|
Garth J Lancaster wrote: else, you foster a mentality of 'programming is copying and pasting'
Most javascipt programming is already like that 
|
|
|
|
|
In a meeting yesterday. The boss said: But you can just copy and paste this bit of code from that little project over there that already does something SIMILAR 
|
|
|
|
|
Deceptive title - I though it was going to be about unreliable keyboards. I feel like reading it was a waste of time.
Beyond that, it's absurd to think they can make the general public accept a change to an almost 150-year old paradigm. The only way to make the keyboard better is to eliminate it completely in deference to something that is undeniably *better* - not just "better in some ways", but a reasonable and viable replacement. Until we can transmit our thoughts wirelessly to the screen, I doubt if anything "better" is in our immediate future.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Transferring my thoughts to the screen would result in a lot of expletives in my code that I'd just have to clean up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the deal: any talk of touch-screen PCs is just a ruse. It's been tried. It doesn't work, for a number of reasons.
But neither Microsoft nor any of its (former) PC vendors have anything to compete in the fastest-growing segment of computing appliances: touch-screen tablets. They need to compete because traditional PC sales are down significantly. But they have nothing. So they have a touch-screen Surface that's not really a tablet, and not really a laptop. And Windows 8 is supposed to run on touch-screen desktops... if you can find one. But does anyone really want that?
It reminds me of the early days of iPod. There were... "options" if you really, steadfastly refused to go Apple. But, to be honest, the options all sucked. Zune was the only real potential player, and look how Microsoft screwed that up, too.
But I digress... Touch screen PC? Just ask yourself this: would you want to work all day at an ATM? Didn't think so.
Director of Content Development, The Code Project
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't suggest touch screens. In fact, touch-screen PCs will probably result in even worse repetitive motion injuries. As a developer, I see not use in anything but a keyboard and a mouse (short of the fore-mentioned mental-link capability).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is the unnecessary involvement of physical movement just to copy electrical data from one computer to an other. Please perfect the non-invasive brain-computer interface.
|
|
|
|
|
The article isn't consistent, first he acknowledges ergonomic keyboards exist but aren't wide spread, then says ergonomic keyboards would be an innovation. Honestly, I can't stand them, they're so awkward, and the learning curve just isn't worth it to me. The same goes for alternate key layouts, I could swap around the keys on my keyboard, but what's the point? I don't have any issues with QWERTY, and I don't get why people think it's so problematic (I have a co-worker who uses Dvorak, but he's yet to give me a compelling reason to switch, the best I've heard is "you might type faster", but I've never been bottle-necked by my typing speed...).
|
|
|
|
|
lewax00 wrote: they're so awkward
Yes, especially for we who type one-handed.
|
|
|
|
|
As stated in my post, ergonomic keyboards are not. Not only is the qwerty layout flawed, but the position of the keys is flawed. There are some pretty good ergonomic keyboards (realitive to the ones sold by the companies like Microsoft), but they are very expensive. Then there are concepts like using cords to more efficiently type, like a stenograph. On a Dvorak keyboard, your fingers would have to move significanly less than what they do on a Qwerty.
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford Nelson wrote: Not only is the qwerty layout flawed, but the position of the keys is flawed.
So I hear, over and over again, but I just don't see it. I can type just fine, what's the problem? Why should it matter if my fingers need to move more?
It's like trying to argue that an entire system should be rewritten for some small efficiency gain the end user will not be able to perceive (e.g. some task finishes in 1 ms less time). I feel this is the same. Sure it looks good on paper, but why make the effort to change if I can't tell the difference?
