beckman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Peter Beckman) (11/26/90)
Can anyone make any recommendations or warnings about these type of pocket appointment and phone gadgets. I want one with a serial port and standard IBM software to download addresses and maybe appointments. On a different note what is the current buzz word for those things, or should we make one. Here is the progression I've heard: Luggable -> Lunchbox -> Laptop -> Palmtop -> .... Fingertiptop? .. Pocket? -Pete beckman@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) (11/27/90)
>(Peter Beckman) >Can anyone make any recommendations or warnings about these type of >pocket appointment and phone gadgets. I want one with a serial port >and standard IBM software to download addresses and maybe >appointments. I chose a BOSS 8000 over a Wizard. The BOSS is optimized to be an electronic DayTimer (TM). It fits in my shirt pocket. The Wizard does not. That makes all the difference in the world. The BOSS has a qwerty key layout. The Wizard is alphabetic which is the worst of all worlds for a key layout. The current top of the line BOSS has the same ability as the Wizard if you are looking for something more than a Daytimer. Danny Low "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You" Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley HP CPCD dlow%hpspcoi@hplabs.hp.com ...!hplabs!hpspcoi!dlow
trevorc@uwovax.uwo.ca (11/28/90)
I have a Sharp Wizard (IQ7000) and have been very pleased with it. It acts as my schedule book and daily reminder as well as phone book and alarm clock. I do not think the interface with a PC is worth it - I have the PC Link but have hardly used it and find it much more convenient to enter or delete the data directly on the IQ7000. The IQ7000 does not have a QWERTY keyboard but newer models do - there is a ZQ series and now a new IQ8000 series which is much better. These include a time management program similar to that which was previously available on a plug-in card for the 7000 series. I cannot comment on the BOSS. -- Trevor Cradduck, | Phone: (519) 667-6574 Department of Nuclear Medicine, | FAX: (519) 667-6734 Victoria Hospital, | E-mail: University of Western Ontario, | BITNET: TREVORC@UWOVAX.BITNET LONDON, Ontario, | INTERNET: TREVORC@UWOVAX.UWO.CA Canada, N6A 4G5 | UUCP: TREVORC@RIA.UWO.CA
mathew@mantis.UUCP (mathew) (11/28/90)
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) writes: > I chose a BOSS 8000 over a Wizard. The BOSS is optimized to be > an electronic DayTimer (TM). It fits in my shirt pocket. > The Wizard does not. That makes all the difference in the world. > The BOSS has a qwerty key layout. The Wizard is alphabetic which > is the worst of all worlds for a key layout. From "Human-Computer Interaction" (INTERACT '90 conference proceedings): KEYBOARD LAYOUT FOR OCCASIONAL USERS Nicolas MARMARAS and Kostas LYRITZIS Technical University of Crete, Greece The present study is a first attempt to solve the problem of keyboard layout for occasional users of computer-based systems. [...] The keyboard arrangements tested were the alphabetical diagonal, the alphabetical horizontal, the standard Greek keyboard which is similar to the QWERTY layout, and a new alternative Greek keyboard designed for typists. The obtained results showed that the alphabetical diagonal arrangement achieved better typing speed rates, and that the differences between typing rates achieved with the other three layouts are practically insignificant. So for people who don't use computers much (i.e., those who might be expected to buy a Sharp personal organizer) an alphabetic keyboard is no worse than QWERTY, and probably somewhat better. mathew. P.S. Me? I use a Microwriter. -- Mantis Consultants, Unit 56, St. John's Innovation Centre, Cambridge. CB4 4WS. "CP/M is to metric as cockroaches are to a Timex watch" - booter@catnip
marmen@bwdla31.bnr.ca (Rob Marmen 1532773) (11/28/90)
In article <74420@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, beckman@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Peter Beckman) writes: > Can anyone make any recommendations or warnings about these type of > pocket appointment and phone gadgets. I bought the Sharp ZQ-5300M which is a stripped down wizard. One feature that I found especially usefull was the three telephone directories. I have mine setup as personal, business, and internal (company specific). The ability to cut and paste, as well as edit scheduled dates is very nice, but I suspect CASIO has these features as well. I also have the organizer link. However, I use it to BACKUP my organizer to my PC which I regularly backup. After entering all that data, I do not want to re-enter it in case of loss or damage. I fully expect to 'toast' one of these organizers in three years. It fits in my shirtpocket and goes everywhere. Hence, the likelyhood of loss or damage. Another option is two organizers to back each other up, but the link package is probably cheaper. My own personal opinion is that both companies make good products. The decision of which to choose depends entirely on your requirements, feelings and availability of cash. I have not met anyone who has had a bad experience with them. regards, rob... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Robert Marmen marmen@bnr.ca OR | | Bell Northern Research marmen%bnr.ca@cunyvm.cuny.edu | | (613) 763-8244 My opinions are my own, not BNRs |
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) (11/30/90)
>mathew@mantis.UUCP > The obtained results showed that the alphabetical diagonal > arrangement achieved better typing speed rates, and that the > differences between typing rates achieved with the other three > layouts are practically insignificant. > >So for people who don't use computers much (i.e., those who might be expected >to buy a Sharp personal organizer) an alphabetic keyboard is no worse than >QWERTY, and probably somewhat better. The alphabetic layout on the Wizard is NOT a diagonal alphabetic layout. This result only shows the key layout of the Wizard is a minus. You have to learn a new key layout that makes no difference in speed over a qwerty layout that everyone already knows. Danny Low "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You" Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley HP CPCD dlow%hpspcoi@hplabs.hp.com ...!hplabs!hpspcoi!dlow
