Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

2016-04-18 Thread Gregory Ewing
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

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

2016-04-18 Thread Steven D'Aprano
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

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

2016-04-17 Thread Michael Torrie
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 k

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

2016-04-17 Thread Chris Angelico
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Steven D'Aprano 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

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

2016-04-17 Thread Random832
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 marketi

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

2016-04-17 Thread Steven D'Aprano
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*

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

2016-04-10 Thread pyotr filipivich
Ian Kelly 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 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 reme

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

2016-04-10 Thread Ian Kelly
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:09 PM, pyotr filipivich 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. :-) -- https://mail.pyth

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

2016-04-09 Thread pyotr filipivich
Dennis Lee Bieber 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 >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 suspec

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

2016-04-09 Thread Tim Golden
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 -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

2016-04-09 Thread Ethan Furman
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 te

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

2016-04-09 Thread Mark Lawrence via Python-list
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 writes: Yet another completely irrelevant thread that has nothing to do with Python. As this is meant to be the main Python mailing list, w

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

2016-04-09 Thread alister
On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 20:13:15 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 09/04/2016 01:43, Ben Finney wrote: >> Dennis Lee Bieber 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 pu

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

2016-04-09 Thread Mark Lawrence via Python-list
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 writes: Yet another completely irrelevant thread that has nothing to do with Python. As this is meant to be the main Python mailing list

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

2016-04-09 Thread Tim Golden
On 09/04/2016 20:13, Mark Lawrence via Python-list wrote: On 09/04/2016 01:43, Ben Finney wrote: Dennis Lee Bieber 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

Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down

2016-04-09 Thread Mark Lawrence via Python-list
On 09/04/2016 01:43, Ben Finney wrote: Dennis Lee Bieber 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

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

2016-04-09 Thread Random832
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 p

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

2016-04-09 Thread Random832
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

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

2016-04-08 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 10:43 am, Ben Finney wrote: > Dennis Lee Bieber writes: > >> [The QWERTY keyboard layout] was a sane design -- for early mechanical >> typewrites. It fulfills its goal of slowing down a typist to reduce >> jamming print-heads at the platen. > > This is an often-repeated myth,