Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #106266 > unrolled thread

[beginner] What's wrong?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Okuntsov <okuntsov.mikhail@yandex.ru> - 2016-04-02 03:48 +0600
    Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Okuntsov <okuntsov.mikhail@yandex.ru> - 2016-04-02 04:10 +0600
      Re: [beginner] What's wrong? sohcahtoa82@gmail.com - 2016-04-01 15:44 -0700
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-04-02 00:27 -0400
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 05:36 +0000
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> - 2016-04-02 00:54 -0400
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 19:15 +1100
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 14:48 +0000
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 01:55 +1100
          Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-04-02 18:07 +0300
            Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 02:36 +1100
            Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-03 02:06 +1000
              Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-04-02 19:44 +0300
                Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-02 19:12 +0200
                  Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 10:28 -0700
                    Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-04-02 21:43 +0300
                    Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 13:47 +0200
                      Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 07:30 -0700
                        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-04-03 15:25 +0000
                          Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 08:39 -0700
                            Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-04-03 16:22 +0000
                              Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 02:44 +1000
                              Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 10:18 -0700
                                Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 03:35 +1000
                                Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-04-03 18:26 +0000
                          Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 08:46 -0700
                            Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 11:55 -0400
                            Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 01:53 +1000
                              Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 09:49 -0700
                                Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-04-03 18:32 +0000
                            Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-04-03 16:07 +0000
                        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-06 21:56 +0200
                          Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-07 11:37 +1000
                            Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-04-07 09:36 +0300
                            Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Peter Pearson <pkpearson@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-04-07 16:51 +0000
                              Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 21:43 -0700
                                Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 21:47 -0700
                                Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 14:54 +1000
                                  Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 10:51 -0700
                              Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-08 16:00 +1000
                                Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 16:13 +1000
                                Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Peter Pearson <pkpearson@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-04-08 17:21 +0000
                                  Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-04-08 20:44 +0300
                                    Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 03:50 +1000
                                      Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Peter Pearson <pkpearson@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-04-08 18:03 +0000
                                        Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 11:17 -0700
                                          Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 11:20 -0700
                                    Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 11:04 -0700
                                      Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-08 20:20 -0400
                                        Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-04-09 08:30 +0000
                                          Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-09 14:43 +0100
                                            Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-09 15:34 +0100
                                              Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-09 14:30 -0400
                                            Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 09:08 -0700
                                              Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-09 19:27 +0100
                                              Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-09 20:25 +0100
                                              Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Stephen Hansen <me@ixokai.io> - 2016-04-09 12:45 -0700
                                            Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-04-10 20:35 +1200
                                      QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-04-09 10:43 +1000
                                        Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-09 13:28 +1000
                                          Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-04-09 11:44 -0400
                                          Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-04-09 11:53 -0400
                                            Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-18 11:39 +1000
                                              Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-04-17 22:01 -0400
                                                Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-18 17:21 +1000
                                                  Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-04-18 21:17 +1200
                                              Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 12:09 +1000
                                              Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 21:50 -0600
                                              Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-18 00:06 -0400
                                          Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-09 14:52 -0400
                                            Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2016-04-09 20:09 -0700
                                              Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 07:43 -0600
                                                Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2016-04-10 19:14 -0700
                                      Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-09 20:13 +0100
                                        Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-04-09 20:22 +0000
                                          Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-09 22:23 +0100
                                          Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2016-04-09 22:51 +0100
                                      Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2016-04-09 20:25 +0100
                                      Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-09 20:36 +0100
                                      Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-04-09 14:33 -0700
                                      RE: [E] QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) "Coll-Barth, Michael" <Michael.Coll-Barth@VerizonWireless.com> - 2016-04-09 13:31 -0400
                                  Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-09 04:44 +1000
                                    Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-04-08 21:55 +0300
                                      Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-04-10 21:25 +1200
                  Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-03 09:49 +1000
                    Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-03 01:26 +0100
                    Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 07:52 -0700
                      Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Okuntsov <okuntsov.mikhail@yandex.ru> - 2016-04-03 22:24 +0600
                        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 02:28 +1000
                  Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-04-03 16:57 +1200
                    Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-03 15:34 +1000
                Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-04-02 15:07 -0400
                  Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-04-02 22:36 +0300
                    Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 21:42 +0000
                      Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-03 10:48 +1000
                        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-03 02:04 +0100
                          Re: [beginner] What's wrong? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-04-03 12:37 +0000
            Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-04-02 14:59 -0400
          Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-04-03 16:43 +1200
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-02 12:31 -0400
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-03 00:58 +0100
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? sohcahtoa82@gmail.com - 2016-04-08 15:59 -0700
          Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-09 00:07 +0100
      Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 16:49 -0600
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 10:12 +0200
      Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-04 15:04 +0100
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-04 15:51 +0100
      From email addresses sometimes strange on this list - was Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 16:55 -0600
      Re: From email addresses sometimes strange on this list - was Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 08:58 +1000
      Re: From email addresses sometimes strange on this list - was Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 17:19 -0600

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#106740 — 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
apart - For Q to collide with P, they would have to both be nearly all
the way to the platen at the same time, whereas Q can collide with A
even a mere millimeter from the basket (or anywhere in between).

