X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 110f55,c7d9bdca1d0caae2 X-Google-Attributes: gid110f55,public X-Google-Thread: fbb9d,c7d9bdca1d0caae2 X-Google-Attributes: gidfbb9d,public X-Google-Thread: f996b,c7d9bdca1d0caae2 X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-05 15:48:17 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!sashimi.wwa.com!not-for-mail From: boba@wwa.com (Bob Allison) Newsgroups: rec.arts.ascii,alt.ascii-art,alt.binaries.pictures.ascii Subject: Talk: Dvorak-QWERTY Date: 5 Oct 1994 14:19:11 -0500 Organization: WorldWide Access - Chicago Area Internet Services 312-282-8605 - 708-367-1871 Lines: 22 Approved: boba@wwa.com Message-ID: <36uu7f$fq0@gagme.wwa.com> References: <781124699.1969.0@unix6.andrew.cmu.edu> <36qgrt$nf@gagme.wwa.com> <36usn8$o4v@sashimi.wwa.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: gagme.wwa.com Xref: bga.com rec.arts.ascii:1935 alt.ascii-art:12666 alt.binaries.pictures.ascii:1279 Bram Cohen wrote: > >An interesting thing about the QWERTY layout is that consecutive letters are >placed pretty close together. If you look at the position of each letter >starting a, b, c, and so on, they're all pretty close together, in fact many >pairs are right next to each other (specifically, cde,fgh,ijkl,mn,op.) >Apparently not much thought was put into that layout at all, but since it >was supposed to be bad, that doesn't make much difference. A couple of other things. One is the physical layout of the actual keys themselves. How ergonomic is that? Another is what Apple did with the split keyboard they make. -- ======= ====== ======= ======= ====== ====== ======= ======= === === === /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ------- --- ------- ------- ------ --- ------- --- --- --- --- --- /// /// /// /// ////// /// /// ////// /// /// /// /// /// ======= ====== === === === === ====== ====== === === ======= ===========