4 ms·

Nuh-uh. Vide: http://www.economist.com/node/196071 http://www.economist.com/node/196071 http://www.mythbusters.com/some-myths-about-the-qwerty-keyboard-part-

Nuh-uh. Vide: http://www.economist.com/node/196071 http://www.economist.com/node/196071 http://www.mythbusters.com/some-myths-about-the-qwerty-keyboard-part-i.html http://www.mythbusters.com/some-myths-about-the-qwerty-keybo... http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/221/was-the-qwerty-keyboard-purposely-designed-to-slow-typists http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/221/was-the-qwerty-... http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing-errors/1 http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing-errors/1

Dylan16807 11y ago
>It was arranged that way to make sure that the typebars didn't bind even at high typing speeds >From the very beginning, Sholes arranged his keys to be less likely to jam, based on frequency of use Weird way to "disagree". QWERTY is pretty good for typing speed in the absence of jams, because the letter spreading helps both, but it wasn't the primary design goal. As much as I have heard about this "myth" of QWERTY trying to slow down typists, I have never seen a single person that actually believed it. It's like a weird anti-meme.
- andrewstuart2 11y ago
  I actually used to believe it, until I learned that it was the careful arrangement of keys opposite each other rather than a decrease in speed that led to fewer jams.
andrewstuart2 11y ago
I believe those all support my claim -- that the QWERTY layout was designed to prevent the typebars from binding. I deliberately do not perpetuate the myth that it's designed to slow typists down.
Noppet 11y ago
> http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing-errors/1 http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing-errors/1 > http://www.economist.com/node/196071 http://www.economist.com/node/196071 Uh-huh. Vide: http://dvorak.mwbrooks.com/dissent.html http://dvorak.mwbrooks.com/dissent.html To be honest, I don't get how anyone takes that series seriously. For God's sake, it was written by economists trying to justify their economic model - that should make it suspect INSTANTLY.

Dylan16807 11y ago

>It was arranged that way to make sure that the typebars didn't bind even at high typing speeds >From the very beginning, Sholes arranged his keys to be less likely to jam, based on frequency of use Weird way to "disagree". QWERTY is pretty good for typing speed in the absence of jams, because the letter spreading helps both, but it wasn't the primary design goal. As much as I have heard about this "myth" of QWERTY trying to slow down typists, I have never seen a single person that actually believed it. It's like a weird anti-meme.

andrewstuart2 11y ago
I actually used to believe it, until I learned that it was the careful arrangement of keys opposite each other rather than a decrease in speed that led to fewer jams.

andrewstuart2 11y ago

I believe those all support my claim -- that the QWERTY layout was designed to prevent the typebars from binding. I deliberately do not perpetuate the myth that it's designed to slow typists down.

Noppet 11y ago

> http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing-errors/1 http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing-errors/1 > http://www.economist.com/node/196071 http://www.economist.com/node/196071 Uh-huh. Vide: http://dvorak.mwbrooks.com/dissent.html http://dvorak.mwbrooks.com/dissent.html To be honest, I don't get how anyone takes that series seriously. For God's sake, it was written by economists trying to justify their economic model - that should make it suspect INSTANTLY.