Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 07:39:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712171239.HAA20168@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com Sender: Lojban list From: bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM Subject: Re: Dvorak (& Lojban) X-To: colin@kindness.demon.co.uk X-cc: lojban@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: (message from Colin Fine on Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:48:47 +0000) Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1383 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 17 07:39:39 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU 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? According to the various histories of the typewriter that I have read (all of which may be passing on legend, of course, but which favored QWERTY) Sholes started out with an alphabetical layout, then moved keys until his test texts, using single finger typing, did not cause jamming. Neither he nor the companies that used his keyboard changed the layout when (quite soon) someone put a spring under each key so they would snap back quickly rather than slowly (in Sholes' design, the keys fell back under gravity). If Sholes' test texts did not include words with `ert' in them, they were not tested. As far as I know, Sholes' design was like a computer program you see nowadays that does not include a well designed mechanism for readily extending the program (i.e., a `little language', but not poorly designed like most, but well designed); Sholes' presumption was that the particular keyboard design would never be used for more than a little while. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com P. O. Box 693 bob@ai.mit.edu Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (413) 298-4725