[This quotes the missing post, which was accidentally sent off-list, in full]
Quoting Carl Fink (c...@finknetwork.com): > > > On 08/30/2015 10:29 PM, David Wright wrote: > >Quoting Carl Fink (c...@finknetwork.com): > >>On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 07:54:11PM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > >> > >>>Eventually, at the stroke of midnight on 31 December A.D. 1999, M$ Word > >>>5.0 for DO$ began writing garbage to the data files. This is one of the > >>>very few genuine "Y2K" bugs. M$ had no patch, but offered instead a free > >>>copy of Word 5.5. But who in his right mind would migrate to 5.5? Word > >>>5.0 was the last version of Word for DO$ which could be used without aid > >>>of the rodent, and a rodent is anathema to efficiency. > >>This is not supported by evidence, e.g. > >><http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sjost/csc423/examples/anova/efficiency.pdf> > >I'm struggling to see how this reference backs up your assertion. > I doubt it. You may doubt it, but I have set out why I think the last three paragraphs of the conclusions carry more weight in favour of the keyboard than against it. All you have done is name the file. > > Here's Bruce Tognazzini (Nielsen's colleague at the Nielsen-Norman > Design Group) on the subject: > http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.html > > Carl Once again, you've just named a file and left it at that. Looking at this page, the main argument against the keyboard appears to be that someone spent "a cool $50 million of R & D on the Apple Human Interface". There's no information about what was compared with what, unlike in the efficiency.pdf reference. Later on the author says "Regardless, you have presented the standard argument that makes it seem logical that command keys would be faster. Unfortunately, experimental evidence does not support the argument." No reference. But as far as *this* discussion is concerned (ie Word), he writes the following: "Hence, users achieve a significant productivity increase with the mouse in spite of their subjective experience. "Not that any of the above True Facts will stop the religious wars. And, in fact, I find myself on the opposite side in at least one instance, namely editing." So the author agrees with RLH and not with you! Cheers, David.
