Skip to main content

The gap in Apple's imagination

Regular readers of this blog will be aware I have become increasingly enthusiastic about Apple products. I had a Mac SE as a toy at work circa 1990, but at the time, most things about Apple irritated me. Now, though, after being eased in by iPhone and iPad (with a touch of Apple TV) I have gone all-Apple.

The great thing about Apple products is that they combine style and function so well. They look good and they are a  delight to use - an irresistable (and sadly rare) combination. But there is one thing I have to seriously criticize them for, an essential for usability that they have repeatedly ignored.

For years now I have used a series of ergonomic keyboards. The picture shows my last one - Microsoft's robust battleship of a board, the Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000. I didn't go for this kind of thing because it looks funky. When I switched to writing most of the time, I found that I increasingly suffered from painful wrist strain after a typing bout. I can easily type 3,000 words or more in a day on a manuscript, without even counting blog posts, emails and all the other typy things I do. The ergonomic keyboard solved the problem overnight.

If you look at your wrists when you use a normal keyboard, what happens is that your arms are heading inwards from either side of your body towards the keyboard. Then, at the wrist, they angle outwards to make the hands parallel at the keyboard. This twist is where the strain arises. The split keyboard means that your hands are positioned in a straight line with your arms. It takes a little getting used to, but I've been touch typing on them for years now.

So, when I moved to Apple, surely this innovative, clever, aware company would have an ergonomic keyboard? No they don't. Of course you can buy a third party one, but it won't have the style of the Apple keyboard, nor necessarily will it have the special Apple keys. It's a real pain. Literally. Get your act together, Apple. Ergonomics is part of usability.

Comments

  1. I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I'm using exactly the same keyboard with my MacMini for a few years now. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's not just keyboards, but also mice that are affected. Prior to using a Mighty Mouse, I didn't have RSI but when I changed jobs and an employer kitted out every G4 with Mighty Mice it was only a few weeks before I was getting excruciating pain in my right hand.

    I guess the majority of Apple customers are more concerned with their Starbucks mochawhatacino and hipster hat to worry about ergonomics.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I use a Magic Mouse which I find if anything better than my old MS mouse - it's usually my left wrist that struggles.

    You're probably right about majority of Apple customers, though if you're into design, ergonomics should be part of it (I think ergonomic keyboard look much sexier in design terms than conventional ones).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 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 recent 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 ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope