Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!fortune!phipps From: phipps@fortune.UUCP (Clay Phipps) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Keyboards / Re: id AA28321 ... - (nf) Message-ID: <2670@fortune.UUCP> Date: Thu, 1-Mar-84 23:25:43 EST Article-I.D.: fortune.2670 Posted: Thu Mar 1 23:25:43 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Mar-84 09:55:19 EST References: <546@sdcsvax.UUCP> Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA Lines: 32 I'm not a typist in the sense of "touch-typing", but over the years, I've developed a fairly-fast Chico Marx-like hunt-and-peck style. I can understand how people can be partial to some particular layout if they are touch-typists who don't ever look at keys, but for the rest of us (well over half, I suspect), don't we have to look at the keyboard anyhow ? If so, does it matter exactly where a key is as long as it's placed somewhere within reason ? Obviously, the notion of "within reason" can lead to many arguments. Having been forced to use some keyboards with really lousy feel, I consider the feel of the keyboard much more important to me than whether some new key ("\|") is placed between "shift" and "Z". I'd rather have that key there, where I can reach it easily, than off to the side outside "tab" or "return". I have an IBM PC, and I like its keyboard, mostly because of its feel. My main objection, and it's a major one, is the combining of the numeric keypad with the arrow (i.e., cursor control) keys. That makes it a real pain to use my LogiTech mouse (which moves the cursor by simulating arrow key hits) with the numeric keypad. But the number row (above the "qwerty" row) works, regardless. I don't know why IBM hasn't designed an optional "genuine IBM Selectric" keyboard for the PC; it sure seems that it would be a winner for them. -- Clay Phipps -- {allegra,amd70,cbosgd,dsd,floyd,harpo,hpda,ihnp4, megatest,nsc,oliveb,sri-unix,twg,varian,VisiA,wdl1} !fortune!phipps