Ralf Mardorf wrote: >>> The QWERTY keyboard is popular in English countries, but it is far >>> from the best keyboard layout. >>> >>> >> Now we can go on esoteric and discuss if there is a morphogenetic field >> or not. QWERTY or QWERTZ for German keyboards is well proved for >> typewriters, not for the last typewriters with balls where the types >> were on, but for the very old mechanical typewriters, to prevent to get >> the types caught up. >> >> I prefer a QWERTZ instead of an ABCDEF keyboard for our kind of >> alphabet, but this is because I'm habitual with it for decades. For very >> oldish typewriters it's the best layout because of technical reasons. >> Nowadays there aren't those technical reasons any more, this is >> something complete different to thing we discuss here. >> >> > > I'm wrong. I'm a very fast two finger writer and even for this the > letters are good sorted by QWERTZ, but for 10 finger writers QWERTZ > might be for anatomical reasons better than another system, to sort the > letters. So even nowadays there might be a good reason to have such a > keyboard. Usually this is my argument, why the QWERTZ keyboard isn't an > evidence for morphic resonance. So, we might say, there's still a > technical reason. For typing with 2 fingers I can't make out, if there > is a reason to have the Y and Z changed for English and German. >
Are we writing words by letters with the keyboard or by movements? To encrypt Morse code, we don't do it by words, but by melodies for syllables. QWERTZ might be not perfect, but I don't think it's far away from that.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 64studio-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
