Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:14972 comp.windows.misc:452
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!tness1!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: 2 button mouse
Keywords: window human computer interface
Message-ID: <1798@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 6 Apr 88 10:30:02 GMT
References: <4129@hoptoad.uucp> <283@rhesus.primate.wisc.edu> <1710@ssc-vax.UUCP> <201@glenlivet.hci.hw.ac.uk>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 29

In article ... gilbert@hci.hw.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
> Being analytical here:

> 	a) hands on keyboard - homing time on mouse same for KM
> 	   (Keyboard and Mouse) and M (Mouse only). Assumes can find
> 	   key without looking.

i.e... assumes touch typist.

> 	b) no hands on keyboard - homing time for KM more than for M (=0).

> So, at the keystroke level, we only loose out theoretically if the user
> does not have a hand on the keyboard.

For a lot of stuff I do on my Amiga I shove the keyboard into the cute
little keyboard garage under the CPU and use the extra desk space to allow
finer control of the mouse. So... not only may the user not have his or her
hand on the keyboard, but the keyboard may not even be available.

I recall reading that at one time at PARC they were having keyboard problems,
and were doing all their work cutting and pasting with the mouse.

> As you are always going to run out of mouse-buttons, all systems could
> end up using the KM approach to increase mouse-button bandwidth.

Why are you always going to run out of mouse-buttons?
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.