I don't understand where this idea that alternating hands makes you
slows you down came from in the first place... I suspect it's people who
haven't really thought for a minute about the physical process of typing
(to type "ec" you have to physically move your left hand, to type "en"
your right hand can already be moving into place while your left hand
presses the first key. The former is clearly slower than the latter.)
This goes double for hunt-and-peck typing, where you have to move your
whole hand to press _any_ two keys on the same hand.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106741 — 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 per second, and uses that to defend
> the counter-myth that QWERTY wasn't designed to decrease the number of
> key presses per second!

Er, the footnote is clearly and obviously being used to cite the claim
that that is popularly believed, not the claim that it's incorrect.

> These are the historical facts:

> - Sholes spend significant time developing a layout which reduced the
>   number of jams by intentionally moving frequently typed characters
>   far apart, which has the effect of slowing down the rate at which
>   the typist can hit keys;

"Moving characters far apart has the effect of slowing down the rate at
which the typist can hit keys" is neither a fact nor historical. Keys
that are further apart *can be hit faster without jamming* due to the
specifics of the type-basket mechanism, and there's no reason to think
that they can't be hit with at least equal speed by the typist.

Take a typewriter. Press Q and A (right next to each other) at the same
time, and observe the distance from the type basket where the jam
occurs. Now press Q and P (on the opposite side of the basket from each
other) and observe where the jam occurs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#107217 — 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*
>> repeats the conventional narrative that QWERTY was designed to
>> decrease the number of key presses per second, and uses that to defend
>> the counter-myth that QWERTY wasn't designed to decrease the number of
>> key presses per second!
> 
> Er, the footnote is clearly and obviously being used to cite the claim
> that that is popularly believed, not the claim that it's incorrect.

That's not clear nor obvious to me. But I won't quibble, I'll accept that as
a plausible interpretation.


>> These are the historical facts:
> 
>> - Sholes spend significant time developing a layout which reduced the
>>   number of jams by intentionally moving frequently typed characters
>>   far apart, which has the effect of slowing down the rate at which
>>   the typist can hit keys;
> 
> "Moving characters far apart has the effect of slowing down the rate at
> which the typist can hit keys" is neither a fact nor historical.

Actually, yes it is. At least, according to this website:

http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/Dvorak/history.html

  [quote]
  Because typists at that time used the "hunt-and-peck" method,
  Sholes's arrangement increased the time it took for the typists
  to hit the keys for common two-letter combinations enough to
  ensure that each type bar had time to fall back sufficiently
  far to be out of the way before the next one came up.
  [end quote]


The QWERTY layout was first sold in 1873 while the first known use of
ten-fingered typing was in 1878, and touch-typing wasn't invented for
another decade, in 1888.

So I think it is pretty clear that *at the time QWERTY was invented*
it slowed down the rate at which keys were pressed, thus allowing an
overall greater typing speed thanks to the reduced jamming.

Short of a signed memo from Shole himself, commenting one way or another, I
don't think we're going to find anything more definitive.

Even though QWERTY wasn't designed with touch-typing in mind, it's
interesting to look at some of the weaknesses of the system. It is almost
as if it had been designed to make touch-typing as inefficient as
possible :-) Just consider the home keys. The home keys require the least
amount of finger or hand movement, and are therefore the fastest to reach.
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%. If you also include G and H as "virtual
home-keys", that rises to 33.74%.

But that's far less than the obvious tactic of using the most common
letters ETAOIN as the home keys, which would cover 51.18% just from those
eight keys alone. The 19th century Blickensderfer typewriter used a similar
layout, with the ten home keys DHIATENSOR as the home keys. This would
allow the typist to make just under 74% of all alphabetical key presses
without moving the hands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blickensderfer_typewriter

Letter frequencies taken from here:

http://www.math.cornell.edu/~mec/2003-2004/cryptography/subs/frequencies.html


> Keys 
> that are further apart *can be hit faster without jamming* due to the
> specifics of the type-basket mechanism, and there's no reason to think
> that they can't be hit with at least equal speed by the typist.

