Talk:QWERTY

QWERTY Spelling

May I know why someone is documenting how to spell a word that is on the screen? (first line). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.248.196.180 (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent Resource

I'm surprised the following article has not been referenced:

QWERTY keyboard: A review. Noyes, J INT. J. MAN-MACH. STUD. Vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 265-281. 1983

Abstract: The standard typewriter keyboard (nicknamed QWERTY) was designed over a century ago. During this time, QWERTY has become a controversial issue, because many individuals feel that the sequential keyboard market is being monopolized by a sub-optimum layout. Despite these feelings, in 1971 the International Standards Organization recognized QWERTY as the standard keyboard, and a year later Alden, Daniels & Kanarick (1972) concluded that QWERTY was "the de facto standard layout for communications and computer interface keyboards". This article reviews the origins of the QWERTY keyboard, and other sequential keyboards which have been developed since 1909. The reasoning behind the design of these other keyboards and the subsequent impact they made on the keyboard world are discussed. Various explanations are suggested as to why this previous research has not had any effect on the design of the QWERTY keyboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.4.75 (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Good resource indeed. Here is another reference that future editors might want to look at:

Paul A. David. 1997. Path Dependence and the Quest for Historical Economics: One More chorus of Ballad of QWERTY. Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford http://ideas.repec.org/p/nuf/esohwp/_020.html (Accessed December 8, 2009).

This ref is of relevance in particular with regard to the debate on efficiency in the final section and the suggestion that the work of Liebowitz and Margolis [2] represents more rigorous research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.104.38.5 (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In the end of the first paragraph, there is an unsupported claim as to the rational for a non-optimized standardization, Economic efficiency has been idealized and imagined to exist where good the economic reality does not support it being the rational; there for economically optimized selection of key board lay out. technological, behavioral lock-in and technological pathway dependency are similar effects to the reference of network theory. I would like to see this expanded upon perhaps in a subjection and remove the unsupported inference to efficiency. Tests have been done to show typing speed which is a principle indicator of keyboard output. There is a contradiction in the reasoning that is applied and the reference to network theory. It seems like network theory is the social manifestation of the phenomena. I very much like this quote from David (1985) "I believe there are many more QWERTY worlds lying out there in the past, at the very edges of the modern economic analyst's tidy universe; worlds we do not yet fully perceive or understand, but whose influence1 like that of dark stars, extends nonetheless to shape the visible orbits of our contemporary economic affairs. Most of the time I feel sure that the absorbing delights and quiet terrors of exploring QWERTY worlds will suffice to draw adventurous economists into the systematic study of essentially historical dy­namic processes, and so will seduce them into the ways of economic history, and a. better grasp of their subject." Alaskanwarrior (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskanwarrior (talk • contribs) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Keyboard diagram

I'm of the DIY school of Wikipedia editing, but I'm not sure how to go about this. Not everyone has the QWERTY layout printed on their keyboard keycaps. Shouldn't the article include a diagram of the keyboard layout, like most other articles? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is one in the Computer keyboards section. I don't know why it's so tiny as to be unreadable, though. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"h" looks like "n," "j" like "i," etc.

Was the QWERTY keyboard arranged so that letters that looked like each other were closer together?

B is like H, N is kind of like H, R is maybe a little like F, and E like R. But probably it's just coicindence and the ones that don't look like each other are more frequently together than those that do.

By the way, IE8 CANNOT handle a lot of text on screen. Right now in this discussion/edit box, it's typing really, really slow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.28.223 (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No. As the article states, the QWERTY keyboard layout was designed to prevent mechanical keys from jamming. That meant using a configuration that slowed typists down somewhat, since typing too fast was one of the things that caused jamming. As the article notes, the mechanical jamming issues have been otherwise resolved, and QWERTY is merely a legacy of the early days of the typewriter. There have been many keyboard designs which are demonstrated to be faster than QWERTY, because the other keyboard designs are optimized purely for human speed without regard to the mechanics of early typewriters. One reason these others have not caught on is that it has been shown that QWERTY-trained touch typists do not become faster when retrained on a different keyboard, since it is impossible for touch typists to completely unlearn the QWERTY training. This has been studied as an example of the "installed base" advantage, of which another notable example is Microsoft Windows. (Software designed for Windows typically performs sub-optimally when "ported" to another operating system. Thus, technically better-performing operating systems do not supplant Windows in the marketplace because of the advantage Windows enjoys in terms of the installed base of compatible software.)

