Talk:Stenotype

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Name of article

In addition to a bit more description of the writing theory, I changed the word "Stenograph" to "stenotype" throughout, as Stenograph is a registered trademark and the name of a company selling equipment in this field.

Gary D Robson 01:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PC keyboard?

Is this used for a PC keyboard? If not, why?

--- Stenotype keyboards require years of training to achieve the speed and accuracy we're speaking of here (minimum of 225 wpm+ at 98% accuracy), and while they're very efficient at words, steno keyboards are comparatively weak on numbers and symbols. Certainly they can be used as a replacement keyboard for a PC, and several machines were originally designed for just that purpose, but they've never been a commercial success as PC keyboards. Gary D Robson 11:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

--- You betcha! It may not be available right now, but I was meandering about the patent office's records and found this from 2001: [Record No. 20020150416]. This is interesting. It is a patent awarded for a system that emulates the stenograph keyboard on the QWERTY keyboard on which you are likely typing right now. I would like seeing this idea flourish. It surely beats paying a few thousand dollars for a shorthand machine. —Andrew

--- These aren't anything new, Andrew. A company called MicroCAT had a system for steno input (including chording) using a QWERTY keyboard in the late 1980s. The project was killed when MicroCAT was acquired by a company that manufactured stenotype keyboards. Last I checked, Stenograph Corporation still owned MicroCAT's patent. (Please note that Stenograph is a trademark, not a generic term for stenotype keyboards) Gary D Robson 18:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

--- Well, that makes sense. I wouldn't expect it to be anything new, as the stenotype is an old technology, constantly being improved upon (Stenograph issued two pimp-tight new writers this year!). Unfortunately, I cannot find any information anywhere regarding the MicroCAT company. Where did you hear of this? On another note, how many different brands are there of the STKPWHRAO*EUFRPBLGTSDZ shorthand machine? It always seemed to me that Stenograph had exclusive rights to the technology, since they can sell their machines for swich high prices. Whom am I hurting by saying "Stenograph Machine" in my everyday speech? I am not challenging you; just getting information. —Andrew 2005-08-14

--- There are currently a half-dozen companies making stenotype shorthand machines. For details, see the updates I just did to this article, and read the recent article I wrote for the Journal of Court Reporting at http://www.robson.org/gary/writing/jcr-paperless2.html. Your question on prices is a good one, so I've answered it by updating this Wiki article. As for the "who am I hurting" question, it's like any other trademark. You hurt Stenograph because it dilutes their trademark. You hurt all of their competitors by giving the impression that there's no alternative to Stenograph. Just for the sake of full disclosure, I was the inventor of one of the competing machines, but I sold the rights to it in 1998, so I've got no dog in this fight any longer.Gary D Robson 15:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stenotype image used

This image is used without permission and is not public domain, please discuss on the Image_talk:Stenkeys.gif page. Nathan J. Yoder 01:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] talk redirect

Note that Talk:Stenograph redirects to this page, making things rather confusing. Articles should have separate talk pages - Skysmith 12:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ram?

since when is RAM nonvolatile? --84.189.53.143 11:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Good call, it's not, I removed it from the article. Nathan J. Yoder 15:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
When it's nonvolatile RAM. To explain, the original machines used standard RAM with a separate battery path, so that when the user turned off the machine, the RAM retained the information. It was still subject to loss of data if the batteries lost their charge fully, so newer machines use NVRAM or flash RAM.Gary D Robson 23:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] pic would be nice

it would be nice to have a picture here. I wonder if we can ask someone who might have a stenotype keyboard to take and make available a picture. anyone here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.186.218 (talk • contribs)

I definitely agree that a picture would be nice. I also think that this page needs 1 or 2 examples of sentences written in Stenotype and how they look on paper. - Zepheus 21:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added a sample sentence in steno shorthand (BTW, the word "stenotype" doesn't need to be capitalized) Gary D Robson 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Ask and you shall receive. Excellent work! - Zepheus 22:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to www.phoenixtheory.com

I think this link should be removed. Looking at the layout of the page, it looks like a personal site, and not an informative one. What do others think? ElMorador 16:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link for now, and notified the (anonymous) user of the fact that I whish to discuss it at this talk page. ElMorador 13:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


--- The link to Phoenix Theory is a link to a site which is owned and maintained by the inventor of Phoenix Theory, which is the theory that the Stenograph corporation sells exclusively, and which the National Court Reporters' Association lauds as a superior and phenomenal stenotype theory. The site is rather informative, containing its history, several of its details and basic principles, excerpts from steno dictionaries, extremely comprehensive guides to realtime writing, speedbuilding tips, and updates to the theory books that are currently sold. The fact that the site is not designed very well or professionally is tangential to its value in content. --72.24.62.153 07:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)