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

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

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