QWERTY predates electronic devices.
QWERTY predates electronic devices.
Some of the most interesting aviation research in the past few decades have been around human factors like psychology, perception, and cognition. If there was some substantial effect to having the buttons be arranged in a different pattern, I do legitimately hope it would have been found by now.
Do keep in mind these devices are cost-prohibitive in the extreme to design, build, and certify. The idea of having separate, parallel processes in order to have a different button layout between regional devices creates a thousand headaches of its own, both before and after production. The issue goes even further, in that just the FAA alone requires simulators of these aircraft to have replicated button look and feel criteria that would make your head spin. Is there even going to be a question as to if you're going to have to have two simulators? Will type-ratings be transferrable? Will there be separate differences training and/or currency requirements between the two distinct input methods?
Some or even most of those answers might turn out favorably for manufacturers or operators or pilots. But just having to ask them drives costs up considerably.
Boeing found a way.
These days everyone types on a keyboard. It's way more universal, to the point where a non QWERTY layout has to impose additional cognitive load.
It was common to type on a keyboard also before, it just was a typewriter's keyboard.
I've seen a YouTube video in the last couple of years that explained the true origins of the QWERTY keyboard. Originally, the keyboard was alphabetical and arranged two rows, based on a piano keyboard, the black keys went A-N left to right, and the white keys went O-Z, right to left. Then it got shortened in width and the letters got folded over (this is why at the right edge of the middle row you have HJKL and the bottom row has MN reversed as NM).
I'm not 100% sure this was the video I saw, but it has some of the points: https://youtu.be/c8f6us-Sjlo
This is sort of like saying a c compiler is there to stop you from dereferencing null pointers
I like it! How else could we describe it?
C compilers exist to prevent developers from writing reliable code.
C compilers caught on because they allow geeks to act macho to other geeks.
C compilers exist because programmers on 32-bit systems were nostalgic for the DEC PDP-11.
C compilers exist because the industry worked out that fast code was way more lucrative than reliable code.
Anyone got more?