That itself became a standard and basically spread into all the other keyboards, incl. future home computers.
-
-
Replying to @mwichary @mattlaschneider
So, IBM was kind of at a mercy of a de facto Electric/Selectric office standard it itself established in the 1960s.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mwichary @mattlaschneider
That’s how I see the non-international part of this equation. What do you think?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mwichary
Makes a lot of sense! I'm still curious what prompted IBM to move the @ to the 2, but that may not have been recorded.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @mwichary @mattlaschneider
They needed smaller (literally) symbols on same keys, because they would only have to configure the impression force for each key.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mwichary @mattlaschneider
For example, typing in [.] needs less force to appear the same than typing in [8].
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mwichary @mattlaschneider
Too much force on [.] would make a hole in the paper, and so on.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mwichary @mattlaschneider
So on Electromatic they just moved smaller symbols together. There’s a key with ['"], and a key with [-_]. I think the rest followed…
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mwichary @mattlaschneider
…including [2@] being where it is.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I am guessing that [2"] on a keyboard today means they skipped the electric typewriter revolution, or arrived at it later…
-
-
Replying to @mwichary @mattlaschneider
…where the force thing was solved, or irrelevant.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mwichary
Thank you so much! This has been nagging at me for years!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.