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, if your fingers can type just pushing down on the key, that is a lot less movement than having to move to another key and then press. Saying you do not mind some extra movement of your finger is like saying that you would not mind going around the lake instead of building a bridge. The bridge will save you time, so will not moving your finger. There is also energy expenditure. There are also other problems, like putting a key like the A key under your little finger. Not the best placement. As to whether you shoule make the effort, probably not because then you would just have to readapt when you use another computer. Rather inconvenient. Basically it is like admitting Ethernet sucks. Well it does, but if you try to use something else you will be incompatible with the rest of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see the numbers, but they don't say much to me. For example, I don't see why finger strength is important at all, my pinky can press a button just as well as any other finger. I could press the buttons with a sledgehammer for more force too but that doesn't make it better (or a good idea). I could see if it was an attempt at endurance per finger, but I've never thought "my pinkies are tired from all this typing, but my other fingers are just fine".
However, I will note I don't type in a conventional manner either, my "home keys" are Shift, A, W, D for my left hand (much more natural spacing than a straight row, why does every layout pretend our fingers are all the same length?), and my right hand moves depending on what I'm doing (a result of learning to type from chatting in online games instead of a more formal setting). My hands also move a lot more in general, because I hit the middle section of the keyboard with either hand. Maybe if I practiced conventional typing it would all make more sense, but as it stands I just don't see how it would be of any real benefit to anyone who doesn't spend a significant amount of time typing.
Now if I could improve the efficiency of my thinking I'd be eliminating the real bottle-neck...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't imagine learning to type on the stenographer's keyboard...especially if you consider what it would take to add all the symbols commonly used in programming languages (of course, it's not made for that).Clifford Nelson wrote: The issue about the location of the keys is part of my grip about so called ergonomic keyboards. Here is one interesting keyboard for you: http://www.designboom.com/readers/goran-bobinac-ergonomic-modular-computer-keyboard/[^], or there is http://www.kinesis-ergo.com/[^]
Those are the kind I mean when I say ergonomic keyboards are awkward. But that probably partly derives from my non-standard typing habits. (Or, even worse is this one[^])
|
|
|
|
|
Have to admit that I do not like the look of that keyboard. Amoung other things, no where to rest your wrists. I have been tempted by the FrogPad (www.FrogPad.com), which would require relearning, but that one has the advantage of single handed use, so could keep one hand on the mouse and one on the keyboard.
|
|
|
|
|
That looks interesting, and keeping a hand free would be nice. Problem is just getting the ambition to learn it, I imagine there's a steep learning curve moving from 2 characters per key to 4 plus an additional function. Bookmarked for later 
|
|
|
|
|
This is what the FrogPad site says: Learning to type on a FrogPad™ is very easy, and with our tutorial software you will become a frog master in less than 10 hours. Even after a couple of hours, you should be typing at around 20 words per minute. You will notice that typing on the FrogPad™ is more intuitive than a standard QWERTY keyboard. You do not need a formal semester long typing course to train you with these learning tools available.
If this is true I do not know. If I can get one cheap, might try. Still not willing to put much money into something I an not sure of. We are not much different.
|
|
|
|
|
This is quite the interesting article.
April
Comm100 - Leading Live Chat Software Provider
modified 27-May-14 8:38am.
|
|
|
|
|
You mean it's not because my kid spilled orange juice on it the other day?
"Use the right tool for the right job." -- Scotty, et al
A keyboard will always be the right tool for a great many jobs. I just wouldn't want to edit a picture with one.
|
|
|
|
|
We have ended up with a horrible arrangement of keys that are still offset like they had to be for the earliest keyboards. Almost all the keyboards sold as ergonomic are not. They still have the key above and below a key offset, and the right and left sides are offset the same way. There are only a handful of truely ergonomic keyboards, and it seems that people just do not understand that something is not necessarily well designed because somebody has attached the word ergonomic to the name.
|
|
|
|
|
I took a class in Usablily. My instructor had switched all the secretaries to Dvorak, and told them they could switch back once they matched thier typing speed on the Qwerty. The first secretary had matched her speed in a week, and the last within 2 weeks. They all went back to Qwerty. Would have been nice if Qwerty had been abandoned 60 years ago when electric typewriters took over. There was no longer any reason at that time to stick with an antiquated standard. Today we tend to use several different keyboards, so it will be much harder to get people to switch. One of the many cases where people (and companies) are so stupid.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
