Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!hplabs!hao!nbires!rcd
From: rcd@nbires.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.info-terms,net.internat
Subject: Re: In search of a sane keyboard standard
Message-ID: <761@nbires.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-May-86 04:09:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: nbires.761
Posted: Thu May 15 04:09:55 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 17-May-86 04:16:13 EDT
References: <2071@cbosgd.UUCP> <163@mtsbb.UUCP> <870@uwvax.UUCP>
Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.info-terms:956 net.internat:305

Keyboard layout and feel, as a matter of taste...
> >                      The streamlined feel of the "new" electronic
> > keyboards just doesn't cut it.  Of the above, I found the hp 2621
> > keyboard the closest to the Selectric and the least tiring.
...but...
> And herein lies the biggest problem.  I *loath* the hp2621 keyboard.

Sure, de gustibus non est disputandum, but there ought to be enough things
that have gotten screwed up on existing keyboards and have been cursed by
90% of the people who have used them.  Those are the things that could be
straightened out by a reasonable "standard".  For example, I have yet to
meet or hear of anyone who likes the DEC VT2?0 handling of < and > (on one
key instead of atop ,.)  I have heard it cursed so many times I've stopped
counting...so why did DEC do it in the first place?  Because somebody had
some bright idea and there was insufficient weight of opinion and/or pre-
vailing standard to stop them, I suspect.

If nothing else, the volume of the response to Mark's proposal and
questions should indicate to anyone who's listening that there is
interest.  If you read the responses, you'll also find a lot of agreement.
That's worth it.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.