From: dwivian@helena.stat.uga.edu (Dwivian Unterschreiber)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: DVORAK keyboard?
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:13:05 GMT
Organization: UGA Statistics Department


jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) writes:
>>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_.

In article <1993Jan8.192059.21262@mprgate.mpr.ca> 
vanderby@mprgate.mpr.ca (David Vanderbyl) writes:
>bzzzzt.  Wrongo.

Bzzzzt.  Wrongo.  

The method to reduce jams was twofold - move common type combinations 
apart so the typeheads couldn't strike too quickly behind one another, 
and place them so that they were difficult to type together at all 
(primarily by making same-finger keystroke usage required).

>>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?
>You are completely missing the point here.  No one is arguing that
>QWERTY is not inherently slower than DVORAK.  The fact is, QWERTY
>was designed to prevent jams.  Period.  That it is slower on today's
>electronic keyboards is just an unfortunate side effect.

Nobody said this was for electronic keyboards.  The METHOD USED TO
PREVENT THE JAMS IS SIGNIFICANT.  Once we had progressed beyond the
common jam problem, be it by better mechanicals, or by complex
electrics, or with word-processors and dot-matrix/inkjet/laser 
technology, they layout of the keyboard became a matter of convention
and tradition.

>You argument is similar to this:
>Cars are designed to go fast.  Going fast in a car often kills people.
>Therefore, cars were designed to kill people.


That is silly, and inherently incorrect.  It is better to say that:
Cars were designed to provide a more efficient and speedy travel from
point to point.
A side effect of the condition of the roadways was the common problem
of cars flipping over or otherwise having to stop forward progress.
This side effect was directly related to the speed of the driver
(as well as the road surface, abilities of the driver, etc.)
One way to prevent the driver from having these problems was the
regulator, a speed limiting device.  This method was employed for
some time.
Another method to reduce the problems was infrastructure improvement.
This is a costly and time consuming project, but made a reasonable
amount of sense.
Once roadways were important enough to be placed under reasonable 
repair, the regulator was no longer required.
As the desire for speed was strong, the regulator was quickly discarded
and people were allowed to drive as fast as they wanted.

In like manner, now the the problem of mechanical failure has been
sidestepped by changes in technology and the work environment, the 
need for a speed reduction system has been mitigated.  Of course,
one can continue to drive their Mazerati with a 30KPH regulator, but
I doubt they'd want to.  Thus many of us are switching to DVORAK.

I could extend your argument this way, if you like:
Cars were designed to go fast.  An unfortunate (matter of point of
view) side effect is that people die.  To prevent this laws were
passed limiting the speed of cars to 55MPH, as the speed of impact
was proven to be a leading cause of automotive fatalities.  Once
safety measures were in place (airbags, automatic seatbelts, dot-
matrix printers..er...scratch that) that speed was relaxed to 
65MPH.  Should safety measures be put in place that PREVENT
automotive deaths, there would be no need for a speed limit.

-- 
Dwivian Unterschreiber           |              dwivian@marie.stat.uga.edu
(
   I'm a stealth .signature virus!  Copy me into your .sig quietly!
                                                                        )
Newsgroups: comp.misc