Re: Stop the bling, fergawdssake!

On 11/15/11 1:30 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 11/14/2011 8:54 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
>> On 11/14/11 4:21 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2011 10:15 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/11 4:58 PM, Art Kocsis wrote:
>>>>> The layout of the touch-tone phone is completely OPPOSITE to the
>>>>> layout of
>>>>> a ten-key adding machine! The ten-key layout had been standard for
>>>>> decades
>>>>> and many people had committed it to muscle memory. The arbitrary
>>>>> reversal
>>>>> (just to be different?) has caused no end of pain and confusion. The
>>>>> IBM
>>>>> keyboard is another classic example of misguided change for changes'
>>>>> sake.
>>>>
>>>> This may or may not be true, but somewhere in my history, I read or was
>>>> told the change was intentional.
>>>>
>>>> In those days, many phone switches were mechanical. Someone with good 10
>>>> key skills could tie those switches up in knots, as the switches could
>>>> not keep up with the speed 10 key users could input a phone number.
>>>>
>>>> Having watched one of those old switches in motion, it isn't hard for me
>>>> to see someone inputting 3 or 4 digits for a phone number before the
>>>> switch could process the first digit.
>>>>
>>> Sounds like another stupid choice made for mechanical limitations, like
>>> the Scholes keyboard.
>>
>> In retrospect, the QWERTY keyboard seems to make little sense, in light
>> of the fact I've seen studies where typists who master the DVORAK
>> keyboard can outpace QWERTY keyboard users. And the QWERTY keyboard
>> seems to have come about to prevent jamming of the typewriter keys by
>> fast typists.
>>
>> There does seem to be no definitive reason for the layout issue. Besides
>> the theory I mentioned, I found another reference where doing it with
>> the "1" at the upper left meant the letters that are associated with a
>> number are in a logical (read alphabetical) order, and not reversed.
>>
>> One of those imponderables of history.
>>
>>
> The justification made sense when typewriters were being designed.  At
> that point, 'keyjams' were frequent, and the keyboard was actually
> designed so that the keys used most were located where they wouldn't
> conflict.  The net result was a gain in throughput because the typist
> didn't spend as much time clearing keyjams.  It did slow down the typing
> speed, IF keyjams did not happen, but did its job for overall
> throughput.  Of course, after electronic keyboard became available, the
> layout seemed downright illogical, but by then, millions of people had
> been trained to 'touch typing', and wouldn't have liked having to start
> over.  I am one of those people, and I have never been able to get used
> to 'non-ballistic' electronic keyboards.

I've never been able to get used to those ergonomic/natural shaped 
keyboards.

-- 
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 8.0.1
Thunderbird 8.0.1
LibreOffice 3.3.4