Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

On Monday 18 April 2016 12:01, Random832 wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016, at 21:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> Oh no, it's the thread that wouldn't die! *wink* >> >> Actually, yes it is. At least, according to this website: >> >> http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/Dvorak/history.html > > I'd really rather

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > With QWERTY, the eight home keys only cover a fraction over a quarter of > all key presses: ASDF JKL; have frequencies of > > 8.12% 6.28% 4.32% 2.30% 0.10% 0.69% 3.98% and effectively 0% > > making a total of 25.79%.

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016, at 21:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Oh no, it's the thread that wouldn't die! *wink* > > Actually, yes it is. At least, according to this website: > > http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/Dvorak/history.html I'd really rather see an instance of the claim not associated with Dvorak

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

Oh no, it's the thread that wouldn't die! *wink* On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:53 am, Random832 wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016, at 23:28, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> This is the power of the "slowing typists down is a myth" meme: same >> Wikipedia contributor takes an article which *clearly and obviously*

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

Ian Kelly on Sun, 10 Apr 2016 07:43:13 -0600 typed in comp.lang.python the following: >On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:09 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote: >> ASINTOER are the top eight English letters (not in any order, it >> is just that "A Sin To Err"

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:09 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote: > ASINTOER are the top eight English letters (not in any order, it > is just that "A Sin To Err" is easy to remember. What's so hard to remember about ETA OIN SHRDLU? Plus that even gives you the top twelve.

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

Dennis Lee Bieber on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 14:52:50 -0400 typed in comp.lang.python the following: >On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 11:44:48 -0400, Random832 >declaimed the following: > >>I don't understand where this idea that alternating hands makes you >>slows

RE: [E] QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

-Original Message- From: Ben Finney >> This is an often-repeated myth, with citations back as far as the 1970s. >> It is false. >> The design is intended to reduce jamming the print heads together, but the >> goal of this is not to reduce speed, but to enable *fast* typing. >> It

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016, at 23:28, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > This is the power of the "slowing typists down is a myth" meme: same > Wikipedia contributor takes an article which *clearly and obviously* > repeats the conventional narrative that QWERTY was designed to > decrease the number of key presses

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016, at 23:28, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > And how did it enable fast typing? By *slowing down the typist*, and thus > having fewer jams. Er, no? The point is that type bars that are closer together collide more easily *at the same actual typing speed* than ones that are further

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 10:43 am, Ben Finney wrote: > Dennis Lee Bieber writes: > >> [The QWERTY keyboard layout] was a sane design -- for early mechanical >> typewrites. It fulfills its goal of slowing down a typist to reduce >> jamming print-heads at the platen. > > This is

QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

Dennis Lee Bieber writes: > [The QWERTY keyboard layout] was a sane design -- for early mechanical > typewrites. It fulfills its goal of slowing down a typist to reduce > jamming print-heads at the platen. This is an often-repeated myth, with citations back as far as the