home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1 / NN_1993_1.iso / spool / comp / misc / 4856 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1993-01-12  |  1.5 KB
  1. Xref: sparky comp.misc:4856 general:446
  2. Newsgroups: comp.misc,general
  3. Path: sparky!uunet!seas.gwu.edu!dblack
  4. From: dblack@seas.gwu.edu (David K. Black)
  5. Subject: Re: DVORAK keyboard?
  6. Message-ID: <1993Jan12.151900.14349@seas.gwu.edu>
  7. Sender: news@seas.gwu.edu
  8. Organization: George Washington University
  9. References: <1993Jan8.011726.1250@cs.cornell.edu> <1ij4h2INNocb@uwm.edu> <1993Jan8.192059.21262@mprgate.mpr.ca>
  10. Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:19:00 GMT
  11. Lines: 25
  12.  
  13. In article <1993Jan8.192059.21262@mprgate.mpr.ca> vanderby@mprgate.mpr.ca (David Vanderbyl) writes:
  14. >jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) writes:
  15. >
  16. >>Was "slow down the typist" the reason for QWERTY?  I don't know.  Was
  17. >>"avoid mechanical jams" the reason?  Probably.  Are the two unrelated?
  18. >>The Devil's Advocate in me says "No!"  In fact, I'll state that
  19. >>QWERTY _was_ developed to _quote_ "slow down the typist" _unquote_.
  20. >
  21. >bzzzzt.  Wrongo.
  22. >
  23. >[long, meaningless argument deleted]
  24. >
  25. >>Point?  There's more than one way to look at this.  Just because
  26. >>someone _says_ they are not arranging they typewriter keys to "slow
  27. >>down" the typist, doesn't necessarily _mean_ that aren't doing that.
  28. >>Would you _admit_ that if you were selling a product?
  29. >
  30. >You are completely missing the point here.  No one is arguing that
  31. >QWERTY is not inherently slower than DVORAK.  The fact is, QWERTY
  32. >was designed to prevent jams.  Period.  That it is slower on today's
  33. >electronic keyboards is just an unfortunate side effect.
  34. >
  35. ...
  36.  
  37. You're all wrong.  The QWERTY keyboard was designed so that all the
  38.