Where did the QWERTY keyboard come from?
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
There’s some dispute over how and why Sholes and Glidden arrived at the QWERTY layout. Some historians have argued that it solved a jamming problem by spacing out the most common letters in English; others, particularly more recent historians, hold that it was designed specifically to help telegraphists avoid common errors when transcribing Morse code. Regardless, after around 30 test models, Sholes and Glidden settled on QWERTY—and changed the world.
Then the vowels were moved to the top row These letters still fit that pattern eyuio adfghjkl mnvxz
I and O were near 9 and 8 because they were also used as 1 and 0 to save keys, and people wanted to type 1870 etc easily.
A was swapped back to the middle row for ease of use, everything else was pretty much to avoid patents of other layouts
QWERTY stuck because typing classes were invented and they first used QWERTY
Well at least it says who came up with it and when, so we know who to blame for it. None of the common suggestions make sense to me. It might be useful to examine the design of their first model now that we know who made it.
Anyways, fascinating to learn. Somehow didn't realize that so much of the world also uses QWERTY.
Virtually all the spellings of names from mainland China that you’re familiar with (e.g., Xi Jinping) are written in Pinyin.
ETAOIN SHRDLU
The 10 most common letters in the English language. With exception of the A, all towards the center of keyboard.
I too learnt to type in part on a mechanical typewriter keyboard -- there was a TV kids show about journalists and I wanted to mimic them I think. IME (a long time ago) you wanted to have consecutive keys on opposite hands because it took the whole hand moving to provide a good force to move the key and impact the ribbon hard enough to make a good print of the letter. But then, as you said, you would occassionally get the type arms locking up. I definitely couldn't use my pinky to type on that keyboard.
TH, ER, ON, AN are the most common letter pairs [in British English]; TH is good on a QWERTY but the other pairs are not particularly well placed I think.
Thankfully between Ukelele [0] and MSKLC [1] it’s pleasantly simple to do
[0] for macOS: https://software.sil.org/ukelele/ [1] for Windows: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=102...
You are comparing your English QWERTY, with the French AZERTY, but there are many more languages QWERTY.
On the Italian keyboard (which is also QWERTY) the round brackets need Shift, but the square ones need AltGR.
I also created a layout to use my old Dvorak keyboard on Windows: https://github.com/edpichler/Apple-Dvorak-on-Windows
It works with my mechanical keychron and, I believe, with any other similar Dvorak keyboard.
[1] https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433...
Sometimes things don't need innovation. If you don't want to play with a keyboard there's always controllers (that also seem to have found a pretty stable form the last years)
(And there's something to be said more generally for the keyboards you use day to day not being radically different from most other keyboards you'll encounter.)
Well, not quite; single-stage/two-stage trigger technology, as well as progressive triggers, have some benefits when applied to keyboards.
First, single-stage/two-stage triggers give you (with single-stage) a single smooth press with activation point somewhere in the middle, or (with two-stage) a consistent amount of takeup then a wall that you have to break through to activate the mechanism. So you can have the key pressed and resting on the activation point, and then press it the rest of the way when you want the input to register (for instance, if you're in a game and are waiting for someone to peek around the corner).
Second, progressive triggers, where pressing a little way registers a single input and pressing it all the way down/back types something fully-automatically. They're still mostly useless because the manufacturers refuse to put properly heavy springs in the switches, but the technology itself is ready for this.
It's certainly strange that it took 70 years from the implementations of these ideas in firearms to today's keyboards given the advantages of each mechanism are equally applicable to both, but that's the way it happened.
This is a cool thing, I’d want that on my mouse triggers also. The problem is that in practice it’ll never be what we want it to be because the distance of switches is too small to make that two stage thing be a thing (we’d need super heavy switches for this to be a thing). Now imagine mouse clicks which are supposed to represent a trigger (we operate as if everything is a hair trigger).
Burst/Single burst is mostly a timing thing at this point. Would be interesting to see it become a force based thing.
Fun ideas though.
Interestingly, some consoles already do this- the PS5 in particular will vary the weight of its shoulder triggers to match what you're doing on screen.
>we’d need super heavy switches for this to be a thing
It continuously surprises me that none of the Hall effect keyboard makers (Wooting, Drunkdeer, and... I think Steelseries and Corsair have some as well) don't offer ultra-high-weight springs as at least an option for this reason.
Interestingly, there's another keyboard manufacturer, Roli, who makes a board that has some very interesting modes of input (as they accept inputs of variable pressure, give you the ability to slide smoothly between keys, and vary the kind of input from each key by shaking your fingers). Of course, that's not a computer keyboard, but it's still a glimpse into the kinds of interesting input devices we could make if only we bothered to do so.
My impression has been that, along with 3D printing, the mechanical keyboard obsession has has spurred a renaissance of keyboard innovation in the last decade or so.
You can now buy keyboards or kits with ortholinear/columnar keys, split hands, built-in displays, modes/layers, non-QWERTY layouts, Hall effect keys, non-uniform resistance, and more.
I haven't seen this degree of keyboard innovation in a long time. The best part is that they're an order of magnitude cheaper than the wacky keyboards of the 1980s and 1990s, many of which cost thousands of dollars. These days you can try something innovative out for just a few hundred bucks and even less if you're willing to solder it yourself.
I wouldn't call the keyboards bad per se, though. Of course there were some terrible ones, like the one on the ZX Spectrum, but most of them (like Commodore and Atari) were quite good even by todays standards. Especially build quality and materials were better than in the majority of keyboards today. Many of these old keyboards don't cause problems even after more than 40 years.
They were not suitable for gaming because they were not made for it. I'd even say they were not particularly suited for typing either.
In the 80s many people still learned typing on real typewriters which had crazy long key travel, considerable force required to press and bottoming out was part of the whole idea. Instead of doing what is ergonomically right, early keyboards chose to mimic typewriters to avoid alienating early users.
That is in my opinion the main reason why they were not used for action games.
The mouse for first person games was stroke of genius.... no wait what am I talking about it was a huge fluke. if you asked any one to design a controller for a first person game. absolutely no one would design a mouse. the fact that a thing designed as a proxy for touch screens due to hardware limitations works so well at the task is amazing. Actually come to think about it the mouse is in many ways better than touch screens. The big disadvantage is that you have to work remotely, but this is easily learned. but now not only do you not have anything(your huge mitt) obscuring the screen, the touch zone can become very precise and it allow for much more touch dexterity with multiple buttons. touch screens do allow for multi finger gestures but these are area not point controls. On the whole I would say the mouse wins, that is. in the cases where you can put a mouse down.
Perhaps if they put the touch screen on the back of the phone, and added a few side buttons for touch dexterity. And we might have unicorns. It would be too hard a sell, to the wrong audience. touch screens work well enough... but they could be so much better.
Think of people who have jobs where they have to work for hours in front of them. the human body is good at this, it does not turn out to be super tiring. It is a made up problem.