Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!hsi!stpstn!lerman
From: lerman@stpstn.UUCP (Ken Lerman)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Optimal keyboards
Keywords: Maltron
Message-ID: <5560@stpstn.UUCP>
Date: 13 Sep 90 12:03:08 GMT
References: <1990Sep5.223137.24750@dg-rtp.dg.com> <N5B%SS$@rpi.edu>
Reply-To: lerman@stpstn.UUCP (Ken Lerman)
Organization: The Stepstone Corporation, Sandy Hook, CT 06482
Lines: 25

In article <N5B%SS$@rpi.edu> adamsf@turing.cs.rpi.edu (Frank Adams) writes:
>Is alternate hand typing (having consecutive characters entered by alternate
>hands) really something to be encouraged?  I have no doubt that it is faster,
>but I believe that it is also more error prone.  I know that a large fraction
>of my typing errors are interchanged characters typed on alternate hands.
>I wonder whether this is an appropriate tradeoff, especially for computer
>input where accuracy is at a premium.


I was recently asked the same question about alternate finger typing. :-)

For most computer typing, accuracy is not at such a premium.  Consider:

Numbers (not really relevant to this discussion because keyboard layouts
don't affect which alternate hand use for random numbers):

   credit card numbers have a checksum which detects interchanged characters


Text -- use a spelling checker

If you are willing to pay the premium, type everything twice (by
different typists) and have the results automatically compared.

Ken