The QWERTY Layout: Efficiency in Typing or a Historical Accident?

When it comes to the efficiency of typing, many believe that the QWERTY layout is universally superior to others. However, the SEOer perspective on this matter is nuanced and complex, involving both historical context and modern research.

Efficiency of QWERTY Layout

The claim that the QWERTY layout makes typing easier is often met with skepticism. Typing with any layout is slow and mentally taxing until muscle memory kicks in. This memory means that, over time, one focuses on words and letters rather than key positions. There is no evidence to suggest that QWERTY requires more time to form muscle memory than other layouts.

Alternative Layouts and Their Efficiency

Other keyboard layouts, such as Dvorak, offer a different experience. The Dvorak layout places frequently used keys on the home row, including keys such as 'E', 'U', 'I', 'O', and 'A'. This layout also uses foot pedals for Shift and Ctrl, enhancing the overall efficiency for some users. However, there is evidence that suggests other layouts might be marginally more efficient for typing, but the improvement is often minimal.

One user from a mailing list I joined shared their experience with Dvorak. They found the layout too inefficient and switched to Colemak, another alternative. Both Dvorak and Colemak are considered more efficient than QWERTY in some aspects. However, in my experience, Dvorak and Colemak are easier than QWERTY for a few reasons:

Frequent letters are on the home row. Certain frequently used keys are not located on the home row in QWERTY, such as 'J', 'K', and ';'. Similarly, 'E' is positioned off the home row. I use a custom keyboard layout on my phone, demonstrating that alternatives can be more efficient if designed to fit individual needs.

QWERTY, on the other hand, is notably easier than a straight alphabetical layout. Alphabetical layout doesn't make practical sense because letters are rarely in alphabetical order within words. It is much more efficient to use keys that appear in actual word sequences, such as 'th' or 'er', which are conveniently reached in the QWERTY layout.

Historical Context and Development

Joseph Moran, known as mr. Sholes, developed the QWERTY layout for the first_successful typewriter. Historical accounts suggest that he went through around 50 prototypes before finalizing QWERTY. It is believed that a primary goal was to alternate hands for letter combinations to lessen the jamming of levers in the typewriter mechanism. Although this rationale makes sense, it is unclear why a layout would be designed to prevent the jamming of levers if the purpose was to make typing easier.

There is no evidence to support the idea that QWERTY was intended to slow down typists. Office workers who practice can achieve speeds of up to 100 words per minute, which would not be facilitated by a layout designed to slow down typing. Thus, it is highly unlikely that QWERTY was invented for the sake of slowing typists down.

Personal Experience and Modality

My personal experience before switching to Colemak involved using Dvorak for years. Dvorak places frequently used letters on the home row, making it more efficient for daily usage. Even in my current setup, where I use a custom keyboard layout on my phone, the QWERTY layout is less efficient for me.

Unless using a work computer or another person's keyboard, QWERTY is no longer my preferred layout. However, it is certainly easier than a straight alphabetical layout. For those who need a reliable and familiar layout for productivity, QWERTY still stands as a well-thought-out option.