Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 05:02:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712171002.FAA17753@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Colin Fine Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: Re: Dvorak (& Lojban) X-To: Lojban list To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <877580414.0918937.0@listserv.cuny.edu> Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1392 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 17 05:02:58 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >I'm not surprised, because Dvorak is intuitive; QWERTY isn't. All the >symbols in Dvorak are placed on the principle that the most common letters >should be the easiest to reach, whereas on QWERTY the principle is simply >what causes the least amount of key-sticking on an old-fashioned >typewriter. (Blecchhh!) ei do sanji da poi cipra lo ka jetnu kei la'e di'u .i ka'u le tcaci te morna be le lerfybatke cu jai se mukti lenu nalcafne falenu lere simlamji batke cu ze'i se pilno .i mi na krici fi le di'u ve ciksi .i mu'a le batke pe .ebu cu lamji le batke pe ry .ije ko'a lamji le batke pe ty. ipo'u su'o le porsi befi .ebu ce ry. ce ty. cu cafne sera'a lo glibau Do you have any evidence for this story? We've all heard how QWERTY was designed to slow down typing/to avoid key jams when adjacent keys were pressed too quickly. But I don't believe it - if that was their intent, why on earth would they have left 'e' 'r' and 't' next to one another? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK | | Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354 e-mail: colin@kindness.demon.co.uk | | "Don't just do something! Stand there!" | | - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop) | -----------------------------------------------------------------------