Re: PC or Mac?

[Greg Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com>]

In article <u5e7nd49oftl00@corp.supernews.com>, Matthew Russotto
<russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:

> >> No, the method was to place frequently-typed combinations far apart
> >> (usually on opposite hands).  Slowing down typists (if indeed it did so)
> >> was a side-effect.
> >
> >a) I'm having trouble taking seriously the comments of someone on this
> >topic who questions whether QWERTY is an inefficient layout.
> 
> It is best not to take one's conclusions as premises.

I haven't done so. I noted that QWERTY _does_ slow down typists as
compared to several alternative layouts, some of which predate it. 

> >Spreading
> >out common letter combos doesn't have a significant effect on
> >preventing jams (given a fast typist) because you're still going to end
> >up with 2 key heads trying to occupy the same space at the same time.
> 
> Keys which are closer together are more prone to jamming because there
> is a larger area in which they type bars can interfere -- they don't
> just interfere at the very end, or jamming would be almost a non-issue.

So we moved frequently-typed sequences apart? I see A next to S. I see
O next to I and very close to U. I see L near two vowels. I see three
of the most common letters in the English language right in a row under
relatively strong fingers and very close to a fourth. I don't see
common sequences spread apart. I actually see them so close together
that if one types them too fast your own fingers get in the way - or
you use the same finger for sequential strokes.

> >The only way it's effective in preventing jams is if the typist is
> >artificially slowed down.
> 
> Not so.

And your logic would be? Look: You can jam P against Q if they happen
at the same time. You cannot jam T against Y if you impose a sufficient
interkey delay. So I reiterate: anti-jamming techniques in a mechanical
system where multiple objects must pass through the same space must
involve timing.