Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew From: mathew@mantis.UUCP (mathew) Newsgroups: comp.sys.laptops Subject: Re: B.O.S.S or Wizard, etc Message-ID: Date: 7 Dec 90 13:40:01 GMT References: <8540009@hpspcoi.HP.COM> Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. Lines: 34 dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) writes: > >Go back and read the things I've highlighted. I said that the layout > >was no worse than QWERTY, which is a statement directly supported by > >the report. > > Go back and re-read what I wrote. You have to learn a new key layout > that is no better than qwerty according to your posting. That is a > waste of effort. Only if you already know QWERTY! Remember, this is a *Personal Organizer*. Most people who use personal organizers are not typists! Now, if you can show that learning QWERTY is faster than learning alphabetic, you'll have a point. But I suspect that for the beginner, alphabetic is quicker to learn. [ Of course, Microwriting is quicker still. You can be touch-typing in two hours. So even if QWERTY *were* better than alphabetic, it would still be a poor decision for a portable machine. ] You also have to remember that beginners say they find QWERTY intimidating, whereas they don't mind alphabetic. This is why Speak and Spell machines don't use typewriter layout! Look, I personally would prefer a QWERTY keyboard to an alphabetic one; however, that's because I can type on QWERTY. I was trying to explain the sort of reasoning which leads to pocket machines having alphabetic keyboards; it isn't just stupidity, there *are* good reasons. mathew. -- Mantis Consultants, Unit 56, St. John's Innovation Centre, Cambridge. CB4 4WS. "CP/M is to metric as cockroaches are to a Timex watch" - booter@catnip