Re: [Gimp-user] gimp users matter

[Daniel Hauck <daniel yacg com>]

Nice spin.  Yes, it was for mechanical reasons and to prevent the arms 
which had letters slamming against the ribbon and paper at a single 
point from hitting each other. Original layouts were based on 
convenience based on logical notions such as alphabetic order and 
frequency of use.  The unfortunate reality was that it conflicted with 
the mechanics of typing.  There can be no doubt that it was designed to 
work with character frequency by spreading it out and making it less 
likely for collisions to occur.

Other keyboard layouts contradict your notion that spreading keys out 
speeds things up in any way.  The Dvorak layout has enjoyed a level of 
success and fandom precisely because it is faster among the proficient 
users than querty among proficient users.  Querty was designed to pace 
keyboard entry.  It can't be "paced" without being slowed.

Quoting wikipedia is almost always problematic as wikipedia is prone to 
edit wars and strong opinions and positions.  It would be better to cite 
the references cited by wikipedia and in the absence of references, 
requisite grains of salt are recommended.

In any case, if Wikipedia is a great source of fact, then you probably 
also noticed mention of keyboard entry methods which are most certainly 
more efficient and speedy including stenotype and plover.


On 01/02/2014 10:35 PM, Simon Budig wrote:
> Daniel Hauck (daniel yacg com) wrote:
> > But if you answer Querty, you lose because the world knows querty
> > was inefficient by design
> May I quote Wikipedia?
>
> "Contrary to popular belief, the QWERTY layout was not designed to
> slow the typist down, but rather to speed up typing by preventing
> jams. (There is also evidence that, aside from the issue of
> jamming, keys being further apart increases typing speed on its own,
> because it encourages alternation between the hands."
>
> The whole discussion suffers from "well known facts" being pulled out of
> thin air, and this is not a single bit different.
>
> Bye,
>          Simon