Using external keyboards with Laptops

[Diver Fred]

So many comments - make me think and remember...

When office bound with desktop computer monitor sat on desktop - easy to see the screen.

Then changed roles and had a laptop only. that lasted 6 weeks before had a keyboard (a 'Cherry' - that has just been passed on having outlasted every keyboard I've had since, it was 30 years old, but the connection was 5pin DIN/PS2) and mouse.

Another change of job and a new laptop. In office had a 'dock' (hub), external Keyboard and Mouse. Home made 'hutch' (stand) to put the monitor on - which had to be hidden when elf & safety came around as the hutch wasn't allowed - apparently we had to look down rather level to monitor screen and I had a 19 inch screen - biggest in office!

Then I became a homeworker, new laptop, dock, keyboard and mouse and 2 19inch flat screen monitors sitting on a new hutch. Second laptop could actually drive 2 external and the laptop screen at the same time - very useful with the job I did.

When working remotely in offices normally used laptop keyboard with external mouse even on desks or tables.
When working in vehicles that's about the only time I used laptop keyboard and trackpad for any period.

Even today, having retired from a desk job still use external keyboard, mouse and screen(s) with laptop at home.

 

[SUNRAY]

So many comments - make me think and remember...

When office bound with desktop computer monitor sat on desktop - easy to see the screen.

Then changed roles and had a laptop only. that lasted 6 weeks before had a keyboard (a 'Cherry' - that has just been passed on having outlasted every keyboard I've had since, it was 30 years old, but the connection was 5pin DIN/PS2) and mouse.

Another change of job and a new laptop. In office had a 'dock' (hub), external Keyboard and Mouse. Home made 'hutch' (stand) to put the monitor on - which had to be hidden when elf & safety came around as the hutch wasn't allowed - apparently we had to look down rather level to monitor screen and I had a 19 inch screen - biggest in office!

Then I became a homeworker, new laptop, dock, keyboard and mouse and 2 19inch flat screen monitors sitting on a new hutch. Second laptop could actually drive 2 external and the laptop screen at the same time - very useful with the job I did.

When working remotely in offices normally used laptop keyboard with external mouse even on desks or tables.
When working in vehicles that's about the only time I used laptop keyboard and trackpad for any period.

Even today, having retired from a desk job still use external keyboard, mouse and screen(s) with laptop at home.

Weird How different H&S statements vary, IME they say the centre of the screen has to be at eye level and the 'hutches' or other means seem to be mandatory. We had a problem with a PC in a workshop where the keyboard, mouse and monitor were on a 3ft high bench. a draftsmans chair was just right for the bench height but monior was a decreed to be too low during an inspection so got mounted on the wall. Trouble is maybe 50% of the use was checking a drawing whilst standing, an inspection resulted in a second PC and a 4ft high shelf but the arguement about monitor height to suit different people went on for ages.
I was an occassional employee at the time and missed much of the discussion, the monitor got mounted rigidly on the wall at just over 5ft as there were more short employees than tall but as it could not be tilted the viewing angle was wrong for a 6ft+ person [me] so I used the lower PC which could tilt.

 

[mattylad]

My mother in law uses an external monitor and keyboard all the time on her laptop (because its on a desk).
I use an external mouse as I will not use a crap-pad, I'd use an external keyboard if I could but I generally use the laptop only when in an armchair.

Getting an employer to provide the right equipment is damned hard, they just want to give you the cheapest stuff they can get, take the chairs for instance - all I got offered was a conference chair - no adjustability unless you wanted to lie back and snooze

 

[JohnW2]

My mother in law uses an external monitor and keyboard all the time on her laptop (because its on a desk).

Yes, that's a sort of third category of usage that we haven't really talked about, and probably doesn't really 'count' in terms of the discussion and polls I started.

As per your M-I-L, a good few people buy and use laptops just as 'computers', which spend all their life in exactly the same place, on/near a desk/whatever connected (wired or wireless) to 'external' monitor, keyboard and mouse. They are really using the machine as a 'desktop' (aka "PC"), so it doesn't really count as 'a laptop' in terms of what we are discussing.

