Fri Aug 8 15:59:29 EDT 1997
================= EH.RES POSTING =================
Thanks to Jim Bessen for the URL. I found it kind of odd the context in
which the article was posted -- I found myself wondering what does THIS
mean for scholarship (BIG header proclaiming the relevance of a series
of five articles to issues of concern to Microsoft).
At any rate, I'm not sure their argument gets to the point. The whole
argument is based on the fallacy that the Dvorak keyboard is superior to
QWERTY, or that any other keyboard ever was.
In another life, I was a concert pianist. I don't care what the
ergonomics experts seemed to say, us musicians know very well that the
weakest finger is the little finger, and that having to use the same
finger twice in a row is more difficult than switching fingers. We know
because we know how much training it takes to do both efficiently!
It remains grossly inefficient to have to use the little fingers to
hit the shift keys -- and the common letter "a" should definitely
not be a little-finger letter.
Can't help saying that.
Whether the Dvorak keyboard was the answer or not, there is no doubt
in this 100+ typist's mind that the QWERTY keyboard is not the one
that would have been chosen for the fastest speed with a modern
keyboard.
Which was rather the point.
Also that there were reasons Remington won out that had nothing to
do with the keyboard (which seems to me well-documented in that
article itself) -- but the keyboard was established by the 1920s.
Fast typewriters didn't show up until later, guys.
Am I the only one who thinks that the first premise of the article
has to be wrong: that the Paul David theory rested entirely on
the supposed supremacy of the Dvorak method, and I don't think it
does.
However, part of the story as I knew it was that Remington was
incredibly good at MARKETING the QWERTY keyboard. And the evidence
in this essay would certainly confirm that statement (although I
guess the version that said it was easier to type "Remington" using
QWERTY is an urban legend, sigh; loved that story.)
Thank you Alan for posting the website to the earlier list discussion
on QWERTY and path dependency. I just spent a very enjoyable reading
session there.
Let me raise three points that weren't in that discussion, one minor and
one not so minor:
1. When decisions were/are being made about keyboards in bulk, the
decision-makers were often male; the persons actually using the
keyboards female. The situation today is of course quite different,
but I can't help but feel a sense of spaciness to some of the questions
about QWERTY vs. DVORAK because I know how much typing speed was a
curiosity in the workplace, once you got past 50-60 wpm. (I was once
clocked at 125 wpm, and I used to regularly get people coming and
staring at the freak show.) Indeed, I had one boss who was appalled
at my typing speed because it meant that I finished all the work he
had to give me in such a short time that it made HIM look unproductive.
(I kept both him and my fellow secretaries happy by going through the
office regularly and offering to pick up extra work from those who
were overwhelmed -- which kept me typing and looking busy, and kept
them from seeing me as a competitor setting a new unattainable standard
for them.)
2. I'm shaking my head -- how could I have been so wrong -- here I
thought the issue of path-dependency had to do with the way past
decisions affect present options, and it was not a necessary part of
the story that the original decision have been random. Just that it
wouldn't be the decision you would make now if all the current options
were available.
3. This is the important point: The whole debate has such obvious,
clear political ramifications, and yet no one seemed to want to talk
about that. Why would you CARE this much about the QWERTY keyboard?
it is the stuff of what used to be called "antiquarianism" -- hey, how
DID that street get its name?
Because there is a strong ideological component to the whole idea of
path-dependency. Or the concept that past decisions affect present
options.
Because it would mean that "minimalist" government is not necessarily
always for the best in the Best of All Possible Worlds.
That "let the chips fall where they may" is not necessarily the most
efficient way to run an economy.
That the short run matters.
And that, finally, there isn't One Single Optimal Solution to all
problems -- but that perhaps there are several, or that none is optimal,
-- in other words, that we have MORE choices, but the choices have to
do with matters that some economists think we should not have choices
about. Policy issues in a democratic society, for example.
Are we therefore debating a hot issue by proxy, which might explain
why so many felt involved in the outcome of the debate?
Mary Schweitzer
Villanova University
============ FOOTER TO EH.RES POSTING ============