Das Keyboard Model S Ultimate

[gaf-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org (Jerry Feldman)]

On 01/20/2011 07:32 PM, jc-8FIgwK2HfyJMuWfdjsoA/w at public.gmane.org wrote:
> Bill Horne wrote:
> | On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 22:14 -0500, Ben Eisenbraun wrote:
> | > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:21:52PM -0500, Bill Horne wrote:
> | > > On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 15:30 -0500, Ben Eisenbraun wrote:
> | > > > For home I think I'll buy the one with key inscriptions,
> | > > > since it'll be tough for the 3 year old to use otherwise.
> | > >
> | > > I recommend Dvorak for all children learning to type.
> | >
> | > Oh no.  He's definitely going to be a vi user.  :-)
> | >
> | > I thought they decided the Dvorak advantage was a myth?
> |
> | I hadn't heard that: please cite the study that proved it.
> |
> | ISTM that the advantage of Dvorak is so fundamental that it can't be
> | overcome; the most-often used keys are closer to the home row. It's n=
ot
> | something that seems debatable to me: shorter distance means less fin=
ger
> | travel, ergo more speed.
> |
> | Then again, I've been wrong before, so I'd like to look at the data.
>
> What I've got from reading the criticisms  is  that  basically  there
> isn't  much  data.   What there is has some obvious problems, such as
> coming from people with a financial interest in  convincing  us  that
> the Dvorak keyboard is faster than QWERTY.
>
> That is, the claim isn't that QWERTY is actually faster than  Dvorak.
> The  claim  is that there's no credible scientific study showing that
> there's any difference.  There might well be, but marketing campaigns
> aren't a good place to look for the evidence.  If you want scientific
> evidence, you'll have to make it yourself.  A few organizations  with
> no financial interests in the outcome have tried to do this, and came
> up empty handed. But this hasn't been done too often, because funding
> and  research  organizations  have  much  more important questions to
> spend their money on.
>
> I was a bit curious, when I first read about this, how there could be
> a financial interest in a keyboard layout.  But it does turn out that
> the Dvorak layout was patented back in the 1920s and  1930s,  and  at
> that time you couldn't switch layouts by just changing a setting. The
> layout was "hard wired" into the typewriter mechanism, so  to  use  a
> different  layout,  you  had  to  buy  a  typewriter that had the new
> layout.  Nowadays, when keyboards just send a digital  keycode,  it's
> easy  to  invent  new  keyboard layouts and experiment with them, but
> this wasn't possible back then, so there was money to be made if  you
> could market a new layout.
>
> It seems reasonable that putting the common (in English) keys in  the
> home row would lead to faster typing. But saying this doesn't make it
> true.  If it's true, why  has  it  turned  out  to  be  difficult  to
> demonstrate scientifically?
>
> (Actually, that's an easy question to answer: When people  are  dying
> of cancer, heart disease, malaria and AIDS by the millions, why would
> we spend our limited human and financial resources studying something
> so  inconsequential  as  a  keyboard  layout?  So only people with an
> interest in the Dvorak layout have a motive to study the topic.  ;-)
>
>
basically, the QWERTY layout was patented in 1867 (actually the
typewriter with that layout. The DVORAK was patented in 1932 shortly
after the electric typewriter was developed. Which layout is better
depends on personal preference and experience. I think it is really
important to design a keyboard that does not require typing. We can wear
a headband and just think about it.

--=20
Jerry Feldman <gaf-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB  CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss