The QWERTY Keyboard

[starbug1]

The reasons we have the particular layout we have today are out-dated and irrelevant for today's use on computers, as the original design was modeled for use on a keyboard.

 

would it be effiecient or beneficial to change the standard QWERTY keyboard layout?

[rakuenso]

as the original design was modeled for use on a keyboard.

 

last time i looked down, I was still using a keyboard.

[ecoli]

There is a better keyboard available... the QWERTY keyboard was original developed for use by "hunt and peck" typist, but is known to promote carpel tunnel and things like that. Try looking into getting a "Dvorak Keyboard"

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Actually, QWERTY was designed for speed, to prevent jamming of the keys and to allow each hand to do one key at a time, so that one hand could press a key while the other moved into position.

 

There is also a Dvorak keyboard layout system that is supposedly faster than QWERTY, but it's subjective. The QWERTY system is unlikely to change for a long time, I think.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There is a better keyboard available... the QWERTY keyboard was original developed for use by "hunt and peck" typist, but is known to promote carpel tunnel and things like that. Try looking into getting a "Dvorak Keyboard"

Any keyboard promotes carpal tunnel. It's the way the wrists rest on the desk/keyboard that's the problem.

[starbug1]

as the original design was modeled for use on a keyboard.

 

last time i looked down' date=' I was still using a keyboard.[/quote']

 

 

typo, I meant "typewriter"

 

There is a better keyboard available... the QWERTY keyboard was original developed for use by "hunt and peck" typist, but is known to promote carpel tunnel and things like that. Try looking into getting a "Dvorak Keyboard"

 

that may be, but I'm talking about a new 'standard' keyboard. I know they have variations. I know that different countries also use the basic qwerty keyboard with some variations. I'm not looking to get a new dvorak keyboard either. I was wondering how crazy is was that we still use the keyboard some guy came up with in the 19th century when it is ridiculously outdated. and we still continue to learn on these keyboards.

 

would changing the keyboard completely offset what we have learned, and if, would this have an impact on the business world what with typists struggling to learn a new system of letter. I often though we have never changed it for exactly these reasons.

 

Actually' date=' QWERTY was designed for speed, to prevent jamming of the keys and to allow each hand to do one key at a time, so that one hand could press a key while the other moved into position.

 

There is also a Dvorak keyboard layout system that is supposedly faster than QWERTY, but it's subjective. __________________[/quote']

 

the qwerty had one primary benefit and it was to prevent jamming. NO ONE USES TYPEWRITERS ANYMORE. speed is another thing, and the alternating hands is one plus that stays. However, I believe a better combination can be invented which improves both speed and equilibrium of both hands than the qwerty system. Anyone agree?

 

The QWERTY system is unlikely to change for a long time, I think.

 

Can you explain why you think why?

[starbug1]

The Dvorak keyboard looks to be somewhat better. I wonder why it isn't seen more often.

[NeonBlack]

Wasn't the qwerty keyboard actually designed against speed?

I thought that if you typed too fast on an old-fashioned typewriter, the things that strike the paper would get all jammed up, so they designed it so it would be more difficult to type too quickly.

I think it was the same thing with the first touch-tone phones. If you dialed too quickly, all of the numbers would not register.

The number layout on a phone and a number pad are competely different. Phones were designed this way so accountants couldn't dial numbers too fast.

[starbug1]

Wasn't the qwerty keyboard actually designed against speed?

I thought that if you typed too fast on an old-fashioned typewriter' date=' the things that strike the paper would get all jammed up, so they designed it so it would be more difficult to type too quickly.

[/quote']

 

think the exact opposite of that. QWERTY was designed to separate letters on a keyboard that often appear next to each other in common words, such as "AND" the a is with the left hand, the n right, and the d left. It's a system of alternation, that mitigated jamming and sped up the "hunt and peck" method.

[Callipygous]

the reason no one is switching to more efficient layouts, like dvorik, is because that would be an unbelievable hassle.

 

anyone who was used to dvorik to the point where they could use it well would struggle on any other keyboard they tried to use. i know windows has the option to switch to a different layout, and they could just do that and not look at the keys while they type, but thats counting on being able to change that option on any computer they use. i dont know what other OSs also have this feature, but i cant imagine it would be hard to implement.

 

note: you dont need to go get a dvorik keyboard. just look it up online, pop off your keys, and move them.

[insane_alien]

i tried a dvorik keyboard and i really sucked with it. i kept typing in 'QWERTY mode' even when i was looking at the keyboard

[Dave]

The number one reason is that people simply don't like change. There are surely far more speed-friendly keyboard layouts out there. But for many people, it takes years to familiarize themselves with the standard QWERTY keyboard, so why change?

[starbug1]

The number one reason is that people simply don't like change. There are surely far more speed-friendly keyboard layouts out there. But for many people, it takes years to familiarize themselves with the standard QWERTY keyboard, so why change?

