Chris/23 Jul 12 - 11:31 AM
G:" which likely is the oldest argument of all against progress..."
Chris:"Is it progress or is it just 'different'? Does being different make it better?"

RE:Every novelty - 'different' article - of course needs to be evaluated one way or other to deserve being seen as "progress".Time tells.Even progressive novelties mostly pass three phases - being ridiculed, being resisted, being self-evident...

Chris:I would be interested to know how many players have done as you advocate - modify a £2000+ concertina with no certainty of an improvement.

RE:I have no idea.Not very many but those who have likely don't dare to report publicly knowing they will be ridiculed..:-)
I have modified about 20 for others and maybe 25 for myself.No complaints from anyone so far..:-)

Chris:I suggest that you get a maker to make a concertina to your 'design' and see how many it sells - this would be the ultimate test of your theories.

RE: We all know that the concertina "market" doesn't work that way.

Chris:Bear in mind that what suits you, ergonomically, may not suit the next man or woman - their hands may be of different size to yours.

RE:A general problem with trad compact concertinas ( 6 1/4" - 6 1/2" across) is that they are not adaptable enough for any one... :-)
The ergonomic features I am talking about firstly - balance,buttons, handle and suspension/support - concern general qualities which are NOT related to individual differences but conditions regarding common mechanics, anatomy and physiology.I am talking about established *facts* in these respects and from the outlook of a physician and ergonomist - and some "experience" as concertina player:-)

Chris: A 'standard' format may not be a total answer and a number of players will fall outside the format (and they may have to work a bit harder) - but an awful lot will fit into the 'standard' and be quite happy with Wheatstone's original layout
This is an issue that you have to take into account.

RE: I don't see what you mean here.The "Wheatstone original layout" really is *the* 'standard' and you mean those for whom it does not fit "may have to work a bit harder" ( and be happy with that I suppose you mean also - isn't that a bit cynical?)Your argument above was that *my" modifications might not suit "the next man or woman" while they in real aim for a wider suitability than the "Wheatstone standard", better adaptation to the average anthropometric data, and thus allow more functionality than the trad design....

Now, talking about "standard", ergonomics in general deals a lot with this issue and I mentioned before that both button size and keyboard measures have been subject to rather intensive studies and a process of standardization. The Wheatstone "English" keyboard is so deeply in conflict with such standards both regarding button design and keyboard measures that it may be regarded as fairly absurd..
"This is (indeed) an issue that you have to take into account"...