>
Keyboards represent a well understood UI. But from a functionality standpoint they’re not arranged with regard to what works ergonomically. In fact – typewriter keys were deliberately arranged to not work well (from a speed of typing standpoint) because forcing people to type slower meant the mechanisms jammed less frequently.
And as time passed, typewriters gave way to electric typewriters which gave way to word processors and eventually personal computing. But something interesting happened: the keyboard pretty much remained the same.
Which brings up my point.
Improving the functionality of what typewriters represented (i.e., the ability to create, manipulate and disseminate thought) was far more important than improving the UI of the keyboard. Of course one can refer plenty of carefully managed studies that argue for an entirely different keyboard layout. But the fact remains – improving the keyboard will only serve to frustrate the end user, cost the customer a lot time and the shareholders a lot of money. Or simply:
improving functionality.
1. Site Tools
2. 64 Bit
3. Stairs and Railings
4. Curtain Wall
5. Geometry Enhancements
Don’t fall into the same crap trap as Office 2007. Because if you do it’ll only mean we still won’t be able to do stuff – only faster.
Arch | Tech 
>Once you use a horrible UI enough times, you don’t mind it anymore because you know where everything is. It doesn’t matter that the plates are located in the pantry with the cookies, and the coffee sits with the onions and potatoes, but you learn where everything is located and stop minding that nothing makes sense. But then when things get shuffled around in a non-sensical way, we gripe until we get acquainted once again and then it’s business as usual.Knowing that functionality is always going to be lacking in some way, when do you commit to reorganize that kitchen? Because if you keep waiting until functionality is implemented, it’ll be a mess for a long time, having to click the OK button a zillion times just to accept one little change buried in the last dialog.While I understand the premise of your argument, I guess we need to find a happy medium so no one thing is improved at the expense of the other forgotten necessities.
>This is an incredibly sensible comment. The new interface in AutoCAD 2009 proves this point entirely. It works fine in office, but is totally bodged in AutoCAD.By the way, I’d like to add a parameter to scale an entire Revit family up or down to my most important wishes….
>oh, did we just find out what is in the next release of some application we like to use? dude. I’m there with you. give me functionality. don’t rearrange my refrigerator.
>I keep coming back to this idea, it’s a very important comment which hopefully reaches the right ears. I’m surprised you didn’t include the worst keyboard of all, which is getting the most use, the number pad on a phone used for text messaging.Here is a recent study which I came across today which reinforces the argument.http://en.scientificcommons.org/30004846