paulf@marque.UUCP (Flaherty) (05/07/86)
[A sacrifice to the line eater god....]
If you *really* want to design the ultimate keyboard, do the following:
1) Some {yeech} Ergonomics Research on keyboard keyswitches.
What really makes a keyboard comfortable is positive tactile
feedback, and properly sprung switches. Examples of good
keyboards w.r.t. these attributes include the DEC vt2xx series,
the Teletype 44xx terminals, and the tty 43 keyboard that was
made by Cherry.
2) A *completely* user-defineable layout.
Why not? If I want Dvorak, or QWERTY, or lots of control keys,
or a numeric keypad, or arrow keys, or delete instead of
backspace, or any other idiosyncracy, my "smart terminal"
should be intelligent enough to adapt to my wishes. This
mandates removable and swappable keycaps, and a large non -
volitile memory. Not asking much here.
In essence, the best "standard" keyboard is one that the user could
adapt to his/her own preferences...instead of the preferences of some ISO
committee. Those of you with hp-41s should know the value of a customized,
adaptable layout; it allows the user to "move in" to the machine. Why
standardize something that no two people can agree on, anyway? Instead,
an effort should be made to offer a "flexible keyboard" as a standard
option, and perhaps to facilitate the transfer of the data in the NOVRAM.
--
-=Paul A. Flaherty
Marquette University
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Usenet: ...ihnp4!uwvax!uwmacc!uwmcsd1!marque!paulf
Arpa: uwmcsd1!marque!paulf@rsch.wisc.edu
Bitnet: uwmacc!uwmcsd1!marque!paulf@WISCVM.BITNET
"And because, in all the Galaxy, they had found nothing more precious
than Mind, they encouraged its dawning everywhere."
-- 2001: A Space Odyssey
Disclaimer: Marquette doesn't know what I'm doing, and what they don't
know won't hurt them, right?rcd@nbires.UUCP (05/15/86)
> >...The reason for '. .' and ', ,' was that > >you still wanted to be able to type those in "shift lock" mode, but since > >"caps lock" on a terminal only shifts the alphabetic keys, the reason for > >a '. .' and ', ,' go away. Some people just don't know how to think! > > Nope. On a VT220, the user can select CAPS-LOCK or SHIFT-LOCK in the > setup mode, depending on his/her preference. I hadn't known this about the VT220, but it certainly diminishes any slight respect I might have offered it. The availability of SHIFT-LOCK doesn't do anything to bolster the sensibility of '. .' and ', ,' keys; it just makes the VT220 look sillier. SHIFT-LOCK is archaic and arcane. It made sense on a typewriter where shifting moved the key basket (is that the term?) and shift-lock just locked it into place--but only because that was the cheap thing to do. Being able to use shift-lock to type VT@@) or MC^*)@) or IBM#&) just isn't useful, and carrying mechanical-typewriter arcana into an electronic device is insane (or at least inane). The change from SHIFT-LOCK to CAPS-LOCK was a logical change, finally made possible by changing technology, and why DEC would offer a throwback is beyond me...but then, I'm not a marketeer. I think Mark has charted a pretty good course through the murky waters of what-can-we-change-vs-what-must-be-familiar. You could make the same argument I made above for moving to a Dvorak keyboard. Fine. Changing from qwerty to Dvorak is a much bigger change. I would like to see a qwerty keyboard with the rest of the keys laid out in a consistent and sensible fashion. I would also like to see a Dvorak layout with the same rules applied to the rest of the keyboard. (And, paying at least tardy lip service to the name of the newsgroup, I would like to see more about the implications of international keyboards in this issue.) -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.