Skip to main content

Keyboard roulette

Until I went to work in the British Airways OR (Operational Research) department, my use of keyboards was pretty limited, but once there I was spending all day programming various models. I was never formally taught to touch-type, but I just picked it up by habit.

It's one of those strange abilities, because if you ask me where an X is on the keyboard, I couldn't tell you. But if I have to type 'X' I can do it without looking.

And that's just as well - because my keyboard is showing distinct signs of heavy usage. Specifically, quite a lot of the letters are starting to wear off. Because I do touch type, it's not a problem for me - but it's quite amusing when someone asks to borrow my computer.

First they are thrown by the ergonomic keyboard, where two parts are split into separate blocks, at an angle to each other with a biggish gap in between. I began using these about 10 years ago, when I started to suffer from wrist pains after typing and find them absolutely brilliant. But it is, I admit, slightly offputting if you are used to the usual layout.

Then they start to hunt-and-peck type. And it's all 'Where's the O? What happened to C? M must be somewhere.'

Interestingly, although it's starting to disappear, E isn't the most worn character - all these seem to be in the lower two rows, which suggests I use less force on the upper keys, a reasonable suspicion if you think about the different angles your fingers are at.

So next time you ask to borrow my computer, unless you are a touch typist familiar with ergonomic keyboards, prepare for some keyboard roulette.

Comments

  1. A former colleague learned touch-typing in Pakistan, where the typewriters were so old the letters on the keys had worn off completely.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...