9 ms·
QWERTY Myth. QWERTY was not in fact designed to protect the keys from jamming. In 1956 it was shown that QWERTY was as fast if not faster then Dvorak. > The my
by baldfat 10y ago
QWERTY Myth. QWERTY was not in fact designed to protect the keys from jamming. In 1956 it was shown that QWERTY was as fast if not faster then Dvorak.
> The myth goes roughly as follows. The QWERTY design (patented by Christopher Sholes in 1868 and sold to Remington in 1873) aimed to solve a mechanical problem of early typewriters. When certain combinations of keys were struck quickly, the type bars often jammed. To avoid this, the QWERTY layout put the keys most likely to be hit in rapid succession on opposite sides. This made the keyboard slow, the story goes, but that was the idea.
http://www.economist.com/node/196071 http://www.economist.com/node/196071
The Myth goes well with the Army report on the slowness of QWERTY.
> But then it turns out—something else the report forgot to mention—that the experiments were conducted by one Lieutenant-Commander August Dvorak, the navy's top time-and-motion man, and owner of the Dvorak layout patent.
- carussell 10y agoThe claim is that QWERTY was designed to reduced jams. You dispute this, and link to an article showing that QWERTY is not slow. These are not the same thing. QWERTY was designed to prevent jams. QWERTY was not designed to make typists slower.
- AdamN 10y agoUrban myth ... https://books.google.com/books?id=EtnyT44_c1EC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=qwerty+new+york+times+contests&source=bl&ots=CwGmBuMMLC&sig=gazg4_ZBqXtjgYVlbkN8x4lxNhc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdx4yH0_HQAhVHRhQKHXIOB5wQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&q=qwerty%20new%20york%20times%20contests&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=EtnyT44_c1EC&pg=PA44&lpg=P...
- carussell 10y agoHuh? Can you please explain what that link has to do with what I wrote and do it in full sentences?
- baldfat 10y agoI read it and will say this. QWERTY had competition including speed competitions and there were no vastly better technology then. Right now there is no study that shows QWERTY is substandard to other layouts in a measurable way.
- baldfat 10y agoI dispute this > This was relevant on typewriters, but of course is not relevant on computers, which have no inked bits to jam. You are saying that QWERTY is inferior to other potential layouts. You are concluding that since QWERTY was made for jams and we don't have jams we can have better layouts, but the other layouts have not shown to be of any measurable benefit.