You may be correct about that specific issue when it comes to touch typing,
but touch typing was 15 years in the future when Sholes invented QWERTY.
And unlike Guido, he didn't have a time-machine :-)



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#107221 — 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 marketing. It only holds up as an obvious inference from the
nature of how typing works if we assume *one*-finger hunt-and-peck
rather than two-finger. Your website describes two-finger as the method
that was being replaced by the 1878 introduction of ten-finger typing.

> The QWERTY layout was first sold in 1873 while the first known use of
> ten-fingered typing was in 1878, and touch-typing wasn't invented for
> another decade, in 1888.

Two-finger hunt-and-peck is sufficient for placing keys on opposite
hands to speed typing up rather than slow it down.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#107249 — 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 see an instance of the claim not associated with
> Dvorak marketing. 

So would I, but this is hardly a Dvorak *marketing*. The author even points 
out that the famous case-study done by the US Navy was "biased, and at 
worst, fabricated".

http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/Dvorak/

And he too repeats the canard that "Contrary to popular opinion" QWERTY 
wasn't designed to slow typists down. (Even though he later goes on to 
support the popular opinion.)

You can also read the article in Reason magazine:

http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing-errors

You can skip the entire first page -- it is almost entirely a screed against 
government regulation and a defence of the all-mighty free-market. But the 
article goes through some fairly compelling evidence that Dvorak keyboards 
are barely more efficient that QWERTY, and that there was plenty of 
competition in type-writers in the late 1800s.

I don't agree with the Reason article that they have disproven the 
conventional wisdom that QWERTY won the typewriter wars due to luck and 
path-dependence. The authors are (in my opinion) overly keen to dismiss 
path-dependence, for instance taking it as self-evidently true that the use 
of QWERTY in the US would have no influence over other countries' choice in 
key layout. But it does support the contention that, at the time, QWERTY was 
faster than the alternatives.

Unfortunately, what it doesn't talk about is whether or not the alternate 
layouts had fewer jams.

Wikipedia's article on QWERTY shows the various designs used by Sholes and 
Remington, leading to the modern layout

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QWERTY

One serious problem for discussion is that the QWERTY keyboard we use now is 
*not* the same as that designed by Sholes. For instance, one anomaly is that 
two very common digraphs, ER and RE, are right next to each other. But 
that's not how Sholes laid out the keys. On his keyboard, the top row was 
initially AEI.?Y then changed to QWE.TY. Failure to recognise this leads to 
errors like this blogger's claim that it is "wrong" that QWERTY was designed 
to break apart common digraphs:

http://yasuoka.blogspot.com.au/2006/08/sholes-discovered-that-many-
english.html

Even on a modern keyboard, out of the ten most common digraphs:

th he in er an re nd at on nt

only er/re use consecutive keys, and five out of the ten use alternate 
hands. Move the R back to its original position, and there are none with 
consecutive keys and seven with alternate hands.

> It only holds up as an obvious inference from the
> nature of how typing works if we assume *one*-finger hunt-and-peck
> rather than two-finger.

I don't agree, but neither can I prove it conclusively.


> Your website describes two-finger as the method
> that was being replaced by the 1878 introduction of ten-finger typing.
> 
>> The QWERTY layout was first sold in 1873 while the first known use of
>> ten-fingered typing was in 1878, and touch-typing wasn't invented for
>> another decade, in 1888.
> 
> Two-finger hunt-and-peck is sufficient for placing keys on opposite
> hands to speed typing up rather than slow it down.

Correct, once you take into account jamming. That's the whole point of 
separating the keys. But consider common letter combinations that can be 
typed by the one hand: QWERTY has a significant number of quite long words 
that can be typed with one hand, the *left* hand. That's actually quite 
harmful for both typing speed and accuracy.

Anyway, you seem to have ignored (or perhaps you just have nothing to say) 
my comments about the home keys. It seems clear to me that even with two-
finger typing, a layout that puts ETAOIN on the home keys, such as the 
Blickensderfer typewriter, would minimize the distance travelled by the 
fingers and improve typing speed -- but only so long as the problem of 
jamming was solved.

Interestingly, Wikipedia makes it clear that in the 19th century, the 
problem of jamming arms was already solved by doing away with the arms and 
using a wheel or a ball.



-- 
Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#107260 — Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Even on a modern keyboard, out of the ten most common digraphs:
> 
> th he in er an re nd at on nt
> 
> only er/re use consecutive keys,

Also keep in mind that E and R being adjacent on the
keyboard does *not* mean they're adjacent in the type
basket -- they're actually separated by two other
characters (D and C). That's only one less than
I and N (separated by U, J nd M).

