Not only is the tactile feel of a keyboard important, but the design of a keyboard is too. Why are all keyboards designed with the main usage area offset to the left, so that it's uncomfortable to use? Shouldn't the number pad or arrow keys be on the left and keyboard in the middle?
Autodesk used to make a product called the "Switchboard" -- a keyboard where you could rearrange the three sections. It was the best, alas they are not made any more.
Logitech's diNovo keyboard is closer to nirvana, with a separate number pad that can be moved to the left. Really, how much do most users use the number pad?
Audio quality is also important. I recall an OS9 system extension that would make the sound of a manual typewriter when the keyboar was used. Perhaps that's what is needed to bring back the feel of the "old days."
Memory is long, but because I like Gene Gable's writing I print off his articles for future perusal.
I thought I'd seen this article before and sure enough it first appeared on March 20, 2003, the fourth article in the then new series.
When you go the "Print Version" of the article the original date shows up but its "Web Version" has all the appearances of a new article, until you look for a date. New articles have current dates in the "Web Version" header this reprint didn't have any date at all.
For some there might be nothing wrong with presenting old stuff as apparently new but I see it as a potential question of integrity.
Remember a number of years back, people were shattered when it was revealed that Ann Landers reprinted old letters without notifying her readers that they were reprints? The readers thought they were reading new material and felt betrayed when it was revealed to be old.
This isn't the first time one of Mr. Gable's article's has been reprinted. (Or in the web world would the word "re-presented" be more accurate?) "The Creative Pro Next Door" didn't stick in my mind as much as this article (I've been typing since Junior High in the 70's) but I'd thought I'd seen it before. It's only with the appearance of this second reprint that I checked.
There's nothing wrong with Mr. Gable taking a vacation, or spending time getting his letterpresses up and running or being busy with projects like Context, meant to help the creative professional. There's nothing wrong with identifying reprints when a new article isn't available, and I do recall CreativePro.com identifying reprints of other authors' work.
It's only a little thing, maybe someone didn't want visitors to be confused by the 2003 date or was too busy with the other work involved in getting the web site updated to reformat the "Web Version" header to include a statement about the article being a reprint. But little things can add up. Or maybe I'm being old fashioned, like an Underwood Typewriter.
Keyboard layout makes a difference too...
Not only is the tactile feel of a keyboard important, but the design of a keyboard is too. Why are all keyboards designed with the main usage area offset to the left, so that it's uncomfortable to use? Shouldn't the number pad or arrow keys be on the left and keyboard in the middle?
Autodesk used to make a product called the "Switchboard" -- a keyboard where you could rearrange the three sections. It was the best, alas they are not made any more.
Logitech's diNovo keyboard is closer to nirvana, with a separate number pad that can be moved to the left. Really, how much do most users use the number pad?
Audio quality is also important. I recall an OS9 system extension that would make the sound of a manual typewriter when the keyboar was used. Perhaps that's what is needed to bring back the feel of the "old days."
Memory is long
Memory is long, but because I like Gene Gable's writing I print off his articles for future perusal.
I thought I'd seen this article before and sure enough it first appeared on March 20, 2003, the fourth article in the then new series.
When you go the "Print Version" of the article the original date shows up but its "Web Version" has all the appearances of a new article, until you look for a date. New articles have current dates in the "Web Version" header this reprint didn't have any date at all.
For some there might be nothing wrong with presenting old stuff as apparently new but I see it as a potential question of integrity.
Remember a number of years back, people were shattered when it was revealed that Ann Landers reprinted old letters without notifying her readers that they were reprints? The readers thought they were reading new material and felt betrayed when it was revealed to be old.
This isn't the first time one of Mr. Gable's article's has been reprinted. (Or in the web world would the word "re-presented" be more accurate?) "The Creative Pro Next Door" didn't stick in my mind as much as this article (I've been typing since Junior High in the 70's) but I'd thought I'd seen it before. It's only with the appearance of this second reprint that I checked.
There's nothing wrong with Mr. Gable taking a vacation, or spending time getting his letterpresses up and running or being busy with projects like Context, meant to help the creative professional. There's nothing wrong with identifying reprints when a new article isn't available, and I do recall CreativePro.com identifying reprints of other authors' work.
It's only a little thing, maybe someone didn't want visitors to be confused by the 2003 date or was too busy with the other work involved in getting the web site updated to reformat the "Web Version" header to include a statement about the article being a reprint. But little things can add up. Or maybe I'm being old fashioned, like an Underwood Typewriter.