Re: Stop the bling, fergawdssake!

On 11/14/2011 8:54 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
> On 11/14/11 4:21 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 11/14/2011 10:15 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
>>> On 11/13/11 4:58 PM, Art Kocsis wrote:
>>>> The layout of the touch-tone phone is completely OPPOSITE to the
>>>> layout of
>>>> a ten-key adding machine! The ten-key layout had been standard for
>>>> decades
>>>> and many people had committed it to muscle memory. The arbitrary
>>>> reversal
>>>> (just to be different?) has caused no end of pain and confusion. The
>>>> IBM
>>>> keyboard is another classic example of misguided change for changes'
>>>> sake.
>>>
>>> This may or may not be true, but somewhere in my history, I read or was
>>> told the change was intentional.
>>>
>>> In those days, many phone switches were mechanical. Someone with good 10
>>> key skills could tie those switches up in knots, as the switches could
>>> not keep up with the speed 10 key users could input a phone number.
>>>
>>> Having watched one of those old switches in motion, it isn't hard for me
>>> to see someone inputting 3 or 4 digits for a phone number before the
>>> switch could process the first digit.
>>>
>> Sounds like another stupid choice made for mechanical limitations, like
>> the Scholes keyboard.
>
> In retrospect, the QWERTY keyboard seems to make little sense, in light
> of the fact I've seen studies where typists who master the DVORAK
> keyboard can outpace QWERTY keyboard users. And the QWERTY keyboard
> seems to have come about to prevent jamming of the typewriter keys by
> fast typists.
>
> There does seem to be no definitive reason for the layout issue. Besides
> the theory I mentioned, I found another reference where doing it with
> the "1" at the upper left meant the letters that are associated with a
> number are in a logical (read alphabetical) order, and not reversed.
>
> One of those imponderables of history.
>
>
The justification made sense when typewriters were being designed.  At 
that point, 'keyjams' were frequent, and the keyboard was actually 
designed so that the keys used most were located where they wouldn't 
conflict.  The net result was a gain in throughput because the typist 
didn't spend as much time clearing keyjams.  It did slow down the typing 
speed, IF keyjams did not happen, but did its job for overall 
throughput.  Of course, after electronic keyboard became available, the 
layout seemed downright illogical, but by then, millions of people had 
been trained to 'touch typing', and wouldn't have liked having to start 
over.  I am one of those people, and I have never been able to get used 
to 'non-ballistic' electronic keyboards.