-- 
Greg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#107223 — 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 <steve@pearwood.info> 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%. If you also include G and H as "virtual
> home-keys", that rises to 33.74%.

Hey, that's a little unfair. Remember, lots of people still have to
write C code, so the semicolon is an important character! :) In fact,
skimming the CPython source code (grouped by file extension) shows
that C code has more semicolons than j's or k's:

a 3.19% s 3.26% d 1.90% f 1.76% g 0.95% h 0.89% j 0.36% k 0.35% l 2.62% ; 1.40%

for a total of 16.69% of characters coming from the home row.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#107228 — Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

On 04/17/2016 07:39 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Even though QWERTY wasn't designed with touch-typing in mind, it's
> interesting to look at some of the weaknesses of the system. It is almost
> as if it had been designed to make touch-typing as inefficient as
> possible :-) Just consider the home keys. The home keys require the least
> amount of finger or hand movement, and are therefore the fastest to reach.
> 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%. If you also include G and H as "virtual
> home-keys", that rises to 33.74%.
> 
> But that's far less than the obvious tactic of using the most common
> letters ETAOIN as the home keys, which would cover 51.18% just from those
> eight keys alone. The 19th century Blickensderfer typewriter used a similar
> layout, with the ten home keys DHIATENSOR as the home keys. This would
> allow the typist to make just under 74% of all alphabetical key presses
> without moving the hands.

While they Dvorak layout also puts more coverage in the home row, and
also lets the touch typist alternate more equally between the fingers, I
had to quit using it because it just wasn't as comfortable to use with
vi, especially for things like cursor navigation, and I didn't really
want to remap all the keys.  vi is very flexible and I bet there are key
mappings for vi that work better with Dvorak.  Maybe if I try it again
I'll have another look.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#107231 — Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:09:57 +1000, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
declaimed the following:
\>
>Hey, that's a little unfair. Remember, lots of people still have to
>write C code, so the semicolon is an important character! :) In fact,
>skimming the CPython source code (grouped by file extension) shows
>that C code has more semicolons than j's or k's:
>
	And is positioned under the, nominally, weakest finger of the right
hand.
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106752 — Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 11:44:48 -0400, Random832 <random832@fastmail.com>
declaimed the following:

>I don't understand where this idea that alternating hands makes you
>slows you down came from in the first place... I suspect it's people who

	It's not (to my mind) the alternation that slows one down. It's the
combination of putting common letters under weak fingers and some
combinationS that require the same hand/finger to slow one down.

aspect		a is on the weakest left finger, with the s on a finger that
many people have trouble moving independently from the middle finger (hmm,
I seem to be okay moving the ring finger, but moving the middle finger
tends to drag the ring with it). p is the weakest finger of the right hand.
e&c use the same finger of the left hand, t is the strongest finger but one
is coming off the lower-row reach of middle-finger c.

deaf		is all left hand, and the de is the same finger... earth except
for the h is also all left hand, and rt are the same finger.

	I suspect for any argument for one side, a corresponding counter can be
made for the other side. There are only 5.5 vowels (the .5 is Y) in
English, so they are likely more prevalent than the 20-odd consonants when
taking singly. Yet A is on the weakest finger on the weakest (for most of
the populace) hand. IOU OTOH are in a fast three-finger roll -- and worse,
IO is fairly common (all the ***ion endings).

-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106771 — Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> 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 <random832@fastmail.com>
>declaimed the following:
>
>>I don't understand where this idea that alternating hands makes you
>>slows you down came from in the first place... I suspect it's people who
>
>	It's not (to my mind) the alternation that slows one down. It's the
>combination of putting common letters under weak fingers and some
>combinationS that require the same hand/finger to slow one down.
>
>aspect		a is on the weakest left finger, with the s on a finger that
>many people have trouble moving independently from the middle finger (hmm,
>I seem to be okay moving the ring finger, but moving the middle finger
>tends to drag the ring with it). p is the weakest finger of the right hand.
>e&c use the same finger of the left hand, t is the strongest finger but one
>is coming off the lower-row reach of middle-finger c.
>
>deaf		is all left hand, and the de is the same finger... earth except
>for the h is also all left hand, and rt are the same finger.
>
>	I suspect for any argument for one side, a corresponding counter can be
>made for the other side. There are only 5.5 vowels (the .5 is Y) in
>English, so they are likely more prevalent than the 20-odd consonants when
>taking singly. Yet A is on the weakest finger on the weakest (for most of
>the populace) hand. IOU OTOH are in a fast three-finger roll -- and worse,
>IO is fairly common (all the ***ion endings).

