NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/misc/4812

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-08 | 3.8 KB

Xref: sparky comp.misc:4812 general:425
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!jgd
From: [e-mail] (John G Dobnick)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,general
Subject: Re: DVORAK keyboard?
Date: 8 Jan 1993 05:47:14 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: [e-mail]

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (David Karr):
>
> I would not have responded at all to your post, since others have
> convincingly argued that the designed-to-be-slow theory is false, ...
>

Was "slow down the typist" the reason for QWERTY?  I don't know.  Was
"avoid mechanical jams" the reason?  Probably.  Are the two unrelated?
The Devil's Advocate in me says "No!"  In fact, I'll state that
QWERTY _was_ developed to _quote_ "slow down the typist" _unquote_.

Consider.  The typewriter is a mechanical device.  Moving mechanical
objects requires time.  Depressing a typewriter key to print a letter
requires time.  Releasing the key to allow the typebar to return to the
basket also requires time.  If you allow insufficient time, you get a
jam, which is undesirable.

Now, how do you avoid jams?  You allow sufficient time for the typebar
of a just released key to clear the path of the next-struck key.

How do we do this?  One way is to speed up the typebar return
mechanism.  Recall that we are speaking of a strictly mechanical device
that is spring driven (in at least one direction).  One has to consider
the mechanical characteristics of the device, one of which is that the
typebar will move at a speed proportional to the strangth of the
springs driving its return.  If you make the springs stronger, the
typebars will return faster, but the mechanism will require more finger
pressure to strike a key in the first place.  Make the springs too
strong, the device becomes unusable.  Remember that there is no
electrical assistance allowed here -- this is a purely mechanical
device.

Another way is to (surprise) _slow down the typist_.  Amazing, no?  How
do you slow down the skilled typist?  One way, again, is to analyze
what is being typed, and arrange the keys such that (a) typebars for
common digraphs are not adjacent, thus allowing more physical clearance
and (b) arranging the keys for the common digraphs in such a manner as
to not allow the skilled typist to hit them in too rapid succession.
How do you achieve (b)?  One way is to arrange that these common
digraphs will be struck by the same finger.  This appears to be the
QWERTY approach.

Anyway, I look at this as something that is subject to interpretation.
One view is what others have been expressing.  Another interpretation
is that QWERTY _does_ "slow down the typist".

Net result?  The skilled typist _is_ effectively slowed down
sufficiently to avoid jams, without greatly sacrificing overall typing
speed.

Point?  There's more than one way to look at this.  Just because
someone _says_ they are not arranging they typewriter keys to "slow
down" the typist, doesn't necessarily _mean_ that aren't doing that.
Would you _admit_ that if you were selling a product?

Now, has anyone been collecting literature citations during this
discussion?  Would you please post the collection?

[I suppose it's really time for me to have a chat with the typewriter
curator at the Milwaukee Public Museum.  This is turning out to be
a somewhat interesting subject. :-) ]

--
John G Dobnick [A-No.1 key-jammer]      ATTnet: [phone]
Computing Services Division             INTERNET: [e-mail]
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee     UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd

"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight."  -- William Safire