Bob99 (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your two statements:

• "the QWERTY keyboard layout was designed to prevent mechanical keys from jamming."
• "That meant using a configuration that slowed typists down somewhat,"

Don't hold up. The first is true, but the second isn't a corollary of that. The point of the QWERTY layout isn't to slow anyone down, it's to carry on working at full speed whilst avoiding the type bar clashing problem. It does this by trying to keep the most common sequentially-used typebars physically separated from each other. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If any of this is really true about the design of the QWERTY keyboard, why are "E" and "R" next to each other? These are extremely commonly used next to each other in English and other Romance languages, and I remember from typewriter days of having trouble with words like "here" and "there" causing type bars to clash and get stuck. If the QWERTY designer was really trying to avoid that, I'd say he failed. Jpp42 (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with the statement "QWERTY-trained touch typists do not become faster when retrained on a different keyboard, since it is impossible for touch typists to completely unlearn the QWERTY training." I learned to touch-type on a QWERTY keyboard in 1967 and spent quite a few years earning my living from the QWERTY keyboard. In 1986 I trained myself to use the Malt Layout

http://www.maltron.com/keyboard-info/technical-keyboard-information/academic-papers/236-lillian-malt-papers.html

http://www.maltron.com/keyboard-info/technical-keyboard-information/academic-papers/235-keyboards-designed-to-fit-hands-and-reduce-postural-stress.html

http://www.maltron.com/keyboard-info/technical-keyboard-information/academic-papers/234-a-keyboard-to-increase-productivity-and-reduce-postural-stress.html

http://www.maltron.com/keyboard-info/technical-keyboard-information/academic-papers/233-computer-related-upper-limb-disorder.html

I was still able to use the QWERTY layout and for about 5 or so years after I was still able to exceed 50 words per minute touch typing, without any difficulty. In 2010 I can still use QWERTY, though I prefer (and choose) not to. There was no question of "unlearning" QWERTY since it was never "replaced" by Maltron, but was in "parallel"*.

I've now moved on to "touch typing" in software based shorthand (on the Maltron keyboard), and I've certainly trebled my QWERTY speed.

On Edit: 21 Jun. *My first MALTRON keyboard had a switchable QWERTY/MALTRON layout with dual-engraved keytops and I made a deliberate decision when I started using the MALTRON keyboard to use the Malt layout. Because of the vast difference between the 3D curves of the MALTRON keyboard and the flat QWERTY keyboard, and the resultant kinaesthetic muscle memory essential for touch typing, there is little or no confusion between the two keyboards, any more than there is confusion between a QWERTY computer keyboard and a musical instrument keyboard.

Proword (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Fast enough

I guess it's just my opinion, and since it's just my opinion it doesn't matter, but I think QWERTY keyboards type plenty fast. I already type too fast on them, frequently typing words I didn't mean to (not typos, exactly, because they're spelled correctly and the grammar usually stays fine). So for me the problem is that I wish the keys were harder to hit, like on a typewriter. But maybe if I switched to such a thing I'd regret it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.28.223 (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Two unsubstantiated claims

The article makes two claims for which no citation is provided.

1. "it was designed to prevent jams while typing at speed"

The prevent jams bit is correct. The "while typing at speed" is unsubstantiated. The article cited and linked to, aside from the fact that it's not terribly scholarly, mentions nothing about facilitating speeds, simply about reducing jamming. Sure, the obvious inference is that spending less time unjamming means spending more time typing (resulting in an effective speed increase), but that's not the same claim.

Moved the footnote reference from speed to jams; added "citation needed" after speed.

