The layout of the standard keyboard was originally designed for the mechanical quirks of early typewriters. An interesting example is that the “R” was placed where it is in order to allow salesmen to type the word “TYPEWRITER” using only the top row of keys (via Wikipedia, citation needed, “R” originally on bottom row right side).
“QWERTY” has stuck ever since, even though it is most likely not the most efficient layout of keys. Are there any other examples of less-than-optimal designs dominating due to a ‘sticky network habit’?
The English language, with its divergent spelling and pronounciation. Getting everyone to agree to change the language would be a monumental undertaking with heavy resistance from many and, if successful, would require native speakers of “New” English to undertake special language study to understand common, ordinary 20th century works.
Certain aspects of computer architecture, such as the x86 memory segmentation (remember the 640k ceiling?) and MS-DOS persisted long after more elegant solutions came about, due to the perceived need to keep new systems and software compatible with prior versions.
There was also the CBS spinning disk color system, which was technically superior to RCA’s NTSC (aka Never The Same Color). CBS was originally approved by the FCC as the standard because it was technically superior, but a lawsuit by RCA delayed things and the FCC later changed its mind. The main advantage of the RCA system was that it worked on existing broadcasts; CBS would have rendered all existing TV systems obsolete. At the time it was chosen, that probably wasn’t a problem (there were very few TVs out), but during the delay, TVs became more popular and the FCC didn’t want to make consumers buy new sets.
I often wonder if the layout of a car is optimal, by which I mean the whole wheel/pedals/gearstick/indicators layout. When you see cars in films set in the future they nearly always feature a steering wheel that looks like this or even this (scroll down). Perhaps there is a better way to lay it all out that would be safer or easier to drive with but people being creatures of habit it would likely cause chaos.
The keyword here is indeed “path dependence”. Avinash Dixit and Barry Nalebuff list a number of them in their very entertaining primer to game theory, Thinking Strategically. Examples they give include nuclear technology (boiling water vs pressurised water reactors), and according to some authors even the gas-powered car - Dixit and Nalebuff tell the story of the early development of the automobile, when it was unclear whether internal combustion or steam (yes, steam) would turn out to be the standard of the future. Of course, present-day internal combustion engines (of a size suitable for automobiles) are superior to present-day steam engines, but this is because decades of R&D went into them which steam missed.
I don’t know… if you’ve ever tried playing a racing game with a joystick (or a gamepad), I think within a few minutes you’ll intuitively start to appreciate the steering wheel’s greater range of motion.
You have to physically move the wheel further than you would a joystick to achieve the same vehicle turn, meaning the wheel makes it easier to perform smaller, sensitive adjustments (like if you were drifting out of a lane).
The joystick/control stick makes sense in the air (where space is 3D and more or less infinite), but IMO the wheel is more comfortable in the 2D, grid-like space of most car traffic.
Also, the Mercedes’s split joystick (it looks like there’s another control device in the driver’s door) might mean it’d be difficult to operate the thing one-handed… hard to say from the picture.
I agree that a joypad (like 360 or PS3) layout is very hard to use comparatively but what i’m thinking of is something more like the first image, sort of a half-wheel with extra buttons or something. I have no idea what is going on in that Mercedes, the control isn’t even in the middle but it makes me think that there might be a better way to arrange things since whenever designers picture the future they never use our current layout.
I’d like to add that the QWERTY design was motivated by the intent to space common letter pairs far apart to avoid jams, because each letter had its own arm, and if two arms rose at the same time it would lock up. So QWERTY wasn’t designed specifically to slow the typist down in every aspect; it was meant to space out common letter pairs to avoid jams.
I’ve seen it argued that rear-wheel steering would be better, since it’d make it so much simpler to implement front-wheel drive (especially if you’re going to put the engine in the front). But a rear-steering car handles differently from a front-steering car (not worse, just differently), so people would have to learn to drive all over again.
Lots and lots of evolutionary traits. The backwards construction of the vertebrate retina (and the resulting blind spot) is a pretty good example (some other animals have their retinas the right way 'round, and don’t have blind spot - octopuses are a good example of an animal that has the “right” design implemented to work at least as well as human eyes). Also: the extreme detour of the giraffe’s recurrent laryngeal nerve.
To clarify, it’s not important that the letters be spaced out that way on the keyboard, but it was important they were spaced apart within the typebar carousel, or whatever it’s called; the inner workings bit. The arrangement on the keyboard was a side effect of that necessity. T and H, for example, is a very common combination, and though they are nearby on the keyboard, they’re on opposite halves of the typebar doodad to avoid jams.
And though I don’t want to get into the tired old debate about the merit or design (or lack thereof) of the QWERTY keyboard, having common combinations of letters on opposite sides of the keyboard actually makes typing those combinations quicker, since you can use both hands interspersed. Even Dvorak seems to recognize that fact - keeping the vowels at the left hand, freeing the right one. Colemak is much more of a compromise, but it still seems aspire to the same concept.
I’m a bit confused by the question. Is the OP looking for examples of systems that are deliberately crippled in a way so they can work more effectively (e.g. QWERTY so the typewriter doesn’t jam), or examples of standards that were chosen despite the presence of other standards that are technically or functionally superior (e.g. QWERTY over Dvorak)?
Regarding field-sequential color system: from what I understand, the system has a more accurate and larger color gamut, but much lower resolution. Also, the system was mechanical, resulting in larger, more complicated television sets that would be more prone to breakdown. It was basically a huge kludge compared to NTSC.
I was basically looking for examples of ‘path dependence’, but I wasn’t aware of that term. Suboptimal evolutionary traits are a very good example.
As I delve into this subject I get the feeling that it is a very expansive and difficult line of inquiry. I’m not sure if anything maps very closely to the ‘QWERTY’ prototype. The musical keyboard came to mind, but the current design seems very elegant despite being finalized before equal temperament took over.
