Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.info-terms,net.internat
Subject: Re: In search of a sane keyboard standard
Message-ID: <6691@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-May-86 15:19:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.6691
Posted: Tue May 13 15:19:10 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 13-May-86 15:19:10 EDT
References: <2071@cbosgd.UUCP>, <413@ccird1.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 37
Keywords: keyboard, standard, ANSI

> There's a funny little problem here Mark.  The "sholes" keyboard is
> designed to be as inefficient as it can possibly be.  Yes, DESIGNED
> to cramp your hands, fatigue you, and make you type slower...

This is a popular myth, and verifiably false.  The claim is that the
qwerty layout was designed to slow down the typist, because the early
typewriters tended to jam when keys were hit in fast succession.  WRONG.
The problem was that early typewriters tended to jam when ADJACENT keys
were hit in fast succession.  The solution was to spread the frequently-
used keys out over the keyboard.  On average, this SPEEDS UP a touch
typist slightly, by increasing the probability that successive keystrokes
will be on alternate hands.

> Many Dvorak proponants claim anywhere from 50-100% gains for most usages.
> This doesn't appear to be quite true.  However, the gain is [significant]

The Dvorak claims have never been reproduced by unbiased experimenters.
Note also that Dvorak was working with manual typewriters, where the penalty
for putting high-workload keys on the little fingers was much higher.  Both
simulation and experiment indicate that the Dvorak layout is 5-10% faster
than Qwerty, other things being equal.  This is not seen as being worth the
trouble of converting the keyboard industry.


If one must tinker with alternate layouts, consider that *both* the Qwerty
and Dvorak layouts are poorly laid out physically.  A flat rectangular
bank of keys does not match the human shape very well.  Look at your hands
on the keyboard -- they come in at close to a 45-degree angle from each
side.  There has been some work in England, which I'm not up-to-date on,
with a radically different keyboard that puts a curved cluster of keys
under each hand.  Encouraging results are claimed, not so much in speed
as in reduction in fatigue.  Does anyone have current info (preferably
including tests by unbiased third parties) on this?  I believe it was called
the "Maltron" keyboard.
-- 
Join STRAW: the Society To	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Revile Ada Wholeheartedly	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry