jcb@frisbee.Sun.COM (Jim Becker) (07/14/89)
There is much clamoring over standardization of just about everything in the computer industry. People want to have "plug and play" hardware and consistent software for levels from kernels to graphical user interfaces. Current efforts appear to have missed a main difference for a user utilizing different brands of hardware. The _Keyboard_ is the main interface mechanism that *all* computer users utilize to harness their machines, yet the user is subject to the whims of the manufacturer or the particular hardware vendor. Each different system potentially has a different keyboard layout and feel than all others. Manufacturers make decisions (because of limited resources) of what the keyboard for their products should be and all subsequent users are stuck with the decisions. [I believe manufacturers are trying to make the best choice for the user, but their choice is none-the-less different from the choice of another manufacturer.] In the IBM PC world there are any number of different keyboards that can be plugged into the box and used. There are lots of different models from many manufacturers, I believe that they are all pretty much compatible (I'm not a PC user). But why do I have a different layout that I have to stumble over with each workstation level system, as well as (X) terminals and other personal systems (Amiga, Atari, Mac). [and where did DEC put ESC anyway?] My hands are very large, and using something like the Mac is a nightmare for me, it makes me feel like I'm standing on top of a fence on one foot trying to type. I am very comfortable typing with an Amiga, but other keyboards are more difficult. Why can't I use my Amiga keyboard whereever I want to type. In the past fifteen years of programming I have had to adjust to numerous different styles, which has done nothing for my ability to type comfortably. In addition to the size of the keyboard is the layout of the keys, which for a programmer go a lot further than the alpha-numerics. Each time I have a different keyboard I am subject to different locations for all those funny keys that make up C and Unix... Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, and other maladies, are starting to affect more and more people that need to use their hands for their livelihood. Providing a standard interface for all keyboards opens the option of having a radically different keyboard, one that CTS affected or otherwise disabled people can use. The original keyboard was designed to slow down typing, not make it more efficient. The designers had hardware constraints that are no longer with us. If we are going to continue to progress in our interface to the computer the door must be available for change. To break from the mold of the manufacturer-specific qwerty keyboard there should be standardization of keyboard hardware/software interfaces so users can pick and choose the keyboard interface of personal choice. I believe this would be one standard all users would embrace! -Jim Becker jcb@sun.com + These are my own comments, and do not reflect + + the views of Sun in any way, shape or form. +
pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) (07/14/89)
jcb@frisbee.Sun.COM (Jim Becker) writes: >[Standardize *keyboards*!] There are at least two issues. One is where the physical keys sit, and one is the binding of a physical key to a logical character. In most respects, a lot of keyboards are similar but not *quite* the same in their placement of the keys. Examples of major screw-ups include the `Shift' key on the original IBM-PC keyboard, which was simply shaped wrong. It was hard to hit, whether you were using it as a `Shift' key or as anything else. The other consideration is key binding. Note that the (in)famous DEC keyboard has screwy bindings but pretty normal placement. The default key bindings for X have the seqence [Shift .] produce the "<" token, rather than the default `.'. With sufficient rebinding capabilities, any kind of rebinding is possible, in software, to suit the user's taste. The only problem is that the key caps may not agree with the keys being struck. Somebody has built a prototype of a keyboard that has LCDs in each keycap, but it is probably expensive and/or unavailable. The Xerox solution is to have keymaps that can be displayed in the corner of your screen. Cheaper and almost as effective. BTW, the DEC keyboard is the result of an effort by DEC to produce an internationally standardized keyboard. They had to try to unify several DOZEN keyboard standards (U.S., English, French, German, and so on) to give a keyboard that had the minimum change from country to country. Unfortunately, the ESC and "<" and ">" keys got lost. After using the DEC keyboards for a while, the things that bother me are the placement of the relational operators and the lack of a right-hand Meta key. I am not bothered by the ESC key. Steven Roberts (author of ``Computing Across America'') has a keyboard built in to the handlebar of his bicycle. Now *that* is an alternative keyboard! He types articles as he cruises the desolate highways of Kansas... ;-D on ( Oh dear, where's the door key? ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
bob@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (07/14/89)
In article <115518@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> jcb@frisbee.Sun.COM (Jim Becker) writes:
[... a reasonable discussion of the need to standardize on a good
keyboard, and to provide plug compatibility so that favorite
keyboards could be moved to new machines ...]
I find Jim's commentary especially ironic, in light of the Sun type-4
keyboard. Check recent discussion on comp.sys.sun/sun-spots regarding
this beastie!
+ These are my own comments, and do not reflect +
+ the views of Sun in any way, shape or form. +
Apparently they don't! Why not talk to others at Sun - perhaps you
can persuade them from the inside of the need to provide options to
the widely-beloved (:-) type-4 buttonbox.dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (07/14/89)
The best keyboard proposal I've heard consists of defining a standard hardware/software interface between the terminal or computer and the "keyboard". Of course, there'd have to be codes for all the printable characters, control characters, meta-characters, cursor movement, function keys, etc. It should also include provisions for non-character-based input, i.e., graphic pointer movement (mouse/trackball/joystick), and button clicks. Most equipment would come with a "standard" qwerty keyboard, but third party vendors would supply various alternatives including smart keyboards, keyboards with built-in trackballs, digitizing tablets, voice recognition boxes, handicap input devices (like the one Stephen Hawking uses), etc. Serious hacks would carry their keyboards around with them from machine to machine replacing whatever keyboard was provided. They'd never have to worry about adjusting to a different keyboard. I don't know much about Apple's Desktop Bus, but it may be something like what I'm talking about. If so, it sure seems like some third party vendors are missing an opportunity. Can anyone familiar with ADB comment on this? -- -Dave (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
steve@arc.UUCP (Steve Savitzky) (07/14/89)
In article <13@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (David Sill) writes: >The best keyboard proposal I've heard consists of defining a standard >hardware/software interface between the terminal or computer and the >"keyboard". The two keyboard interfaces I'm acquainted with are PC and ADB, both of which are serial, but with different protocols. Both expect the keyboard to generate different codes for key-down and key-up, which allows any key to be a shift (a feature which is not very well supported in the PC or Mac software). ADB handles arbitrary devices (e.g. mice); the PC can be made to do the same by mapping them into keystrokes or modifying the keyboard driver to handle more scancodes. >Most equipment would come with a "standard" qwerty keyboard, but third >party vendors would supply various alternatives including smart >keyboards, keyboards with built-in trackballs, digitizing tablets, >voice recognition boxes, handicap input devices (like the one Stephen >Hawking uses), etc. This is done more with ADB than PC, but there are plenty of alternate PC keyboards, some of which DO have things like trackballs on them. >Serious hacks would carry their keyboards around with them from >machine to machine replacing whatever keyboard was provided. They'd >never have to worry about adjusting to a different keyboard. What I'd like to see is a little box I can carry around with either a keyboard or a portable PC that lets it emulate arbitrary keyboards and do arbitrary remapping on the keys. To be really general you'd have to be able to program it to handle the oddballs, like Apollo and Sun, as well as PC's and Macs. For things like PC's you'd want the ability to map mouse motion and buttons into different keystrokes for different programs; this would require some smarts on the PC side. >I don't know much about Apple's Desktop Bus, but it may be something >like what I'm talking about. If so, it sure seems like some third >party vendors are missing an opportunity. Can anyone familiar with >ADB comment on this? ADB is sort of in the right direction, but because it's Apple it has all the usual problems: small market, high price, and weird problems (e.g. if you unplug your keyboard you risk blowing up your Mac, because the ADB also includes the "on" button!) Also the CPU has to poll it--no interrupts. >-- >-Dave (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil) -- Steve Savitzky | steve@arc.uucp | apple.com!arc!steve ADVANsoft Research Corp. | (408) 727-3357(w) / 294-6492(h) 4301 Great America Parkway | #include<disclaimer.h> Santa Clara, CA 95054 | May the Source be with you!
news@ism780c.isc.com (News system) (07/15/89)
In article <115518@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> jcb@frisbee.Sun.COM (Jim Becker) writes: > > > The _Keyboard_ is the main interface mechanism that *all* >computer users utilize to harness their machines, yet the user is >subject to the whims of the manufacturer or the particular hardware >vendor. The Feb. 1868 issue of CACM, page 126, has an article titled "Proposed USA Standard, General Purpose Alphanumeric Keyboard Arrangement for Information Interchange". An editor's note says "The proposed American standard has been accepted for final letter ballot and concurrent publication by a Subcommittee of the USA Standards Institute". I don't know the outcome of that ballot. However, even if it was approved, it would not help C programers because the locationsof the characters [ ] \ | { } ^ were not prescribed. Marv Rubinstein
lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) (07/15/89)
In article <29607@ism780c.isc.com> marv@ism780.UUCP (Marvin Rubenstein) writes: >The Feb. 1868 issue of CACM, page 126, has an article titled "Proposed USA >Standard, General Purpose Alphanumeric Keyboard Arrangement for Information >Interchange". An editor's note says "The proposed American standard has been >accepted for final letter ballot and concurrent publication by a Subcommittee >of the USA Standards Institute". I don't know the outcome of that ballot. > >However, even if it was approved, it would not help C programers because >the locationsof the characters [ ] \ | { } ^ were not prescribed. It looks like the above date is wrong. I don't think CACM has been published for over a hundred years. If the date is 1968, the end result was that TWO layouts were standardized, (a) one known as "typewriter-pairing", which blessed the IBM typewriter keyboard, and (b) one called "bit-pairing" which was laid out to make the shift key always toggle just one bit. Subsequently, US manufacturers of terminal equipment went for the "typewriter-pairing" layout; this caused all sorts of problems for European resellers (where the local language needed additional letters). The bit-pairing keyboard would have allowed this with virtually no modification, but the typewriter-pairing keyboards did not allow national adaptation until technology advanced far enough to send all keystrokes through a lookup table in an EPROM. A typewriter pairing keyboard has <> above comma and period; a bit-pairing keyboard has ";" over "," and ":" over ".". I prefer bitpairing keyboards, but can never find them, and I hate even more to always run with patched software, so I type six-finger: All of left hand, but only one finger on the right hand. In the late 1970-es I was a National tech support person for the Danish distributor of Wang Office Systems, and spent a LOT of time bickering with the marketing people in Lowell, Mass about requirements for nationally acceptable keyboards. / Lars Poulsen <lars@salt.acc.com> (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!
quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz) (07/15/89)
In <29607@ism780c.isc.com>, marv@ism780.UUCP (Marvin Rubenstein) wrote: | The Feb. 1868 issue of CACM, page 126, has an article titled "Proposed USA ???? | Standard, General Purpose Alphanumeric Keyboard Arrangement for Information | Interchange". An editor's note says "The proposed American standard has been | accepted for final letter ballot and concurrent publication by a Subcommittee | of the USA Standards Institute". I don't know the outcome of that ballot. If true as quoted (doubt it:-), I assume the standard in question is now obsolete anyway. Mind rechecking the year? -- Cesar Augusto Quiroz Gonzalez Department of Computer Science University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627
news@ism780c.isc.com (News system) (07/18/89)
In article <1989Jul15.034605.28654@cs.rochester.edu> quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz) writes: > >In <29607@ism780c.isc.com>, marv@ism780.UUCP (Marvin Rubenstein) wrote: >| The Feb. 1868 issue of CACM, page 126, has an article titled "Proposed USA > ???? >| Standard, General Purpose Alphanumeric Keyboard Arrangement for Information [the rest of my original posting deleted] > >If true as quoted (doubt it:-), I assume the standard in question is >now obsolete anyway. Mind rechecking the year? Why do you doubt it? I had the issue of CACM in front of me when I wrote the original note. The the date is correct. 1968, 21 years ago! It seems I have an unusual memory for this kind of computer related trivia. As I said in my original note, I don't know if the standard was adopted. If it was, I also don't now if it is still in effect. But it doesn't matter, no one followed it. If any one is interested, I can give you the reference to the proposed standard for hand written programs. The standard was proposed so that readers could tell the difference between the letter, oh, and the numeral, zero. (No, this is not a joke) Marv Rubinstein
spage@cup.portal.com (S spage Page) (07/19/89)
The de facto standard is the IBM 101-key keyboard on the PC AT. You can buy a Mac keyboard with the same layout, the NeXT keyboard is similar, there are a zillion clone vendors selling all kinds of versions of this from spongey to tappy to clickly, I believe you can plug one right into the DG Aviion system, etc., etc. As to whether it's a GOOD standard,... It duplicates the cursor control and PageUp/PageDown/Home/End/Insert/Delete keys, first on the number pad and then in two blocks. This is somewhat redundant and the NeXT keyboard uses the PageUp/PageDown/... block for ?? Brightness, Volume, and other weirdness. The problem with any standard keyboard layout is that software programs always end up using every key, so that to implement window system shortcuts like Front/Back/Close, you have to either fight with applications or add extra keys. Sun grabbed the left 10 keys from the original PC layout. However, the Microsoft Windows use of <Alt-> is much easier to remember and faster to type. I walked up to a PC once and ran Windows for 30 minutes before I noticed it didn't have a mouse! If OSF/Motif can implement the same keyboard U.I. it would be a big win. Another advantage of the PC AT hardware standard is the number of plug- compatible special designs available for it. I have bad arthritis and have tried several different keyboards. I've seen ads for dished keyboards, keyboards with touch pads, keyboards with separately adjustable left and right keys. The most amazing product I've heard of is one which splits the keyboard into two "pucks", one for each hand. You rest your hands on heavily contured surfaces studded with microswitches, so the effort to strike keys is minimized. And... each one rolls around independently, so either hand can drive a mouse. If anyone has more information about this keyboard, please send me email. =S Page spage@cup.Portal.COM
jimc@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Jim Cathey) (07/20/89)
In article <20581@cup.portal.com> spage@cup.portal.com (S spage Page) writes: >The de facto standard is the IBM 101-key keyboard on the PC AT. You can buy >... >As to whether it's a GOOD standard,... It duplicates the cursor control and >... >Another advantage of the PC AT hardware standard is the number of plug- >compatible special designs available for it. I have bad arthritis and >... And a monstrously big _disadvantage_ of the PC keyboard series is its TTL signal interface. Probably the most noise-sensitive interface they could have chosen. You are extremely limited in how far you can extend the cable before you start getting unreliable keystrokes, especially if you package video into the same cable. Plus it expects 5V regulated power, another no-no for longer cables. Our keyboards use RS-422 and we routinely get 3000 feet of cable on these signals with no problems. It's also a low-speed LAN in that we get 8 keyboards and 8 printers all on the same wire, with only one serial controller. Very handy for installing low-cost multi-user stations. Unfortunately us designers are besieged by legions of marketing types dancing in a circle around us and chanting "Off the SHELF, Industry STANDard..." They expect the same sort of thing that we do with our custom keyboards to be done with AT keyboards, only "cheaper". After all, a keyboard's a keyboard, right? Grumble. +----------------+ ! II CCCCCC ! Jim Cathey ! II SSSSCC ! ISC-Bunker Ramo ! II CC ! TAF-C8; Spokane, WA 99220 ! IISSSS CC ! UUCP: uunet!iscuva!jimc (jimc@iscuva.iscs.com) ! II CCCCCC ! (509) 927-5757 +----------------+ "With excitement like this, who is needing enemas?"