marmen@bwdla31.bnr.ca (Rob Marmen 1532773) (12/01/90)
There seems to be a lot of intense discussion about alphabetic versus qwerty style keyboards. However, recent announcements in both pc laptop portable computer review, have stated that sharp now carries models with qwerty keyboards. For example, my sharp zq-5300m has a qwerty keyboard. With respect to the original posting, you can now compare the features of the casio with a qwerty sharp model. The keyboard does not have to be a decisive issue. You no longer need to compare apples and oranges. Now back to which keyboard is best..... cheers, rob... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Robert Marmen marmen@bnr.ca OR | | Bell Northern Research marmen%bnr.ca@cunyvm.cuny.edu | | (613) 763-8244 My opinions are my own, not BNRs |
sandin@uicbert.eecs.uic.edu (Dan Sandin) (12/01/90)
with reference to the alpha keyboard on Wizard: I have the OZ-7000 w/ alpha keyboard, and I am actually rather fond of it. In fact, the biggest problem with the new upgrade "superwizard" is the Qwerty keyboard (though it is big enough to be useful for real writing). However, as an organizer, the ABCD layout is perfect for one-handed typing. Try typing onehanded on standard qwerty. A real pain. Organizer in left hand, type with the right, it really makes a lot more sense then typing qwerty with one hand or putting the damn thing down on a desk to type. Much easier to enter data while driving (use one hand with wizard on passenger seat or use both hands and drive with knees :) ) or while walking. stephan meyers c/o sandin@uicbert.eecs.uic.edu
mathew@mantis.UUCP (mathew) (12/03/90)
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) writes: > >mathew@mantis.UUCP > > The obtained results showed that the alphabetical diagonal > > arrangement achieved better typing speed rates, and that the > > differences between typing rates achieved with the other three ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > layouts are practically insignificant. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > >So for people who don't use computers much (i.e., those who might be expecte > >to buy a Sharp personal organizer) an alphabetic keyboard is no worse than ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >QWERTY, and probably somewhat better. > > The alphabetic layout on the Wizard is NOT a diagonal > alphabetic layout. This result only shows the key layout of the > Wizard is a minus. You have to learn a new key layout that > makes no difference in speed over a qwerty layout that everyone > already knows. Go back and read the things I've highlighted. I said that the layout was no worse than QWERTY, which is a statement directly supported by the report. I then said it was "probably somewhat better". Reason 1: The rows of keys on the Sharp are narrower than the layout tried in the above tests -- that is, there are fewer keys in each row. Personal experience shows that that helps when finding keys. I would therefore expect slightly better results from the Sharp keyboard than from the horizontal alphabetic keyboard tried in the tests. Reason 2: Many naive users are actively put off by the initial appearance of a QWERTY layout, and initial appeal is an important factor when you're trying to sell a pocket computer. Consider the AgendA - it still has an alphabetic keyboard to reassure people, even though such a keyboard is completely redundant. mathew. -- Mantis Consultants, Unit 56, St. John's Innovation Centre, Cambridge. CB4 4WS. "CP/M is to metric as cockroaches are to a Timex watch" - booter@catnip
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) (12/06/90)
>Go back and read the things I've highlighted. I said that the layout >was no worse than QWERTY, which is a statement directly supported by >the report. > >mathew. Go back and re-read what I wrote. You have to learn a new key layout that is no better than qwerty according to your posting. That is a waste of effort. The time spent hunting for keys decreases your productivity. Until you learn the key layout the alphabetic layout is less productive. When you finally learn the layout your productivity only goes back up to what it would have been from the beginning with a qwerty layout. This is not a sensible decision. Danny Low California Personal Computer Division dlow@hpspcoi ...!hplabs!hpspcoi!dlow HP4200/29 720-3622
mathew@mantis.UUCP (mathew) (12/07/90)
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) writes: > >Go back and read the things I've highlighted. I said that the layout > >was no worse than QWERTY, which is a statement directly supported by > >the report. > > Go back and re-read what I wrote. You have to learn a new key layout > that is no better than qwerty according to your posting. That is a > waste of effort. Only if you already know QWERTY! Remember, this is a *Personal Organizer*. Most people who use personal organizers are not typists! Now, if you can show that learning QWERTY is faster than learning alphabetic, you'll have a point. But I suspect that for the beginner, alphabetic is quicker to learn. [ Of course, Microwriting is quicker still. You can be touch-typing in two hours. So even if QWERTY *were* better than alphabetic, it would still be a poor decision for a portable machine. ] You also have to remember that beginners say they find QWERTY intimidating, whereas they don't mind alphabetic. This is why Speak and Spell machines don't use typewriter layout! Look, I personally would prefer a QWERTY keyboard to an alphabetic one; however, that's because I can type on QWERTY. I was trying to explain the sort of reasoning which leads to pocket machines having alphabetic keyboards; it isn't just stupidity, there *are* good reasons. mathew. -- Mantis Consultants, Unit 56, St. John's Innovation Centre, Cambridge. CB4 4WS. "CP/M is to metric as cockroaches are to a Timex watch" - booter@catnip