 

It wouldn't be as costly a change as say changing the all the road signs in the US to metric, so what are we complaining about? Change should be dealt with, and if "intolerance to change" is the reason, it's stupid. There should be nothing trying about learning TWO keyboards, we learn more than one language. GRRRR

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's still another irritating change that would take time and would affect productivity until people became used to it.

[starbug1]

Are you against the idea?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Not necessarily. I could probably learn a new keyboard, and if it's beneficial, I wouldn't mind spending the effort. But there are a lot of people who wouldn't want to spend the effort, or do not have the time to, that would not want to change.

 

In any case, QWERTY is a de facto standard, and it'll take a long time to go away. In the mean time, you can pop the caps off of your keys, rearrange them, and then change the character map.

[starbug1]

Not necessarily. I could probably learn a new keyboard' date=' and if it's beneficial, I wouldn't mind spending the effort. But there are a lot of people who wouldn't want to spend the effort, or do not have the time to, that would not want to change.

 

In any case, QWERTY is a de facto standard, and it'll take a long time to go away. In the mean time, you can pop the caps off of your keys, rearrange them, and then change the character map.[/quote']

 

no. I don't think i'd make it a hobby. For now I'm fine conforming QWERTY. I just thought it was something good to consider. that, and world peace.

[Callipygous]

It wouldn't be as costly a change as say changing the all the road signs in the US to metric, so what are we complaining about? Change should be dealt with, and if "intolerance to change" is the reason, it's stupid. There should be nothing trying about learning TWO keyboards, we learn more than one language. GRRRR

 

 

learning a keyboard layout isnt the same as learning a language. learning the keyboard is largely muscle memory. you dont think about, your fingers just go where they know the keys are from practice. learning another keyboard layout would require you to think about which layout your using while you type.

 

we certainly could change it, it might take a decade to get everyone and everything switched over though, and in the mean time it would hurt productivity. would the more efficient layout be worth all that? how much faster could it really be? i know some people who can type 160 wpm on a qwerty keyboard, how much improvement could there be from a different layout?

[starbug1]

learning a keyboard layout isnt the same as learning a language. learning the keyboard is largely muscle memory. you dont think about, your fingers just go where they know the keys are from practice. learning another keyboard layout would require you to think about which layout your using while you type.

 

sure. it was an example that roughly applies. even though muscle memory and speaking aren't the same, they both still are learned applications. Sometimes I have to stop and think about where a key is when my "muscle memory" slips. Thinking isn't always necessary to speak.

 

Like language, after a new keyboard is learned, the muscle memory can adapt to both keyboard, and like language, there are always moments of crossover misinterpretation, but the learned programs are permanent.

 

we certainly could change it, it might take a decade to get everyone and everything switched over though, and in the mean time it would hurt productivity. would the more efficient layout be worth all that? how much faster could it really be?

 

this is what I predicted and asked about initially.

 

i know some people who can type 160 wpm on a qwerty keyboard, how much improvement could there be from a different layout?

 

170 wpm.

[Dak]

on the subject of changing keyboard layout, i really wish that the keypad was on the left side.

 

When typing, its most confortable to have the alphabet-keys directly infront of you, meaning that, with the numpad and the arrow keys etc, the right-hand-side of the keyboard is about 20 feet away from you.

 

and that's where the mouse is.

 

Here's what im talking about:

 

Keyboard--> [_______] O <--mouse

Person------> \o______/

 

see how far you have to streach, due to the fact that the num-pad is on the right? thats the cause of the acheing cramps across your sholders if you use the computer for too long at one time.

 

I retrained to use a mouse with my left hand, and it's sooooo much more confortable when using the comupter for protracted amounts of time, but i cant help thinking that having the num pad on the left would just be easyer.

 

Or having a detachable num-pad, so you can chose where it goes.

 

[/rant]

[starbug1]

but i cant help thinking that having the num pad on the left would just be easyer.

 

I think it's the right-handed dominant gene at work here...

 

When typing' date=' its most confortable to have the alphabet-keys directly infront of you, meaning that, with the numpad and the arrow keys etc, the right-hand-side of the keyboard is about 20 feet away from you.

 

and that's where the mouse is.

 

Here's what im talking about:

 

Keyboard--> [_______'] O <--mouse

Person------> \o______/

 

With labtop computers there isn't this problem

[Callipygous]

170 wpm.

 

my point was, the average person cant type 160 wpm, but some people can, which means its clearly possible to type faster on a qwerty keyboard, its just that THAT person cant go faster. most people arent being held back by their keyboard layout, but by their own limitations.

[starbug1]

my point was, the average person cant type 160 wpm, but some people can, which means its clearly possible to type faster on a qwerty keyboard, its just that THAT person cant go faster. most people arent being held back by their keyboard layout, but by their own limitations.

 

more or less...I was joking anyway, that's what the smiley indicates