Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.012 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.98; '*S*': 0.00; 'oh,': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229.12': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'received:lo.gmane.org': 0.09; 'bieber': 0.16; 'declaimed': 0.16; 'email addr:ix.netcom.com': 0.16; 'email name:wlfraed': 0.16; 'from:addr:ix.netcom.com': 0.16; 'from:addr:wlfraed': 0.16; 'from:name:dennis lee bieber': 0.16; 'received:66.245': 0.16; 'received:dsl.mindspring.com': 0.16; 'received:mindspring.com': 0.16; 'received:wlfraed': 0.16; 'url:netcom': 0.16; 'url:wlfraed': 0.16; 'wulfraed': 0.16; 'mapping': 0.19; 'keys': 0.23; 'url:home': 0.25; 'lee': 0.29; 'subject:?': 0.29; 'blocks': 0.30; 'outer': 0.30; 'sun,': 0.30; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.32; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.33; 'that,': 0.34; 'there': 0.35; 'skip:" 10': 0.35; '-0700,': 0.35; 'charset:us-ascii': 0.36; 'feedback': 0.37; 'parallel': 0.37; 'received:org': 0.38; 'but': 0.38; 'subject:: ': 0.38; 'some': 0.38; 'header:Mime-Version:1': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'under': 0.40; 'help': 0.40; 'more': 0.60; 'your': 0.60; 'design': 0.63; 'making': 0.67; 'low': 0.73; 'placed': 0.76; 'dennis': 0.77; 'hands,': 0.84; 'roberts': 0.84; 'strokes': 0.84; 'subject:Improve': 0.84; 'urban': 0.95 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Dennis Lee Bieber Subject: Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:06:38 -0700 Organization: > Bestiaria Support Staff < References: <355e201c-437c-4944-9ad0-ae401df02651@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com> <4f4bv6hn40jsgpecuelejc66n7rkhv17fj@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: user-11fb5d1.dsl.mindspring.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846 X-No-Archive: YES X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 21 NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.94.164.166 X-Trace: 1307981210 news.xs4all.nl 49184 [::ffff:82.94.164.166]:39912 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:7530 On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:30:43 -0700, Tim Roberts declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general: > More than that, any layout "more efficient" than QWERTY is practically > meaningless. The whole "intentional inefficiency" thing in the design of > the QWERTY layout is an urban legend. Once your fingers have the mapping Oh, there was an "inefficiency" in QWERTY -- but it only applies to fully manual typewriters, in which some of the more common letters were placed under the weakest fingers -- to slow down key strokes enough to reduce jamming multiple type blocks (didn't help for my last name -- I and E are on opposing hands, same fingers, making for a fast parallel reach). Low pressure electronic keys don't have the strength feedback slowing down the outer fingers. -- Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/