Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.info-terms,net.internat
Subject: Re: In search of a sane keyboard standard
Message-ID: <521@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 3-May-86 14:25:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.521
Posted: Sat May  3 14:25:36 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 6-May-86 03:49:20 EDT
References: <2071@cbosgd.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL)
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.info-terms:903 net.internat:262

Gee, my 5620 keyboard is a "Horton Standard Keyboard", except for
the placement of the BREAK key, which is well to the side so that
it can't be bumped into by accident.  The only funny feature is
having to type CTRL plus COMMA to generate a NUL, instead of CTRL
plus SPACE.

I have to agree that this is one of the most comfortable keyboard
arrangements I've encountered, if you discount the misfeature of
having a QWERTY arrangement instead of Dvorak.  (It should be at
least user-selectable as on the Apple //c.)

The absolutely WORST keyboards I've had to use have been touted as
"ergonomic", such as the DEC VT220 humongous flat keyboard with
control functions all misplaced.  IBM PCs come a close next-to-last.
Why do the biggest companies make the stupidest keyboards?  Is it
because they use correspondence typists rather than computists for
user feedback?

In any event, we need to identify the source of the problem before
we can expect to get it fixed.  Would some terminal vendors please
explain how they came up with their keyboard layout designs?