3 ms·

> 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 t

by 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 ;)

by V-2 10y ago

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 ;)