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.