Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- David Maynard
May 31, 2005, 6:57 am
rate this thread
I was specifically saying it wasn't appropriate for 'tiny keypads'. Nor is
it the 'definition' of "touch typing."
The concept you seem to be having trouble with is "alternate methods," as
opposed to simply taking the current method, placing it on a Xerox machine,
and shrinking it.
That's certainly one method. Another is being sufficiently familiar with
more than one keyboard.
That's pretty much what "not enough of a perceived 'improvement' to warrant
the 'change'" means. Change costs. What's the profit?
Cost is the driving factor there. Millions upon millions of TV sets, cable,
satellite, and broadcast stations don't just magically transform themselves
into something else for 'free'.
Then it would be a good idea to not 'forget'.
But the particular reason is unimportant. The fact is you have a reason
other than what you had just said was 'the measure' for picking a keyboard
and I'm saying you're right the second time: there often *are* 'other
reasons' and portability is one of them. It may not matter to you, just as
the MS split configuration apparently doesn't matter to the millions who
don't buy it, but portability apparently matters enough for the significant
number who buy devices with 'tiny keypads'.
See, the problem is you make statements like 'speed IS the measure' when
you want to criticize 'tiny keypads' but then you change the criteria to
suit whatever new argument you feel like making and, all of a sudden,
'speed' isn't 'the measure' any more (It may still be 'a' measure but it
isn't 'the' measure).
Which, of course, has been my point all along: that 'the measure' is
dependent on what one needs and that picking a measure(s) inconsistent with
those needs, for the purpose of criticizing the thing, is "an appropriately
inappropriate measurement criteria."