On 12/04/2021 23:05, Tim Streater wrote:
On 12 Apr 2021 at 23:03:37 BST, Fredxx wrote:

On 12/04/2021 22:19, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 12/04/2021 18:31, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:12:18 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

But then I guess that the focus (on technical content) may distract
from 'checking' for spelling (if they don't pop out at you). A classic
one seen here is 'teh' instead of 'the'?

I wonder if that is down to the brain being faster than being able
to type.

Possibly?

Don;t forget that the keyboard is designed to slow typing down.

The 'qwerty' keyboard you mean ... I thought it was more to balance
the speed out (and so make it faster)?

A disputed reason is so the hammers were less likely to interfere and
clash for high speed typing.

It isnt disputed by anyone with even half a clue.

There are a number of links to the history of the Query keyboard than
debunk the idea.

Just one of these with a greater 'clue':

https://www.newscientist.com/article...erty-keyboard/

Quote:
One often-repeated explanation is that it was designed to €œslow the
typist down€� in order to stop the mechanism from jamming, a bug that
dogged earlier designs. This was supposedly achieved by keeping common
letter pairs apart.

But that cannot be true. E and R, the second most common letter pair in
English, are next to one another. T and H, the most common of all, are
near neighbours. A statistical analysis in 1949 found that a QWERTY
keyboard actually has more close pairs than a keyboard arranged at random.

Another urban myth is that it enabled salesmen to impress customers by
rapidly typing €œTYPE WRITER QUOTE€� from the top row. Its a nice idea €“
and it does seem unlikely that these letters would appear together by
chance €“ but there is no historical evidence for it.

Perhaps a more convincing though prosaic reason is that the keyboard is
simply a semi-random rearrangement of the original piano-style keyboard.

Well probably never know. A century after Sholes finalised the
keyboard, historian Jan Noyes of Loughborough University published a
lengthy analysis concluding: €œThere appears €¦ to be no obvious reason
for the placement of letters in the QWERTY layout.

And, equally, there is no reason to change it.

There is if you want efficiency, but the investment would be huge, in
terms of hardware and the human side of relearning a skill.

It is said you could get more than a 10% increase in typing rate for a
fast touch typist if you had a more efficient layout.