Sun type-4 keyboard offends

[Christoph North-Keys]

My apologies for the length of this submission.

Prologue:

This is not intended to be a flame of Sun (no pun intended), the Sun
type-4 keyboard appears to be a sound approach to attracting a share of
the market already indoctrinated to VT220 and IBM/PC style keyboards.
This is laudable on the part of Sun, but I believe they misunderstand
*why* many find the type-4 keyboard undesireable, even offensive.  It is
my hope that Sun might even seriously considered the ideas presented
herein, and I hope that other Sun users will present both their
concurrence, and their differences with those opinions of mine which are
included herein.

There is also the fact that I running somewhat short of information, as we
do not have any type-4 keyboards on my network.  All of the info I've so
far has been gleaned from Sun-Spots.  If the type-4 does indeed resemble
the VT220 keyboard, which I have used before, the following should still
be germane.

All opinions are my own, and it should not be inferred they are concurred
with or supported by Mcc.
__________

Most of the users on the Sun networks with whom I have talked are fond of
the Sun-3 keyboard.  We believe it would be improved most notably by a
capslock LED.  A small number us would appreciate a Dvorak keyboard
release or at least a set of key stickers with which to arrange Dvorak
through software.  There has also been comment on using the R1-R15 pad as
a numeric keypad.

This same group generally despises the VT220 keyboard, and does *not* have
any wish to be converted.  Consider the fact the the numlock keys and so
forth used by many PC users cause the same class of errors as do modal
editors such a vi (many of us use GNUemacs, which avoids the constant
mode-flipping that vi requires).  This bias is sufficiently deep-set to
inspire turning to non-Sun product lines if a comfortable keyboard from
Sun cannot be obtained.

The specific instance of bring the Backspace key closer to the user, and
moving Delete farther away: Delete is the UNIX default, why make life
difficult?  It's much easier to hit Ctrl-H than it is to hit an
mispositioned Delete key.  Emacs people in particular would be
inconvenienced, as Delete and Ctrl-Delete are used for editing, whereas
the Backspace maps to Ctrl-H, the help key.

A keypad is never a bad idea, even though such is not used as frequently
by scientific and programming folk as it is by accounting and business.
The Numlock key would be well used as a way to change the R1-R15 pad into
a numeric keypad.  *However*, this should not be extended to moving
Delete, etc., to the R1-R15 area, as this brings on the Numlock error
problem seen by VT220 and PC users.

The idea of having a cursor-motion pad is nice, but most current sun users
have

      ---------------------------------
      |       |       |       |       |
      | Left  | Down  |  Up   | Right |
      |       |       |       |       |
      ---------------------------------

already hardwired into their heads.  Hence this layout would be a better
choice for a cursor-motion key layout than the arrangement found on VT220
and PC keyboards.  It also happens to be more efficient to arrange them
in-line, something even Apple realized and used on the Mac-SE keyboard.

Sun would be much better served in offering a *selection* of keyboards
than it would in forcing the IBM standard "like it or lump it" approach,
as this has a negative effect on potential users who may have been in part
attracted by the nice design of the Sun-3 keyboard from days of yore.

Such a selection might include the following, noting that all would
benefit from Capslock indicators and a Numlock key on an otherwise
unaltered R1-R15 pad:

	The standard Sun-3 keyboard we all know and love.
	The preceding with a Dvorak key layout.
	The type-4 for the dyed-in-the-wool VT220 and PC keyboard users.

I do not believe there would be a market for a Dvorak version of a
VT220/IBM style keyboard.  Although the Dvorak is much faster for entry,
the group which would desire the VT220/IBM style keyboard is often
stereotypically resistant to relearning basic things like key layouts --
even when a substantial improvement would be achieved.  Although this is
understandable from the perspective of the "learning curve", many of the
type-bound programmers and more serious word-processing folks would, I
think, appreciate the option of the modern Dvorak layout.

A short historical note for those not having heard about Dvorak:
| 
| 	The typewriter keyboard, long ago, was arranged to allow very fast
| efficient typing.  When the capabilities of the typists surpassed the
| technology of the typewriters, the typewriters jammed.  The manufacturers
| rearranged the keyboard to make typing slower and more laborious, thus
| preventing the speed "problems" faced on the earlier keyboards.
| 
| 	It's amazing how entrenched such barbarism can become.  We are *still*
| using this same, sadistic keyboard layout.
| 
| 	The Dvorak keyboard strongly resembles the first, efficient layout
| previously mentioned, and is a standard American key arrangement supported
| by various manufacturers.  It benefits in part by placing the highest-usage
| keys directly under the fingertips. Many computers support it in software --
| even X11 has an "xdvorak" program to remap a standard keyboard.

Hence, most keyboards are, quite literally, part of a plot to make input
difficult.  Would there not be substantial market support even for the
little improvements, even should they not offer Dvorak?  Is the type-4
an improvement over the standard Sun-3 keyboard, or will it simply substitute
new difficulties for old?

This is a serious topic to me.  I don't like companies deciding for me
which particular flavor of inconvenience is going to be inflicted upon me.
Does anybody out there relate deeply enough to tell Sun?

Seo:  Harp[@Mcc.Com]                /\    ^*^           Christopher North-Keys
                                   /  \/\                Systems Administrator
Tha mi gu trang a'cluich.         /    \ \         Packaging/Interconnect, MCC