	ASINTOER are the top eight English letters (not in any order, it
is just that "A Sin To Err" is easy to remember.
--  
pyotr filipivich
The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another. 
-- George Bancroft

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106784 — 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 <phamp@mindspring.com> 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. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106834 — Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> 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 <phamp@mindspring.com> 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. :-)

	Depends on what you're looking for, I suppose.  In this case,
those eight get encoded differently than the other 20 characters.
--  
pyotr filipivich
The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another. 
-- George Bancroft

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106756 — Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

On 09/04/2016 01:43, Ben Finney wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>

Yet another completely irrelevant thread that has nothing to do with 
Python.  As this is meant to be the main Python mailing list, why don't 
the moderators put a stop to such tripe?

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106763 — Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 20:13:15 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> On 09/04/2016 01:43, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>
>>
> Yet another completely irrelevant thread that has nothing to do with
> Python.  As this is meant to be the main Python mailing list, why don't
> the moderators put a stop to such tripe?

Because it is also a newsgroup which means they CANT (at least not 100% 
effectively) even if the want to.




-- 
Of course you have a purpose -- to find a purpose.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106764 — Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

On 09/04/2016 21:22, alister wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 20:13:15 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> On 09/04/2016 01:43, Ben Finney wrote:
>>> Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>> Yet another completely irrelevant thread that has nothing to do with
>> Python.  As this is meant to be the main Python mailing list, why don't
>> the moderators put a stop to such tripe?
>
> Because it is also a newsgroup which means they CANT (at least not 100%
> effectively) even if the want to.
>

They could certainly be more effective.  Thankfully the RUE was seen 
off.  Talk about grateful for small mercies, given the number of others 
who continue to insult the Python community and get away scott free, 
whilst they continue to discriminate against me in complete breach of 
the ethics that they claim to hold so dear.  Talk about bloody 
hypocrites.  Actually how do you get the job of moderator, insult the 
BDFL as Ethan Furman did just a day or so back?

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106769 — Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

On 09/04/2016 22:23, Mark Lawrence via Python-list wrote:

[... snip ...]

Mark, you're ranting. Have a little dignity, please, and back off.

TJG

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106758 — Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

On 09/04/2016 20:13, Mark Lawrence via Python-list wrote:
> On 09/04/2016 01:43, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>
>
> Yet another completely irrelevant thread that has nothing to do with
> Python.  As this is meant to be the main Python mailing list, why don't
> the moderators put a stop to such tripe?
>

I'm sorry Mark but, whether you like it or not, this list / newsgroup 
has never been averse to taking a detour into interesting side-channels. 
You can easily mute a thread if you want to (or just delete the posts as 
they come).

Added to which, moderators give their time as freely as anyone else, and 
we'd have a merry time of it if we had to vet every subthread and post 
to make sure it met some notional guideline of language purity.

TJG

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106760 — Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

On 09/04/2016 20:25, Tim Golden wrote:
> On 09/04/2016 20:13, Mark Lawrence via Python-list wrote:
>> On 09/04/2016 01:43, Ben Finney wrote:
>>> Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>>
>>
>> Yet another completely irrelevant thread that has nothing to do with
>> Python.  As this is meant to be the main Python mailing list, why don't
>> the moderators put a stop to such tripe?
>>
>
> I'm sorry Mark but, whether you like it or not, this list / newsgroup
> has never been averse to taking a detour into interesting side-channels.
> You can easily mute a thread if you want to (or just delete the posts as
> they come).

I do not find this acceptable. I want to discuss PYTHON on the MAIN 
PYTHON MAILING LIST, not some shite that someone thinks is interesting, 
they can take that offline.  QWERTY, what next, today's football results?

>
> Added to which, moderators give their time as freely as anyone else, and
> we'd have a merry time of it if we had to vet every subthread and post
> to make sure it met some notional guideline of language purity.
>
> TJG

Very amusing to see that some highly qualified 'moderators' have been so 
bloody rude on other Python mailing lists in the last days.  Do as I 
say, not as I do?

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106766 — Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

On 04/09/2016 12:36 PM, Mark Lawrence via Python-list wrote:

> Very amusing to see that some highly qualified 'moderators' have been so
> bloody rude on other Python mailing lists in the last days.  Do as I
> say, not as I do?

Nope -- you should take that as all of us are human and sometimes our 
temper gets the better of us.

You'll notice I was censored for my outburst, and you'll also hopefully 
notice that I later apologized.

--
~Ethan~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web