Feb 2, 2025

keyboard.init()

Keyboards have come a long way since the days of the mechanical typewriter. What began as a tool for encoding characters on paper has evolved into an essential piece of technology that powers everything from personal computers to smartphones. In this post, we’ll take a journey through the history of the keyboard, explore the role of the QWERTY layout, and discuss how design considerations have shifted over time.

1. The Birth of the QWERTY Layout

[[blog/about|about]] In the late 19th century, when mechanical typewriters were first introduced, the task of designing an efficient keyboard layout was no small feat. Christopher Latham Sholes, a newspaper editor and inventor, developed the QWERTY layout in 1868. The layout became the standard for typewriters, and it remains the most common layout for keyboards today.

Why was QWERTY designed this way?

Most often, it’s claimed that QWERTY was created to prevent the mechanical jamming of the typewriter’s hammers. The idea was that by placing frequently used letters far apart from each other, the typewriter would be less prone to mechanical jams when two levers collided.

However, the “jam-prevention” theory has been disputed by modern researchers. Early works on Sholes’ design never mentioned this concern. In fact, the design may have been motivated by more practical typing concerns. In a time when touch typing wasn’t yet common, key placement likely focused on slow-fast key pairs rather than their physical proximity, aiming to avoid quick consecutive key presses, or rolls.

Some of the most frequent bigrams in English (two-letter combinations) were close enough on the QWERTY layout to still cause rolling, which challenges the idea that QWERTY was optimized for jamming prevention.

2. The Obsolescence of QWERTY

While the QWERTY layout served its purpose on mechanical typewriters, its logic doesn’t necessarily apply to modern keyboards, especially now that technology has advanced far beyond the early design considerations. The original problems of mechanical jamming simply no longer exist with today’s digital keyboards, making the QWERTY layout feel outdated.

In fact, many typing professionals and enthusiasts argue that QWERTY is not only inefficient but could even contribute to health problems, such as repetitive strain injuries (RSI). The layout’s inefficient finger travel, combined with horizontal staggering of keys, doesn’t align well with ergonomic principles that prioritize minimizing hand and finger movement.

3. Is QWERTY Really That Bad?

So, just how bad is QWERTY in terms of typing efficiency? Interestingly, the layout still performs quite well. Simulations and studies have shown that QWERTY ranks highly in terms of typing speed and efficiency—at least in comparison to randomized layouts.

However, that’s only a small part of the story. When it comes to optimization—minimizing finger travel and improving ergonomics—the QWERTY layout still has room for improvement. While it beats 98% of random layouts, the sheer number of potential keyboard layouts (estimated to be 5.23 * 10^44) suggests that a more optimized layout is possible.

If one were to improve the QWERTY layout by reducing finger travel, it could cut down typing effort by a considerable amount. With optimization, typing distances could be reduced from 314 km (with QWERTZ) to 197 km, leading to greater comfort and speed.

4. The Search for Better Layouts: Dvorak, Colemak, and Beyond

Despite the relatively decent performance of QWERTY, many people have sought alternative layouts to improve typing speed and ergonomics. August Dvorak, an American professor, introduced his Dvorak Simplified Keyboard in the 1930s as a more efficient alternative to QWERTY. Dvorak’s design prioritized placing the most commonly used keys on the “home row,” where fingers naturally rest, reducing finger movement.

Other alternative layouts, such as Colemak and Workman, have gained popularity in recent years. They aim to balance typing efficiency and comfort by minimizing finger movement and optimizing key placement.

In other languages, such as German, French, and Turkish, alternative layouts like NEO, BEPO, and the Turkish F-keyboard have been developed, with similar goals of reducing typing effort.

5. Custom Layouts: Finding Your Personal Fit

While layouts like QWERTY, Dvorak, and Colemak may work well for many, they aren’t a one-size-fits-all solution. Typing habits and preferences vary, so customizing your keyboard layout could be a beneficial approach.

In fact, designing your own keyboard layout based on personal typing habits and the types of tasks you perform (e.g., programming, writing, graphic design) can lead to significant improvements in comfort and speed. You can begin by tweaking the standard layouts or using tools that allow you to remap keys to suit your needs.

However, one must consider the practicality of making such a switch. Even if you find a layout that suits you perfectly, compatibility issues arise. When you’re accustomed to a customized layout, using someone else’s keyboard can feel like a huge inconvenience. Since most people still use QWERTY, a custom layout could make you dependent on your own keyboard, limiting your flexibility and ability to type on other devices without significant adjustment.

6. The Reality: QWERTY Works Just Fine

Despite its inefficiency and its ergonomics shortcomings, the QWERTY layout remains the dominant choice for most people, largely due to its widespread adoption. In fact, QWERTY works well enough for all Latin-based languages, and most people are already accustomed to it. The argument for creating a better layout, although valid, may not hold much weight for most users because QWERTY is good enough for general use.

Switching to a new layout may bring ergonomic or typing speed improvements for some people, but the benefits may not outweigh the inconveniences of transitioning. Plus, finding the best layout for one person might make it difficult to type on someone else’s keyboard, making it less practical for everyday use. In the end, keyboard compatibility and familiarity remain crucial, and QWERTY continues to be the most practical option for the majority of users.

7. Conclusion: Why We Still Use QWERTY

Despite the availability of alternative layouts like Dvorak or Colemak, and the desire for improved ergonomics, the QWERTY layout remains the dominant choice for most people. This is largely due to historical inertia, widespread adoption, and the fact that it works well enough for all Latin-based languages.

While there is always room for improvement in terms of efficiency and comfort, QWERTY continues to serve its purpose, and for many, it’s simply not worth the effort to switch. Whether you choose to stick with QWERTY or experiment with alternatives, the history and design behind the keyboard offer a fascinating glimpse into how technology has evolved to meet our needs.