On Sun, February 14, 2016 7:12 pm, Gary Roach wrote: ... >> I've been using a microsoft Ergonomic model 4000 v.1 for years. I love >> it. I recently looked around for a replacement ( turned out not to be the >> problem). I found that the newer Microsoft keyboards were garbage in >> comparison. The only one that came close was a Fellows for which I can >> not remember the model.
I enjoyed using the thin Apple keyboard, but put it away a few years back when I could not figure out the proper xkb category; but I think I now know how to specify the keyboard to the Debian installer. >> I spend a lot of time on the keyboard and much >> prefer the slanted ergonomic layout. I did not notice any comments on my comparison of a computer keyboard with a piano keyboard in this respect; but that also is something to consider. Who would suffer from poor "ergonomics" more than would the pianist? >> I don't understand the fascination with the Dvorak keyboard. While I >> will admit that it is more efficient than the qwerty lay out, this >> really will come into play if you can type faster than 150 wpm or so. >> Who can? Perhaps you should consider your definition of efficiency. I live at the keyboard, and to me the measure of that which you term "efficiency" involves consideration of a number of factors, including fatigue, typographical error rate, and intuitiveness of the layout; the words per minute count is at the bottom of my list. To me, one of the greatest benefits of the Dvorak layout comes in entry of text which incudes numerals. With the Classic Dvorak layout, the keystrokes for numerals are instinctive; thus I seldom make an error. Such was not the case forty years ago when I could type 120 wpm on QWERTY on a manual keybar typewriter.
