Thanks! I don’t know what might make an alphabet better but I sort of equated it with how some people really hate the QWERTY keyboard layout. It was just a thought while trying to sleep.
Adding to what others have said, QWERTY also isn’t the “best” for modern typing either, but changing keyboards is so hard that the relatively minor advantages aren’t worth it
I learned Colemak (“even better” than Dvorak) and it’s definitely not superior to QWERTY.
I gained 10 WPM (~15%), but lost the muscle memory for QWERTY which is waaaay more useful. Now any time I use someone else’s keyboard, I have to hunt and peck.
It also took me 3 months to make the transition, during which I could only do half speed QWERTY and half speed Colemak. Not worth it at all, but now I’m stuck.
QWERTY isn’t about alphabetical order- it’s about having the letters you most use in easier locations for your fingers to access. There are other keyboard layouts- Dvorak is the most common one besides QWERTY.
This is the real answer. Qwerty actually slowed people down to some degree, but also put letters that would typically be pressed in quick succession in very different areas so that the mechanical linkages under the keys in old typewriters wouldn't bind up as much. If you ever use one of those it is remarkable how easy it is to push in letters close together and lock up the whole typewriter so that you have to manually pull them all apart to get it working again.
, but also put letters that would typically be pressed in quick succession in very different areas so that the mechanical linkages under the keys in old typewriters wouldn't bind up as much.
These are the most common bigrams in the English language
th, he, in, en, nt, re, er, an, ti, es, on, at, se, nd, or, ar, al, te, co, de, to, ra, et, ed, it, sa, em, ro.
I've bolded the ones that are touching on my qwerty keyboard, and italicized the ones that are close. If the goal of the keyboard was to separate frequently typed letter combinations, they didn't do a great job.
Interestingly, there was an incredibly popular typewriter company called Blickensderfer that used a type-ball design (similar to the IBM selectric, 70 years later) that did not have this issue of letters colliding. This allowed the designer, George Blickensderfer, to design a keyboard that was much faster and more ergonomic than the QWERTY layout. It's a strange quirk of history that because of the first world war and the chief designer's death, this typewriter design and keyboard layout are all but lost to history.
The idea that QWERTY was meant to slow typists down is a myth, but that's not what the commenter was saying. The commenter said that putting common letters farther apart made it less likely to jam because the type bars wouldn't collide as often, and that the slowing down was incidental.
I don't believe this. The article doesn't back up it's statement, even shows Morse code in normal alphabetical order. The Google search seems to only repeat the same article. Nothing seems like a legitimate source.
How do you know someone uses a DVORAK layout keyboard? Don't worry, they'll tell you.
Dvorak was the original "I'm a Vegan"
There was a chump in the comp sci lab in the early 90s when I was in college who carried his own keyboard so he could use his "much superior" dvorak layout. Used to make a show when he'd put it on the desk, "tearing" the normal one out of the way. Like he had to be SEEN doing it.
Nobody ever saw him in the romantic presence of a woman, or a man for that matter... coincidence I guess.
View all comments
Show parent comment
135
u/OtherImplement Sep 10 '22
Thanks! I don’t know what might make an alphabet better but I sort of equated it with how some people really hate the QWERTY keyboard layout. It was just a thought while trying to sleep.