5 ms·

QWERTY was designed specifically not to be optimal so old typewriters with character arms wouldn't get tangled up.

by jksmith 10y ago

V-2 10y ago
This is often questioned. I'm not sure whether it's true. What is a fact is that the top row happens to contain all the letters in the word TYPEWRITER. Allegedly this was meant to help early salesman demonstrate the product. If that's true, it's easy to see how it doesn't have much to do with our convenience, as the work we need keyboards for doesn't involve amazing people by typing TYPEWRITER over and over. If it's another myth, well that would be quite a coincidence
koolba 10y ago
> QWERTY was designed specifically not to be optimal so old typewriters with character arms wouldn't get tangled up. It's not that it was designed to not be optimal. It just was optimized for not jamming v.s. pure typing speed. The emphasis was on having keys on opposite sides of the keyboard based on the frequency of their sequential occurrence in common text. The idea being that it'd predominantly be a left/right/left/right sequence of the typewriter arms hitting the page that would be less likely to jam then two arms right next to each other. If you factor in the time to "un-jam" the typewriter, I bet it'd be faster than a modern layout (Dvorak, Colemak, Norman, etc) when typing on an old school typewriter.
- V-2 10y ago
  > The emphasis was on having keys on opposite sides of the keyboard based on the frequency of their sequential occurrence in common text [..] If you factor in the time to "un-jam" the typewriter, I bet it'd be faster than a modern layout (Dvorak, Colemak, Norman, etc) when typing on an old school typewriter. What do you base this on? Actually every source I looked up shows that QWERTY doesn't rate well even in this aspect alone. Eg. http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?keyboard_statistics http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?keyboard_statistics > In, QWERTY the left hand is used for <=2 consecutive strokes 68.5% of the time. The left and right sides of QWERTY are not balanced well, since the right-hand run length is better, with <=2 consecutive strokes 82.9% of the time. Also see http://patorjk.com/keyboard-layout-analyzer/#/results http://patorjk.com/keyboard-layout-analyzer/#/results (go to Miscellaneous tab; I loaded chapter 1 of "Alice in Wonderland", but selecting a different English text shouldn't make a significant statistical difference of course). Under "Consecutive Hand and Thumb Use" QWERTY is almost the worst - screenshot for your convenience under http://i63.tinypic.com/2ykgx2v.jpg http://i63.tinypic.com/2ykgx2v.jpg - the lower the better.
  - koolba 10y ago
    > What do you base this on? Actually every source I looked up shows that QWERTY doesn't rate well even in this aspect alone. It's based on a combination of late 1800s guess work and trial and error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholes_and_Glidden_typewriter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholes_and_Glidden_typewriter
    - V-2 10y ago
      Well, it only indicates this was their intention, but not that the execution of that intention was any good ;) in particular that they did a better job than modern layouts, as you said you'd be willing to bet. Note that it's not like high hand alternation factor (favoring often left-right-left-right switches) is only good for not jamming typewriters, and therefore dismissed as unimportant by keyboard layout designers in the modern era. Quite the contrary, it's essential for keyboard ergonomy; try typing "pumpkin million stewardesses reverberates" a few times in a row... you'll feel the problem that has nothing to do with your keyboard mechanism jamming ;)

QWERTY was designed specifically not to be optimal so old typewriters with character arms wouldn't get tangled up.

by jksmith 10y ago

QWERTY was designed specifically not to be optimal so old typewriters with character arms wouldn't get tangled up.

V-2 10y ago

This is often questioned. I'm not sure whether it's true. What is a fact is that the top row happens to contain all the letters in the word TYPEWRITER. Allegedly this was meant to help early salesman demonstrate the product. If that's true, it's easy to see how it doesn't have much to do with our convenience, as the work we need keyboards for doesn't involve amazing people by typing TYPEWRITER over and over. If it's another myth, well that would be quite a coincidence

koolba 10y ago

> QWERTY was designed specifically not to be optimal so old typewriters with character arms wouldn't get tangled up. It's not that it was designed to not be optimal. It just was optimized for not jamming v.s. pure typing speed. The emphasis was on having keys on opposite sides of the keyboard based on the frequency of their sequential occurrence in common text. The idea being that it'd predominantly be a left/right/left/right sequence of the typewriter arms hitting the page that would be less likely to jam then two arms right next to each other. If you factor in the time to "un-jam" the typewriter, I bet it'd be faster than a modern layout (Dvorak, Colemak, Norman, etc) when typing on an old school typewriter.

V-2 10y ago
> The emphasis was on having keys on opposite sides of the keyboard based on the frequency of their sequential occurrence in common text [..] If you factor in the time to "un-jam" the typewriter, I bet it'd be faster than a modern layout (Dvorak, Colemak, Norman, etc) when typing on an old school typewriter. What do you base this on? Actually every source I looked up shows that QWERTY doesn't rate well even in this aspect alone. Eg. http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?keyboard_statistics http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?keyboard_statistics > In, QWERTY the left hand is used for <=2 consecutive strokes 68.5% of the time. The left and right sides of QWERTY are not balanced well, since the right-hand run length is better, with <=2 consecutive strokes 82.9% of the time. Also see http://patorjk.com/keyboard-layout-analyzer/#/results http://patorjk.com/keyboard-layout-analyzer/#/results (go to Miscellaneous tab; I loaded chapter 1 of "Alice in Wonderland", but selecting a different English text shouldn't make a significant statistical difference of course). Under "Consecutive Hand and Thumb Use" QWERTY is almost the worst - screenshot for your convenience under http://i63.tinypic.com/2ykgx2v.jpg http://i63.tinypic.com/2ykgx2v.jpg - the lower the better.
- koolba 10y ago
  > What do you base this on? Actually every source I looked up shows that QWERTY doesn't rate well even in this aspect alone. It's based on a combination of late 1800s guess work and trial and error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholes_and_Glidden_typewriter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholes_and_Glidden_typewriter
  - V-2 10y ago
    Well, it only indicates this was their intention, but not that the execution of that intention was any good ;) in particular that they did a better job than modern layouts, as you said you'd be willing to bet. Note that it's not like high hand alternation factor (favoring often left-right-left-right switches) is only good for not jamming typewriters, and therefore dismissed as unimportant by keyboard layout designers in the modern era. Quite the contrary, it's essential for keyboard ergonomy; try typing "pumpkin million stewardesses reverberates" a few times in a row... you'll feel the problem that has nothing to do with your keyboard mechanism jamming ;)