[Coco] CoCo 1/2 arrow keys versus CoCo 3 arrow keys

[Jeff Teunissen]

The "inverted T" layout itself did not exist until 1982, so not even
the first PCs had it. The PC and XT had a keyboard with no dedicated
arrow keys, those were shared with the numeric keypad.

It originated in the DEC LK201 keyboard used with the VT220 terminals
and Rainbow computers, and later spread everywhere, but at the time of
its release it was reviled, mostly by people who had to use both types
of keyboards. One of the complaints was that the arrow keys were both
in the wrong place and in the wrong orientation -- VT100 arrow keys
were on the _top_ row, and arranged in a horizontal line.

The "101 Enhanced" keyboard from 1986(!) was the first PC keyboard
that looks like what we expect today.

There is a lot of post-hoc rationalization out there; people tend to
think of the past as just an earlier version of the present, as if
what we have today was somehow always going to happen. It wasn't
inevitable.

Change is disruptive, we see that in this thread. If your first
computer was a CoCo 1 or 2, you will totally have trouble using the
CoCo 3's diamond pattern. If a game was written for arrows on both
sides of the keyboard, again you will have trouble because it'll be
difficult to go in "two directions" at the same time due to the
_author's_ expectations of which moves are easy or hard.

We like what we're used to, though.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 9:10 PM Robert Emery via Coco
<coco at maltedmedia.com> wrote:
>
> "Can someone clarify why having all the cursor keys in one place made
> games harder to play?  Most PC games use the "inverted T""
>
> If only Tandy had given us an inverted T instead of the diamond layout that
> is ridiculously awkward to play games with.
> You answered your own question.
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023, 5:36 PM RETRO Innovations via Coco <
> coco at maltedmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > On 1/11/2023 11:34 AM, Allen Huffman via Coco wrote:
> > > My first computer was a Commodore VIC-20. The Commodores used a werid
> > cursor key setup, with two keys at the lower right of the keyboard. One was
> > up/down (when shifted) and the other was left/right (when shifted). This
> > was odd, but they were side by side and it was easy to have one hand on
> > shift, and the other on the two cursor keys and move around — once you got
> > used to it.
> > Not to sound heretical given the list topic, but I can "fly" with the
> > CBM cursor key setup.
> > >
> > > When I saw the TRS-80 keyboards with left and right keys on the left
> > side, and up and down keys on the right, that looks better. But they didn’t
> > do anything (except backspace for left).
> > That is probably my single greatest usability grip with the CoCo.  I
> > realize that many on this list have never enjoyed it and so don't miss
> > it, but the lack of cursor based navigation on the screen for editing
> > BASIC programs on the CoCo is just infuriating.
> > > When the CoCo 3 came out, they moved all cursor keys together on the
> > right side. That looks great, but it was the end of me being able to play
> > games using keyboard on the CoCo. It was just too awkward.
> > Can someone clarify why having all the cursor keys in one place made
> > games harder to play?  Most PC games use the "inverted T", many early
> > home computer games used WASD and such.  I am honestly confused how
> > putting one axis on one side of the KB and the other axis on the
> > opposite side (forcing the player to use both hands, and killing the
> > enjoyment for someone with a handicap in one hand due to illness or
> > stroke) is of benefit other than muscle memory for those who started
> > with the CoCo1/2.
> > >
> > > Yes, later systems (PCs, etc.) gave us cursors on the right side, though
> > the arrangement ended up having LEFT/DOWN/RIGHT side by side, with UP above
> > the down. This seemed easier to use than the CoCo 3.
> > I'll have the contrary view here, but I think cursor keys need to be on
> > the lowest rows, so the CC3 nav was not optimal. I'd have preferred
> > F1/F2 be where CLEAR/Up is, CLEAR as it was before, with the inverted T
> > next to and below SHIFT.  To be fair, they may have attempted that, but
> > centering down under Up would have pushed Right over too far, so they
> > had to move the entire thing up a row.  Or, the inverted T was not known
> > enough (even though WASD was already popular) to consider, and putting
> > keys on three rows really mandates the current placement
> > >
> > > Which did you prefer? CoCo 1/2, CoCo 3? And do you like modern PC/Mac
> > cursor key arrangements?
> >
> > Since I believe nav should be as close to the "rest" bottom row, the
> > inverted "T" is my preference. But, I'd take the CBM nav system over the
> > CC3, even if the editors were the same.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Coco mailing list
> > Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> >
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco