Qwerty Wars: The typewriter keyboard vs the computer keyboard

There are lots of myths around the reason we ended up with the Qwerty keyboard. One thing is certain — it was there from the very beginning on the very first patent for a commercial typewriter in the United States by Christopher Latham Sholes. The most plausible claim (never verified) is that the more “logical” arrangement of letters according to the alphabet led to jamming keys and type bars. Today of course there are no type bars or anything mechanical to jam. Nevertheless, the Qwerty keyboard, a relic of the mechanical age, continues on all our keyboards. The New Standard Keyboards company would like to replace the traditional layout with something more instantly recognizable.

They’ve developed an alphabetic keyboard which they claim enables people to learn and type (there’s a word that somehow no longer seems appropriate) faster. Of course, they aren’t the first to claim that another keyboard arrangement would be easier and faster.

Claims were made that the Dvorak keyboard, patented in 1936, enabled typists to learn to type in one third the time and reach typing speeds up to 20% faster — with 50% fewer errors — than Qwerty. By this time, Qwerty had long been the industry standard. Not always so however — in the early days different typewriter companies offered completely different keyboards (and trained the typists who worked on them). One well-known competitor is the DHIATENSOR keyboard found on old Blickensderfer typewriters (see right).  The oldest Hammonds had another layout entirely, though by the teens even Hammond had succumbed to Qwerty domination. But back to the claims of Dvorak.

Darren Wershler-Henry points out in his delightfully quirky cultural history of the typewriter, The Iron Whim, that while Dvorak’s creator did “studies” to prove his keyboard layout superior, independent studies in the 1950s proved otherwise — that all things being equal, good typists could learn on any arrangement of letters. Wershler-Henry then quotes a damning statement from the independent study that artfully eviscerates the claims of Dvorak against the dominance of Qwerty: “What credence can possibly be given to a keyboard that has nothing to accredit it but the trials of a group of mechanics and its adoption by millions of typists?”

Yes, one could bring up the Beta/VHS argument. Millions went with VHS despite its clear inferiority. And ultimately newer technologies trumped tape entirely (though continuing the marketplace war between Blu-ray and HD DVDs). And new technology has brought back the old debate of letter layout at a keyboard free of mechanical constraints — the computer keyboard introduced by New Standard Keyboards that follows the ABCD layout.

There is no question in my mind that a more ergonomically correct keyboard is necessary. With so many hand injuries due to carpal tunnel syndrome, anything that helps ease this as an issue is welcome. And New Standard Keyboard’s products address that issue. But I find the claims that someone who is a hunt and peck typist will find it easy to become expert on their keyboard rather disingenuous.

Anyone who wants to learn to type does keyboard exercises in ways that are not very different from someone learning scales on a piano. Sesesdrdrdknknk — one types the meaningless sequences again and again until the body knows without looking at the keys what one is writing. This will be true with any layout.

It’s true, there is certainly no mechanical reason for Qwerty’s continued existence. But so far, I remain unconvinced that another keyboard layout will be either easier to learn or faster for writers/typists. I’d be happy to buy an ergonomic keyboard any day, but an ABCD keyboard? N.O.