2. "enabling salesmen to impress customers by pecking out the brand name "TYPE WRITER" from one keyboard row"

Aside from the issue of why pecking out "typewriter" from a single row should impress anyone, there is no citation for this claim. Added "citation needed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by CNJECulver (talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Again leaving aside the question of "why", is there any necessity for a citation? The simple, observable fact is that, regardless of the intention of the design, the word "TYPEWRITER" can be typed (by anybody) on a single row of keys, with a single finger.

Proword (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Improper phrasing

I object to this phrasing:

"While it is often said that QWERTY was designed to "slow down" typists, this is incorrect – it was designed to prevent jams[1]"

It is not incorrect to say this if it was designed to prevent jam's, as a jam only occurred when you pressed two keys in rapid succession. You could say speed up bumps were designed to prevent accidents and NOT to slow down cars, which would be nonsense because going FAST over speed bumps wouldn't really be safe. It's simply not fair to say it's INCORRECT. None of the citations reference original designers or quotes about their intentions so the word "designed" is questionable.

A better wording would be:

While it is often said that QWERTY was designed to "slow down" typists, there is no documentation to support the claim this was an intentional design decision. The inefficient layout does help prevent jams in "up-stoke" models.

Stevemulligan (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree there. Certainly such a statement is not NPOV. Why did you do it (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. Besides, the source that was cited doesn't conform to the reliable sources guidelines. Why did you do it (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Backslash Key

The "standard layout" shown has an enlarged enter key and the backslash key to the left of the backspace key. But most keyboards (e.g., Dell, HP, IBM, Apple, Matias, iHome, LifeWorks, Advanced Logic Research) have the backslash to the right of the right bracket key, and this goes back to PS/2 keyboards. Somebody should update the layout or show both variants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Purpose

What is the justification for stating that being able to type many words using only the left hand helps left-handed people?

For someone who actually can type with both hands, the typical reason to type one-handed temporarily is to free up the other hand to do something else like turn a page, adjust the mouse position (on a computer), etc. Most people use their dominant hand for that, so freeing up the right hand and typing with the left is more advantageous for a right-hander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.71.75 (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that given the minuscule amount of time a typist would spend typing "one-handed" (using a mouse, turn a page etc) there would be no advantage for "right-handers" in this situation. The mouse is a device which is used to perform tasks which cannot be performed as easily (if at all) by keystrokes.

Proword (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

UK-Extended Keyboard

Can somebody check the keyboard shortcuts for typing letters with accents? I believe that in many of the listed cases Ctrl should be used instead of AltGr. 87.115.122.141 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives to QWERTY

It says:" I love you!!!! " at the end of this chapter, i welcome it but not so sure that is the right place for that phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.82.39 (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarity of "0" and "1"

The original presentation is cited thus:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 - ,
Q W E . T Y I U O P
Z S D F G H J K L M
A X & C V B N ? ; R

However, the article then suggests that the patented version of 1878 did not include "0" or "1". I would assume by this that the original design *did* include the "1", but it was removed in 1878? If so, should this be made clearer? 118.208.192.121 (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Woops, should have logged in... This comment is from me Nsmith 84 (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Half-qwerty image

I've just restored the half-qwerty image The silent gnome removed. Eir edit summary was "Removed pic. The description is clear enough, the pic isn't and it messes up the page."[1] I personally find the picture useful; it makes it immediately obvious what is being described, without needing to read the detail of the text at all. I have, at the same time fixed up the layout. —me_and 23:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I too found the pic useful. 173.164.86.190 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"QWERTY not made to avoid jamming."

" Contrary to two common misconceptions - the QWERTY letter arrangement was not derived to slow down typists nor to avoid jamming.[1]" CITES: http://yasuoka.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html

The "not to avoid jamming it" bit goes against everything I've ever read on the subject. Not saying it necessarily wrong, I think it should have a better citation than a random blog on the subject. The claims of Research Papers on typing, etc., should be presented in the opening paragraph. A "other claims" section would be fine, but elsewhere on the page.

216.190.31.22 (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done clearly a dubious citation, and it certainly contradicts other sources. —me_and 19:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Remington No. 389

"Remington No. 2 and No. 3 and No. 389 of 1878" seems kidding. What's Remington No. 389?--210.128.58.16 (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)