QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?])

[Random832]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016, at 23:28, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> This is the power of the "slowing typists down is a myth" meme: same
> Wikipedia contributor takes an article which *clearly and obviously*
> repeats the conventional narrative that QWERTY was designed to
> decrease the number of key presses per second, and uses that to defend
> the counter-myth that QWERTY wasn't designed to decrease the number of
> key presses per second!

Er, the footnote is clearly and obviously being used to cite the claim
that that is popularly believed, not the claim that it's incorrect.

> These are the historical facts:

> - Sholes spend significant time developing a layout which reduced the
>   number of jams by intentionally moving frequently typed characters
>   far apart, which has the effect of slowing down the rate at which
>   the typist can hit keys;

"Moving characters far apart has the effect of slowing down the rate at
which the typist can hit keys" is neither a fact nor historical. Keys
that are further apart *can be hit faster without jamming* due to the
specifics of the type-basket mechanism, and there's no reason to think
that they can't be hit with at least equal speed by the typist.

Take a typewriter. Press Q and A (right next to each other) at the same
time, and observe the distance from the type basket where the jam
occurs. Now press Q and P (on the opposite side of the basket from each
other) and observe where the jam occurs.