QWERTY keyboards - why?

[MeDotOrg]

When personal computers started getting popular in the 1980's, there was a lot of talk about getting away from QWERTY keyboards.

Keyboards were originally designed for manual typewriters, and some of the most commonly used letters were assigned to the outside of the home row or on the top or bottom row. This was done deliberately, because the mechanical mechanism could not handle to rapid change patterns on the inside keys. So the keyboard is designed deliberately to make typing more difficult.

I'm not sure why there isn't an international group of standards working on a design based on the most used keys being on the home row, and at the same time working on the implementation. Would computers need to be offered with a bios supporting either layout? Once there was a standard, the (bios/hardware/software) implementation path would have been designed.

It seems silly that we type on keyboards that were designed to slow us down. Any transition away from QWERTY should allow either type of keyboard to be used with any computer. Obviously there could be some bottlenecks on single keyboard systems like laptops, but it could also be another avenue of sales for high tech. I'm envisioning a keyboard plug similar to USB-C, where the keyboard tell the computer which type of keyboard was plugged in.

Anyway, I'm just surprised no one is working on this.

[Jersey Girl]

I learned on Qwerty manual.Passed the Fed Civ Service speed and accuracy (proficiency) test on Qwerty manual. I used Qwerty electric typewriters at work. My brain is wired for Qwerty. For me, there is no other.

[MeDotOrg]

I learned on Qwerty manual.Passed the Fed Civ Service speed and accuracy (proficiency) test on Qwerty manual. I used Qwerty electric typewriters at work. My brain is wired for Qwerty. For me, there is no other.

Believe me, I understand. I learned on an Underwood Manual in the 9th grade. My point is that there has to be a way of transitioning. Future generations shouldn't have to be wired the same way, if both ways can be accomodated.

[Moksha]

This is akin to Americans being stuck without the metric system. We will probably be using the metric system before we switch to the Dvorak keyboard layout.

[huckelberry]

This is akin to Americans being stuck without the metric system. We will probably be using the metric system before we switch to the Dvorak keyboard layout.

Moksha,

There are computational advantages to metric but that is not how people normally use the measurement system. How big is a gallon? about this, hefting a gallon jug in ones mind. I never ask myself how many teaspoons in a gallon. Yes if those were metric units the calculation would be easier. It would be unusual for most people to be called upon to make that calculation however.

(of course if you were a chemical engineer you would see this differently)

[Chap]

This is akin to Americans being stuck without the metric system. We will probably be using the metric system before we switch to the Dvorak keyboard layout.

Moksha,

There are computational advantages to metric but that is not how people normally use the measurement system. How big is a gallon? about this, hefting a gallon jug in ones mind. I never ask myself how many teaspoons in a gallon. Yes if those were metric units the calculation would be easier. It would be unusual for most people to be called upon to make that calculation however.

(of course if you were a chemical engineer you would see this differently)

At an early stage of my science education I made the transition from feet, pounds, poundals and pounds weight and all the rest of them to the delightful simplicity of the International System of Units (SI, abbreviated from the French Système international (d'unités)). From the point of view of mathematical simplicity and lack of arbitrary conversion constants cropping up in equations, there is simply no contest.

I think anyone who has done physics seriously will agree with me.

[Gunnar]

At an early stage of my science education I made the transition from feet, pounds, poundals and pounds weight and all the rest of them to the delightful simplicity of the International System of Units (SI, abbreviated from the French Système international (d'unités)). From the point of view of mathematical simplicity and lack of arbitrary conversion constants cropping up in equations, there is simply no contest.

I think anyone who has done physics seriously will agree with me.

I couldn't agree more! When doing any kind of scientific, physical or engineering calculations, if someone insists on getting both initial measurements and results in American "standard" units, I find it easier to convert the initial measurements into SI units and do all the calculations using SI throughout and then converting the results back into "standard" units than than doing all the calculations using the "standard" American units, I put "standard" in quotes because, contrary to most Americans' understanding, The USA has been officially on a metric standard since at least 1893.

In 1893, metric standards, developed through
international cooperation under the auspices of
BIPM, were adopted as the fundamental standards
for length and mass in the United States. Our
customary measurements -- the foot, pound, quart,
etc. -- have been defined in relation to the meter
and the kilogram ever since

Furthermore:

In 1968, Congress authorized a three-year study
of systems of measurement in the U.S., with
particular emphasis on the feasibility of adopting
SI. The detailed U.S. Metric Study was
conducted by the Department of Commerce. A
45-member advisory panel consulted with and
took testimony from hundreds of consumers,
business organizations, labor groups,
manufacturers, and state and local officials.

The final report of the study, “A Metric
America: A Decision Whose Time Has Come,”
concluded that the U.S. would eventually join the
rest of the world in the use of the metric system of
measurement. The study found that measurement
in the United States was already based on metric
units in many areas and that it was becoming
more so every day. The majority of study
participants believed that conversion to the metric
system was in the best interests of the Nation,
particularly in view of the importance of foreign
trade and the increasing influence of technology
in American life.

[Gunnar]

There are computational advantages to metric but that is not how people normally use the measurement system. How big is a gallon? about this, hefting a gallon jug in ones mind. I never ask myself how many teaspoons in a gallon. Yes if those were metric units the calculation would be easier. It would be unusual for most people to be called upon to make that calculation however.

(of course if you were a chemical engineer you would see this differently)

One thing that adds to the confusion is some American measures differ from British Imperial measures. For example, British gallons are larger than American gallons.
[/url]

In the Americas, a gallon is equivalent to 128 fluid ounces or 3.785 liters (American spelling). But in the UK, it's 160 fluid ounces or 4.546 litres (British spelling).

Short gallon history lesson
Think of language mapped out in a kind of family tree. Once, hundreds of years ago, British people and American colonialists were all perched on the same branches of the family, way at the top of the tree, speaking the same language and walking the same land. Then a bunch of people from the UK went and settled in the US, and for a couple of hundred years, had very little contact with the original branch across the ocean. Just as stories, recipes and traditions evolve and grow in different segments of different families, so does language.

Way back - at the time we all lived together - we had used the Queen Anne's gallon of 3.785l to measure wine. We also had different volumes and names to measure both beer and grain. When we realised that this was silly, in 1824, the UK chose a single imperial term and lumped together all three measurements, picking a roughly-average volume and calling it a gallon. American colonists, though, stuck to tradition and kept just the Queen Anne's volume for their own gallon definition.

[Jersey Girl]

I learned on Qwerty manual.Passed the Fed Civ Service speed and accuracy (proficiency) test on Qwerty manual. I used Qwerty electric typewriters at work. My brain is wired for Qwerty. For me, there is no other.

Believe me, I understand. I learned on an Underwood Manual in the 9th grade. My point is that there has to be a way of transitioning. Future generations shouldn't have to be wired the same way, if both ways can be accomodated.

Underwood Manual. Pffft!

Wait. You mean like the one on my shelf?
v
v
v
v
v
v
v

[Chap]

One thing that adds to the confusion is some American measures differ from British Imperial measures. For example, British gallons are larger than American gallons.

American (confidently) "A pint's a pound, the whole world round!"

British person (diffidently, but rhythmically) "Well, where I come from, a pint of pure water weighs a pound and a quarter."