One of my laptops really comes into that category - it virtually always sits on a desk connected to external monitor/keyboard/mouse, and with a wired network connection but, once in a blue moon [really only if there is some problem with my other laptop(s)], gets disconnected from those 'peripherals' and taken for a brief holiday to somewhere (and hence used, very briefly, with its internal monitor/keyboard - but still with an 'external' mouse!!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

In passing ... I have to say that I personally regard that as a barely-acceptable manifestation of a 'Nanny State' and, to my mind, an unreasonably restriction of my 'liberties' (so, yes, I personally frequently ignore that regulation!)

Well yes, in this case I suspect many ignore the rule. But as we've witnessed time and time again over history, many people really do need protecting from themselves. I guess it would be rather hard to start making H&S rules along the lines of "these rules apply to everyone, and these don't apply if you are self employed and working at home, and these ..." At the end of the day, if you ignore a rule because you're self employed and don't want to bow down to the nanny state and a petty rule (I agree with you some times BTW), then of course you'll get little sympathy if you are caught out by your own petard. And you run the risk of insurance not paying out of course.

 

[JohnW2]

Well yes, in this case I suspect many ignore the rule. But as we've witnessed time and time again over history, many people really do need protecting from themselves. ..

That's certainly a view, and probably one which many/most people would agree with in fairly 'extreme' contexts, but some would probably say that such is the very thing they don't like about a Nanny State i.e. that whilst it is desirable that everyone be adequately educated to understand the risks to which they might expose themselves, the State should not 'protect them' from exposing themselves to risks to which they have made an informed decision to allow themselves to be exposed.

The State does not prevent people from climbing mountains, jumping out of aircraft, engaging in unprotected sex with strangers etc. etc. and, whilst it may discourage such activities, it does not prevent people from smoking, drinking alcohol to excess, over eating etc. etc. - so why does it necessarily 'protect people from themselves' in relation to other activities that they have made an informed decision to undertake?

[... provided, in all cases, that the activity in question does not expose others (who have not themselves decided to accept the risk) to risk ]

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Indeed, but as I hinted at, you try writing a rule that protects people who need protecting, and allows others to make an informed decision to expose themselves to a risk, AND without creating a massive loophole allowing people who have not made such an informed decision to be exposed to a risk.
Furthermore, I think all of us have seen people doing positively stupid things ... and remember having done things ourselves which in hindsight didn't seem such a great idea. Often people will be thinking they are making an informed decision to take on a risk - but in reality they don't realise what the risks are and hence the decision is not actually "informed". OK, with DSE it's not too hard - but often there are risks that people who aren't "in that business" don't realise are there.
As an example, how many times do we see people here who have taken the decision that the risk of doing DIY electrical work is acceptable to them - but when they start describing what they've done, it's clear that they have no idea what the risks are or how to mitigate them ? Obviously, as they don't understand the risks, then their decision cannot have been "informed".

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed, but as I hinted at, you try writing a rule that protects people who need protecting, and allows others to make an informed decision to expose themselves to a risk, AND without creating a massive loophole allowing people who have not made such an informed decision to be exposed to a risk.

Sure, I never suggested that alternatives to a 'Nanny State' were 'easy' - or necessarily even practical/possible.

Furthermore, I think all of us have seen people doing positively stupid things ... and remember having done things ourselves which in hindsight didn't seem such a great idea. Often people will be thinking they are making an informed decision to take on a risk - but in reality they don't realise what the risks are and hence the decision is not actually "informed".

Again agreed - but you'r now talking about inadequacy of the 'informing'/educating - something which, at least theoretically, could be addressed to a reasonable extent

As an example, how many times do we see people here who have taken the decision that the risk of doing DIY electrical work is acceptable to them - but when they start describing what they've done, it's clear that they have no idea what the risks are or how to mitigate them ? Obviously, as they don't understand the risks, then their decision cannot have been "informed".

True - but, again, as above, that's a matter of how well informed they are.

