|Alternate wp34s Keyboard Arrangement?|
Message #1 Posted by Jeff O. on 28 Apr 2011, 10:21 a.m.
I have yet to cut an overlay or otherwise attempt to re-label my 30b keys or keyboard for wp34s. I try to remember some function locations and keep a printed copy of the keyboard layout handy for reference. One thing that I keep doing is scrolling up when I meant to scroll down, or wondering why the display says “XEQ _ _” when I wanted to scroll up. This is of course due to the fact that the up/down scroll arrows of the wp34s keyboard arrangement are moved down one key from the up/down arrow keys on the 30b keyboard. I guess it is hard for my brain to remember to not press the keys labeled for the function I want to do since they are so close to the functional locations of the wp34s key arrangement. (Maybe sort of like when you see the word “yellow” printed in red and are asked what color the letters are.) So I found myself wishing that in this case, the wp34s primary functions could have been assigned to the keys on the 30b keyboard with the proper labels. This made me wonder if there were other “opportunities” for matching the wp34s functions to the keys with the proper label on the 30b keyboard. I came up with two more: RCL and +/-. (I considered x<>y and Rv, but in my opinion the 30b labels for these functions are not worth retaining.) Based on the above, I came up with the arrangement depicted below for the wp34s keyboard. I tried to keep it as close as possible to Walter’s arrangement. It would allow 20 of the standard primary key labels to be re-used, 21 if we can live with INPUT instead of ENTER, vs. 16 (or 17) for the current arrangement. Of course, in a perfect world, the key assignments for all functions could go in their absolute optimum locations without regard to the standard 20b/30b labeling, because some good solution to label the keyboard and re-label the keys will be developed. But until we get to that situation, perhaps something like the below could make it easier to use.
I did present my ideas privately to Walter prior to posting here. He noted (among other things) that he felt that EXIT and XEQ should not be adjacent and that in general if the hardware cannot be used as-is, then the layout should be controlled by ergonomic and/or logic reasons. I can certainly see his point, and as the developers, he, Paul and Marcus can do whatever they feel is best. With that said, I guess I feel that my changes are relatively mild, (and Walter said that I was free to propose anything I want) so I thought I would go ahead and present it and see what others might think. My guess is that it is relatively trivial for Marcus to assign the functions to the key locations, so perhaps he could create a version with this change for people to try out. But if everyone thinks that it is pointless, then, as Emily Litella used to say, “never mind.”