h a l f b a k e r yExpensive, difficult, slightly dangerous, not particularly effective... I'm on a roll.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
All the many attempts to resequence the Qwerty keyboard to match the alphabet have met with a resounding yawn. Therefore, let's face digital reality, and reorder the alphabet to match the keyboard.
This will provide an immediate and much-needed boost to the economy as everyone goes out and buys
new dictionaries.
As an added advantage, all those weird little words beginning with W, X, Y & Z wouldn't be stuck at the back of the dictionary any more, and perhaps more Q words would come back into common usage from being right at the front.
The piupsi
http://www.piupsi.com/
[kinemojo, Mar 15 2006]
The kappaphi
http://www.kappaphi.org/
[kinemojo, Mar 15 2006]
Bork the keyboard
http://www.rinkwork...phabet%231159152673
[MoreCowbell, Sep 25 2006]
Elmer Fudd
http://www.google.com/intl/xx-elmer/
[Dub, Sep 25 2006]
[link]
|
| |
DrCurry, could we possibly consider Dvork-ing the alphabet instead? ooh please? |
|
| |
Still I'm all for changing the tides and oceans and continental drift of the public education sytem. Anyway I can help, here's my croissant. |
|
| |
I recall reading studies which gave volunteers a number of various keyboards, of different arrangements, to type on. I forget the details, but the volunteers who I believe had not typed significantly before were given a certain number of minutes to acclimate themselves to the new keyboard and were then timed typing on it. They were then given more hours to practice, and then timed a second time. |
|
| |
People given a random keyboard did about as well as QWERTY in both timings. Those who were given alphabetical keyboards generally did marginally better on the first test but worse on the second. Those given Dvorak did best. |
|
| |
The theory put forth by the person writing up the experiment was that the linear arrangement of the alphabet, and most people's linear conception thereof (e.g. they know that "O" comes between "N" and "P", but don't instinctively know that it's the 15th letter) interferes with their ability to mentally map out the physical spacial relationships between the keys. |
|
| |
BTW, I tought myself Dvorak once. Actually only took a few hours to get to the point that I could type about as well as with QWERTY. My one complaint (which I address in a different "idea") is that the control keys which are in some cases mapped so their physical arrangement makes sense (e.g. the edit keys for Undo, Cut, Copy, and Paste are all in a nice row at the lower-left corner) are jumbled all over the place under the Dvorak layout. |
|
| |
To put it another way, when I think "Copy", I don't think Ctrl-C; I think "pinky to lower-left; index finger where it falls easily." That same move on Dvorak, however, does something entirely different. |
|
| |
Q - W - E - R - T - Y - U |
|
| |
I - O - P - A - S - D - F - G - H |
|
| |
Now I know my Q - W - E's |
|
| |
Next time won't you sing with me? |
|
| |
Sobriety tests would be even more interesting |
|
| |
"Say the Qwertybet bassackwards" |
|
| |
'Yes shir, Occifer... M, N, uh B, V *hic* C, X and Z, Amen - Can I go now?' |
|
| |
"Put yer hands behind yer back, boy" |
|
| |
Rods: Don't you mean Qwality? |
|
| |
a qwerty alphabet would drastically facilitate keyboard usage and with everything switch over to computers why computerize the alphabet too |
|
| |
The qwerty layout was designed to minimise mechanism jamming, and thus is slightly more difficult to reach top speeds on. |
|
| |
*aggrees with not_only_but_also* We really dont NEED a qwerty arrangement anymore since keyboards dont jam like typewriters do. |
|
| |
I was wondering how the new alphabet should be named.
Unlike A and B, there are no greek equivalents to Q and W. The closest phonetic approximation would be K and F respectively, which transliterate as Kappa and Phi. |
|
| |
So I suppose the alphabet would be called the "cappafi"? Or, for dvorak advocates, the "piupsilon", or "piupsi"? |
|
| |
I'd have trouble using my dictionary though, if it was in cappafical or piupsical order. |
|
| |
O soat oz! Ql ngx eqf ltt [XfqWxwwq], oz wtqzl zit qsztkfqzoct. Utkt'l q etgllqofz. |
|
| |
Would this change Roman numerals, too? Or are those frozen in time? |
|
| |
//Utkt'l q etgllqofz//
Itkt'l q ekgollqfz, [Jqe-dqf]
Fgz lg tqln! |
|
| |
Please... QWERTY? Why QWERTY? I am a ',.pyf person myself. |
|
| |
//could we possibly consider Dvork-ing the alphabet // |
|
| |
Energize the Dvorkatization beams! |
|
| |
That's a beautifully tangential tryptich of links. |
|
| |
It wouldn't be a "Alphabet" anymore... rather Sigmaphi (or something) |
|
| |
Bork would be funner! (see link) |
|
| |
Check out some of the languages Google's Language tools can manage (Klingon/Elmer Fudd/Pig latin/Hacker/Bork...)[linky] |
|
| |
So now we have a response to a deleted anno about a deleted link posted in response to another deleted anno. I think the surreal thing is working well jutta. |
|
| |