planning more on evasion and taking enemies down quickly/or making them weak,to me he has much better options for fighting,spells can do allsorts of things. If you have a great offence/or offensive style,that in turn needs a weakness.
A battle-mage as more at his disposal than a warrior.
You have to look at it,in a balanced way,and not OMG i can't block with a sword and spell together.
As a battle mage,just sit back and think what you have at your disposel,compaired to just a warrior,with a sword and shield.
It's not as bad as some of you make out.
Also note: There is a favourite/quick menu option,allowing quick transition from load out to another.
It really isn't that bad people ...and don't forget,huminoid enemies will be in the same boat = balance.
Anyway ,just my view......i'm happy with combat personally.

It was charming when you could afford the distance,but often times you can't when engaging targets in close quarters (interiors).

Thanks for the quote, makes a lot more sense now

I understood it like this:
You cant block with a spell on other hand but you can block with: 2h weapons Shield and dual wepons

how do you block with dual weapons? what buttons do you press?

Okay, that makes sense. I'm good with that, no problems here!

Not all are one handed, the only ones that are actually meant to be one handed are the hook handle ones like Count Dooku's.

I found it on in oblivion how i could block arrows claymore and warhammer swings with my hands. Wouldnt i see a arrow in my hand? Or no hand at all? Or a hand that has no bones at all?