3 ms·
The 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.
by carussell 10y ago
The 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.