Originally Posted by melgross
My objection is not completely moot, because very few people will be buying those keyboards, or even know about them. I thought about buying one myself, but it isn't as good as you might think.
It is moot because when you compare MT keyboards against conventional keyboards that are still produced you're potentially talking about a 40% performance hit and 80% accuracy vs 95%+ accuracy.
Even if you assume that current membrane keyboards are slightly more error prone and slower than older switch based keyboards. The difference between the two aren't THAT large. Not 40% large.
They certainly stated that they thought it would.
They also disproved most of their original hypothesis as well...but as the effect is inferred it's less concrete than the measured performance hit.
I never said they were. You are saying I said that.
True, you didn't say MT was better. You said MT (flat, no feedback) keyboards would be no worse than conventional ones. Mkay...the study shows that MT keyboards ARE indeed worse.
Vinea, you are doing it again. You overstate your case.
The typists they were talking about were considered to be "experienced" typists, who typed over 45 words a minute, which is faster than most type. These are people who type far more than the person I'm thinking about, for the purpose we were originally talking about, until you turned it into something else.
But, again, I never stated that this should replace a regular keyboard, only supplement it.
You stated: "I find that most keyboards these days have poor enough feedback that typing on a monitor keyboard wouldn't be worse.
If the monitor is big enough, that would work for a lot of people. My wife's old Atari 400 had a flat, feedbackless keyboard, and she got used to it. A lot of industrial, factory floor equipment, in critical applications, also use such keyboards, so it's not out of the question."
This study says different. That's ALL I said in the original post. How is that "overstating" my case? You made an assertion that a study says is likely incorrect.
1) Typing on a monitor keyboard IS likely worse based on a study with another kind of zero travel MT keyboard
2) Typing on an Atari 400 feedbackless keyboard was shown to be worse (in as much as its closer to the MT keyboard in question) regardless of whether or not your wife "got used to it".
And yes...they used "proficient" typists because well...using non-proficient typpists in evaluating keyboards would be dumb. 45 WPM is by no means excessive...it's within 1 SD from median in one study (21.3 to 54.7 WPM - median of 38 WPM). "Hunt and Peck" typists can achieve up to 37 WPM.
Yes, 45 WPM is faster than the median but still within "average" and below many WPM minimums for typists.
I like the way you scrounge around trying to contradict what I say, even though your argument always goes further than what I said in the first place.
Gee, amazing how in every case I include exactly the words you write specific to a piece of information that contradicts it. You choose to turn this into some bizzare evasion of what was a very simple post that said:
"A study showed that it IS worse than your Apple keyboard".
I didn't comment on ANYTHING else you wrote in that post. Any amplification was limited to saying "this study is limited in the usual ways...".
I provided info in a neutral format about something you were mis-informed about.