Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!vtserf!creatures!csgrad!lavinus
From: lavinus@csgrad.cs.vt.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: improve language by dropping ;
Keywords: Dvorak keyboard
Message-ID: <1063@creatures.cs.vt.edu>
Date: 23 Mar 91 19:43:02 GMT
References: <4863@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <1991Mar13.011129.23346@dbase.A-T.COM>
Sender: usenet@creatures.cs.vt.edu
Reply-To: lavinus@csgrad.cs.vt.edu ()
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science, Blacksburg, VA
Lines: 20

Hello out there!

I'm going to open myself up to a huge deluge of flames by saying that that's
why IBM/DOS computers are so big these days as well.  It's an awful thing, but
perhaps an inevitable one - I completely agree that Dvorak is a better layout,
but (a) I type 90wpm on a qwerty, and it'd take me quite a while to get up to
that speed on a Dvorak, and more importantly (b) I'd have to switch back to
qwerty anytime I went anywhere that didn't use it (i.e., anywhere).

Joe

P.S. BTW, the qwerty layout was designed so that keys which were commonly hit
consecutively weren't next to one another on the strikers - so that they didn't
get stuck.

--
_______________________________________________________________
                                                   _  _  __
  Joseph W. Lavinus (lavinus@csgrad.cs.vt.edu)     | / \ |_
  Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia            __| \_/ |_