4 ms·

Yes, it is laborious and must be memorized -- just like our multiplication tables back in 2nd grade. Learning is not always fun, nor should it be.

• mistercow 15y ago
  Yes, but the difference is that multiplication is a fact about logic, not a contrived interface to obsolete hardware. Multiplication tables do have rhyme and reason to them. We don't memorize our 21-times tables because as soon as we pass 9, we switch to a methodical system with a simple, general system of rules. It is pretty hard to swallow that something developed a hundred and forty years ago for interacting with box of springs and levers is a close-to-optimal text entry system.
  • dpark 15y ago
    Any keyboard will be a "contrived interface". The logical thing would be alphabetical order for ease of learning, but that would be terrible for speed. Alternatively, you could go with something like Dvorak, optimized for speed, but at the end of the day Dvorak feels just as contrived, has the same awkward learning curve, and the evidence that it's significantly faster than qwerty is virtually nonexistent except for a couple of old studies whose results have not been substantiated by newer studies.
    • mistercow 15y ago
      The point is not that "contrived = bad". The point is that a contrived interface can be optimized, while multiplication tables are a fixed part of understanding multiplication in a positional system. On the other hand, you could argue that we could optimize our entire number system for learning by switching to a lower base. And in this sense I do agree that optimizing for ease of learning would be a mistake. If we taught base-3, learning multiplication tables would take one tenth of the time, but actually multiplying numbers would a lot longer. Analogously, I would gladly spend 10 times as long to learn a text entry method if it made me 20% faster in the long run. So I guess what I'm saying is that QWERTY should be replaced not because it's hard to learn, but because it can't possibly be optimally efficient.
    • DanBC 15y ago
      Dvorak is not faster, but it is significantly more comfortable. At least, that's what a lot of people say. I'd love to see some decent research. I guess it's hard to double blind for things like keyboard layouts.
      • mistercow 15y ago
        You could get a bunch of qwerty users/untrained typists and then train them to use randomly assigned keyboard layouts. Once training is complete, you have them type some long piece of text, and then fill out a questionnaire rating various qualitative points like tiredness. Finally, you do a statistical analysis to determine if layouts with more of Dvorak's purportedly beneficial features are correlated with higher comfort ratings. Of course, those features must be rigorously defined beforehand, and you must properly blind yourself when doing the analysis.
  • sheraz 15y ago
    There were a lot of things developed more than 140 years ago that we still use. For example, let's take the rocket engine, developed by the Chinese in the 13th century. I believe a very similar engine was used to put man in space. What is old is not necessarily antiquated.
    • mistercow 15y ago
      My point is not that what is old is antiquated. My point is that there were a tremendous number of constraints on the 140-year-old design of the typewriter-style keyboard interface that simply do not exist today. Even if the typewriter's interface were optimal under those constraints it would be very unlikely that it would be optimal once those constraints were lifted.