Re: Stop the bling, fergawdssake!

On 11/15/2011 7:03 AM, Greywolf wrote:
> On 14/11/2011 9:54 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.
>
> Arguments about the relative efficiency of the QWERTY vs the Dvorak
> layouts miss the point, which is: the difference applies only to typing
> English. (1)
>
> IOW, you would need different layouts for different languages. Duh!
>
> So having a so-so standard that came about for mechanical reasons is
> just fine (2). A standard that's slightly suboptimal for each is optimal
> for all, because optimisjng it for some users would make unacceptably
> suboptimal for others.
>
> The same principle holds for components of a system: Optimising one
> comes at the expense of seriously suboptimising one or more others. That
> would make the system as whole suboptimal. Better to have all elements
> slightly (=acceptably) sub-optimal. This is of course a non-intuitive,
> paradoxical insight, hence the unwillingness of component optimisers to
> compromise. It explains why you can't design a perfect UI by improving
> its components one at a time; you are likely to make it worse rather
> than better.
>
> (1) The difference in typing speed is about 10% for English, IIRC, and
> only for the most expert typists when typing continuously. In actual
> practice, typing is interrupted at frequent intervals, which eats up the
> supposed advantage of the Dvorak layout. Hence change is not worth the
> cost or effort.
>

You mean like having to slap the carriage return lever?  Grin.

> (2) The reference to key-jamming as the motivation for the QWERTY layout
> is correct. Even so, it's possible to jam a QWERTY keyboard when the
> typewriter becomes clogged with dirt, oxidised grease, etc. I know that
> from experience. ;-)
>
> [...]
>
> HTH
> Wolf K.
>
>