Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!ncar!ames!nap1!ark1!dsill From: dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) Newsgroups: comp.std.misc Subject: Re: User Interface Standards -- *Keyboards!* Keywords: keyboards,standardize,plug-n-play,freedom,ADB Message-ID: <17@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> Date: 15 Jul 89 13:25:54 GMT References: <115518@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <13@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <440@arc.UUCP> <14@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <442@arc.UUCP> Reply-To: dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA Lines: 84 In article <442@arc.UUCP> steve@arc.UUCP (Steve Savitzky) writes: >Obviously, we differ. Yeah, but at least we agree there's a problem. >I have a PC and a mouse, and the combination >can be made to work well enough for me to prefer it to a PC and no >mouse. Would it make you feel better if I say "user interface events" >instead of "keystrokes" or "scancodes"? I don't care what you call it. I don't see how you can run a mouse over a PC keyboard connection and have it work like one of the common PC mice such as Microsoft or Logitech. Am I missing something? >>The other way *does* require a standard, but the payoff is much >>greater. You get a single hardware/software interface that supports a >>much wider range of input devices *well*, as well as much more >>consistency of operation between systems. > >I think you've missed the point. There is unlikely EVER to be a >standard for keyboard arrangements and keybindings, because the "best" >such arrangement is a matter of preference (i.e. a religious issue). >I would rather have the ability to customize my interface than have >somebody else's idea of the "correct" interface shoved down my throat. I couldn't agree more. Any effort to standardize keyboards would be a waste of time. >Similarly, keyboard/mouse/etc. interfaces are improbable in the next >ten years or so, because manufacturers work on the (usually correct) >assumption that their customers are using only THEIR OWN (the mfr's) >equipment. Hey, I never said it was likely to happen anytime soon. The biggest obstacle is, of course, hardware vendors. They're perfectly happy with the status quo: they sell a keyboard/mouse/tablet with every system. They have no competion. The PC world is close to an exception; there are many after-market PC keyboards available. But, as far as I know, that hasn't significantly impacted the number of PCs sold without keyboards. For such a standard to happen, users have to be made aware of the benefits. Once vendors hear users clamoring for something they usually provide it. >What I want is something I can use *now* (not thirty years from now >when keyboards are obsolete enough to have a standard interface) to be >able to carry my own personal user interface around in my briefcase. We're not just talking about a *keyboard* interface, we're talking about an *input* interface. Imagine a sightless user with a Braille (or whatever) keyboard that could be attached to PC compatibles, workstations, Macs, Amigas, etc. Even though it's unlikely there would be many people who would switch between so many systems, think of how this would leverage the specialty input device market. Rather than having to market N versions of their enhanced keyboard or handicap interface they'd only have to make one. These days, only the most-used systems have a large enough base to support a third-party keyboard market. >>Which unfortunately can't behave like a "normal" PC mouse/pointer. > >No reason why not. You just have to make the keyboard interrupt >handler in the PC service both the keyboard and mouse device drivers. Okay, that's what I was missing. Could that be done? Are there any free scan codes? Would it require hardware mods? What about the physical complexity of the device required to enable it to attach to different systems? >>> if you unplug your keyboard you risk blowing up your Mac, >>>because the ADB also includes the "on" button!)... > >> I don't see any problem with putting the >>"on" button on the ADB, the problem is that it's too easy to >>accidentally send garbage when plugs are moved. > >No, the problem is that you blow a fuse which Apple cleverly *solders* >to the motherboard! Do we agree that that's a quality-of-implementation issue and not a flaw in the concept? -- Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)