However, I think there's a bit of a flaw in what you appear to be suggesting. The people you refer to who are sufficiently uniformed/uneducated to have no idea about the risks associated with what they've done (electrically) are very likely to equally have no idea about what regulations/laws the Nanny State may have introduced in an attempt to "protect them from themselves". If compliance with those laws/regulations could be very effectively enforced/policed, that would be different (since the 'uniformed' would then have no choice) - but that is not the case.

As I've undoubtedly mentioned before, a bee in my personal bonnet relates to seat belts. I have been a passionate believer in (and promoter of) the wearing of seatbelts in vehicles, and have been using them since before it was compulsory to even have them, let alone use them. However, I am an equally passionate opposer of the legal requirement for drivers and front-seat passengers to wear them (back-seat passengers are a more difficult issue, since there is potential for them to 'fly forwards' and injure people in the front seats).

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

As I've undoubtedly mentioned before, a bee in my personal bonnet relates to seat belts. I have been a passionate believer in (and promoter of) the wearing of seatbelts in vehicles, and have been using them since before it was compulsory to even have them, let alone use them. However, I am an equally passionate opposer of the legal requirement for drivers and front-seat passengers to wear them (back-seat passengers are a more difficult issue, since there is potential for them to 'fly forwards' and injure people in the front seats).

Well, again few people actually realise (or perhaps, are prepared to understand) the risk - even when confronted with graphic public information films. Or they simply have an all too common "it won't happen to me" attitude.
There are few situations where wearing a seat belt will increase injuries to those involved in an accident, but it's well documented that in most cases they will dramatically reduce the injuries. But it's not just the "cost" to the person choosing whether to wear a belt or not - there's a very real cost to the state if someone becomes a non-productive invalid (or even "a vegetable") and needing expensive long term care, vs suffering significantly less (even minor) injuries from which they recover to become productive again.
And of course there is the intangible cost to family and friends.

 

[JohnW2]

... But it's not just the "cost" to the person choosing whether to wear a belt or not - there's a very real cost to the state if someone becomes a non-productive invalid (or even "a vegetable") and needing expensive long term care, vs suffering significantly less (even minor) injuries from which they recover to become productive again. And of course there is the intangible cost to family and friends.

That's the main argument that is always wheeled out, but I find it pretty ridiculous - or, at least, totally inconsistent ...

In what sense is the cost to the state, or the impact on family and friends, of a life-changing (or even less serious) injury any greater when the injury is due to a car crash than if it is due to climbing mountains, jumping out of planes, skiing, playing rugby, diving etc. etc. or even just 'doing DIY'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

How many people travel in cars ? How many ckimb mountains ? Couple of irders of magnitude diffetence in aggregate - but I agree, some inconsistency.
However ... wearing a seat belt doesn't stop you using a car, the only way to significantly reduce the risk from mountain climbing is to stop it happening.

 

[JohnW2]

How many people travel in cars ? How many ckimb mountains ? Couple of irders of magnitude diffetence in aggregate - but I agree, some inconsistency.

Well, for a start, it's not the number of people who travel in cars, or the number who climb mountains (or engage in whatever hazardous pursuit/activity) that matters but, rather, the number who suffer serious injuries as a result of those activities - and, on that basis, I imagine that the 'number of orders of magnitude of the difference' would be considerably less.

In any event, the issue is not the comparison with car travel and one other risk that people chose to take but, rather, is with the aggregate of all those (innumerable) other types of activity associated with risks that individuals chose to take.

Are you suggesting that people should be "protected from themselves" by law in relation to extremely small risks, but not in relation to much greater risks?

However ... wearing a seat belt doesn't stop you using a car, the only way to significantly reduce the risk from mountain climbing is to stop it happening.

That's not really true. The equivalent of stopping people climbing mountains would be to stop people travelling in cars - and that would definitely have a major impact on the number of injuries due to car travel Conversely, if she wanted to, Nanny could presumably make it illegal to climb mountains without certain protective/safety equipment/precautions (analogous to the legal compulsion to wear seatbelts), couldn't she?

Kind Regards, John