Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!tektronix!teklds!zeus!bobr
From: bobr@zeus.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.internat
Subject: Re: BREAK & DELETE, etc.
Message-ID: <241@zeus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-May-86 16:56:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: zeus.241
Posted: Thu May 22 16:56:22 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 25-May-86 11:38:13 EDT
References: <3123@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: bobr@zeus.UUCP (Robert Reed)
Organization: CAE Systems Division, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 19

> In <3123@decwrl.DEC.COM> David Cherson writes:
> ...with the VT100 keyboard, several times I would make that fatal error of
> hitting BREAK, when I actually wanted DELETE.

> The issue of fitting the two keys with different weight springs is a good
> one on the surface, but many typists tend to use enough force when
> striking the keys to overcome the differential.

I agree that in placing the BREAK key beside DELETE is a layout mistake
which may not be countered by differing spring weights.  On the keyboard I'm
most accustomed with, BREAK is in the first row at 40 lbs. and DELETE is in
the 4th row at 30 lbs.

I would disagree with the assertion that ranging the key-weights does not
reduce errors in typing.  Increased key-weights are normally placed on the
peripheral keys, where leverage on the fingers is such that it does make a
difference.  I know personally that the heavy spring in the BREAK key on my
terminal has saved me more than once from accidentally typing it instead of
RETURN.