Re: Stop the bling, fergawdssake!

On 11/15/2011 5:44 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
> 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.
>
Nor have I.  My wife, who is not a 'touch typist' likes hers because it 
is easier on her carpal tunnel syndrome.  I have a hard time typing on it.