Re: QWERTY-bashing in the copyright age

Luiz Ernesto Merkle (lmerkle who-is-at julian.uwo.ca)
Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:28:22 -0400 (EDT)

DVORAK X QUERTY as a DAVID X GOLIATH
Eva,
I've seen several discussions and comparisons of QUERTY and
DVORAK. I've confess I've never paid much attention on them. Most of them
have their foci on power (type as fast as you can, and shut
up), on health (type until you can, and then loose your job), or on
economic freedom (you are stuck with that, sorry).

As you said, the main argument is based on jamming, which is based
on the frequency of letters of the ENGLISH language. But I ask myself if
the advantages and disadvantages of the QUERTY versus the DVORAK,
besides being "chronically" related, are not also culturally dependent.
If the differences for English writers is small, for other groups, the
differences may be even less significative to trigger a change. Among the
other groups, I includes not only foreign language writers, but people
whose work requires number crunching, limited vocabulary commands, and
others SITUATED ACTIVITIES or ACTIONs that not not require
extensive writing.

In other words, although user centered designers would love to
stage DVORAK X QUERTY as a DAVID X GOLIATH paraphrase on the technological
arena, I see it as a parody, because it assumes and subscribes to a
specific culture in a specific time, within a specific framework, one
of control, instead of empowerment.

Yes, there are people who could benefit from changes, and layout and
form are slowly being adopted by those that become aware or injured by
artifact use (the stones in our shoes). They are forced to, it is part of
the system's ecology. Too bad it is not proactive, but reactive. Who can
afford a U$ 300 keyboard (there are U$ 2 alternatives).

Eva, you wrote:
> force for progress but for keeping things stuck. The QUERTY arrangement has
> no rational explanation, only a historical one.

"has no" or we "haven't found one". Are we looking in the right
places.

and Wertsch:
"This brief comparison of QUERTY and DVORAK keyboards reveals something
about the power that historical context may have in shaping mediational
means.

This power is manifested in the fact that the Querty keyboard, which from
today's perspective is purposefully inefficient, has retained its
dominance even though the original reason for using it has long since
disappeared."

In the former sentence the author have missed an important
springboard to include a discussion of the cultural and situated aspects
of SUSTAINING (instead of shaping) mediational means.
In the latter one, I ask for whom, for which activity, from which
perspective. If the inefficiency was never there in such a degree, in
such a context, how could it disappear?
He refers to the historical context in the former and misses it in
the second. nobody is perfect.

I see that this paragraph is in contradiction with the author's
agenda. But I can't be to nasty in my comments, because the authors
perspective only sustains the literature on the subject, which subscribes
to certain venues in certain academic communities (the dominant one). By
the way, I'm happy to say the author does not support these venues, on the
contrary.

Luiz