Dvorak keyboard

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
82

Yes. We aren’t picking on you, Mac–well, I’m not. We just want you to learn to present your arguments and the arguments of others accurately, and to recognize the difference between verifiable facts, or at least independent studies with no axe to grind, and partisan bullshit pulled out of somebody’s ass. The thing is, most of us in this thread don’t really give two shits about the Dvorak keyboard one way or the other. Then you came in, all sound and fury, with tales of industrial and governmental conspiracies to keep the Dvorak down, same as people who support the Fish carburetor or GM’s electric car, the Impact.* Maybe that level of bullshittery works on rubes and chawbacons, but we have seen it all and are not impressed. Come at it as if you are defending your thesis, with all your facts laid out neatly so they clearly support your contention, and with an open mind regarding facts that do not support it instead of dismissing them with a hand wave and an insult. This may be one of the last debates of the Dvorak keyboard,** so try to do it right, okay?

    • Who chose that idiotic name for a car? It’s like naming a restaurant “The Embers” or “The Flame.” No good can come from it.

** - I have no reason to believe that. While most Dvorak adherents I know are as old as me, I think they will try to live forever out of spite, arguing poorly all the way.

83

Oh, look, Cracked.com has a new podcast on “shockingly bad ideas that are influential” and guess what’s on the list. Just guess.

I have to guess, as I don’t do podcasts.

84

I tried the Dvorak keyboard about ten years ago. It took me about five minutes to figure out how to switch the software around so it would read my keys properly, and another half hour or so to unsnap all the little plastic keys and resnap them into their new places. I soon realized that, even if I was getting 10% more speed on my Dvorak, that just made it harder for me to borrow someone else’s computer. Or buy myself a new computer. Or exit to DOS mode.

I decided the hassle wasn’t worth it.

Okay sure, consider two worlds which are identical in every way except in World #1 everyone uses QWERTY and in World #2 everyone uses Dvorak. Which world is better? Well, maybe, just maybe, the second one is better and everyone types about 10% faster. But guess what, I can’t switch to World #2. All I can do is be a lone wolf maverick living in World #1 or I can give up and go along with the pack. I chose to go back to QWERTY.

Oh god now I’m depressed. You just made me defend conformity.

85

Look at it as making a good argument for intelligent nonconformity-- being smart enough to see where there’s a good reason for doing things the way others do (e.g. driving on the correct side of the road) and where there isn’t (say, getting a car loan).

Do you feel better?

86

I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading this thread and learning about therbligs, Selectric balls and so many other things.

For what it’s worth, I type Dvorak and I like it. It so happened that I learned about the existence of Dvorak just as I made the decision to learn to touch-type - so I figured that instead of relearning QWERTY, I would just start with Dvorak.

I thought I would mention another alleged benefit of the Dvorak layout. Apparently, the typing motions are more ergonomic (lots of inward rolls, etc.) and the workload is more evenly balanced between the right and the left hand. Supposedly, this reduces your chances for developing carpal tunnel syndrome if you type a lot.

Of course, this isn’t verified by any sort of scientifically sound evidence that I am aware of.

On touchscreens, I’m a QWERTY-thumb touch-typist :wink:

87

An ergonomic work position - which to start with means having the keyboard at about seated elbow height, not on top of the goddamned desk! - goes much further towards preventing CTS and other desk-worker RSIs than any detail so small as the keyboard layout.

88

Sorry for the extended absence folks.Shit happens and company ended with a phone call about the long expected death of an elderly relative and the after that the funeral took up a few days and then I got busy again and forgot all about my Dvorak crusade.

Now here is a link to an good article in a respectable publication that will go a long way to enlighten any doubters who are willing to read it.

I am going to start posting some excerpts from it shortly with it and try really really hard to remember to say they are quotes but I have reached the age that I tend to forget things occasionally and beg forgiveness if I forget again.

IF I post too many quotes from this one source I suppose the moderators will take them down but I don’t think any body will be hearing about copyright infringements in this case.

Here’s the link.

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~shipman/ergo/parkinson.html

89

I hope this site is not short of bandwidth because I have a lot of answers to for those who think I’m delusional and they know more about this particular topic than I do.I couldn’t post my evidence earlier though because I didn’t bother to save it when I first investigated the DSK and so I have looked some of it up again.The Dvorak Simplified Keyboard: Forty Years of Frustration
by Robert Parkinson, Missisauga, Ontario
From Computers and Automation magazine, November, 1972, pp. 18-25
This is the source of the following quotes until further notice.

The person who posted it on the internet originally assures me that I have his permission, as does anybody else , to reproduce it for non commercial purposes so long as he is credited which I did in my last previous comment.

These are only excerpts adequate imo to illustrate my position but I will go head to head on any point with anybody who wishes to do so.

xxxxxxxx

Upon analysis, Dr. Dvorak found that the standard'' keyboard had several defects. These can be summarized as follows: • Hand overload: This occurs when more than one character has to be typed by the fingers of the same hand. The longer the string of characters that one or the other has to type without a brief rest period (provided by a letter being struck by the other hand), the slower and more uncertain the typing becomes. The fastest and easiest strokes occur for characters on the home (or finger rest) row and on opposite hands. During periods of hand overload, typing speed is drastically reduced, and errors are more likely to occur. The hand overload problem is highlighted by the fact that over 3,000 entire words are type by the left hand alone on the standard keyboard, with another 300 being typed only by the right hand. • Unbalanced finger loads: The standard keyboard overworks certain fingers and underworks others, all out of proportion to their capabilities (taking into account strength and dexterity of each finger). • Excess finger movement: Because of the way the characters are spread out over the keyboard, fingers must reach from and jump over the home row far too often. This results in much wasted motion and fatigue. Indeed, on the standard keyboard, the home row’’ is not really a home row at all since only 32% of all typing is done there. The real home row is the third row from the bottom which accounts for over 50% of the work. This is why a typist’s hands may unconsciously hover over the third row instead of the home row (containing the letters asdfghjkl'') between strokes. • Awkward strokes: Obviously, some movement off of the home row would be required whatever the keyboard arrangement. However, on the standard keyboard, many high-frequency letter combinations are unnecessarily complex and difficult to execute (just try typing December’’ or ``minimum pumpkin’’ without looking). These awkward stroking patterns account for many errors, and also tend to lower overall typing speed.

Research
After several years of intensive research, during which hundreds of keyboard arrangements were studied and rejected, Dr. Dvorak received a patent for his Dvorak Simplified Keyboard in 1932. The DSK solves the basic problems inherent in the standard keyboard

Upon analysis, Dr. Dvorak found that the standard'' keyboard had several defects. These can be summarized as follows: • Hand overload: This occurs when more than one character has to be typed by the fingers of the same hand. The longer the string of characters that one or the other has to type without a brief rest period (provided by a letter being struck by the other hand), the slower and more uncertain the typing becomes. The fastest and easiest strokes occur for characters on the home (or finger rest) row and on opposite hands. During periods of hand overload, typing speed is drastically reduced, and errors are more likely to occur. The hand overload problem is highlighted by the fact that over 3,000 entire words are type by the left hand alone on the standard keyboard, with another 300 being typed only by the right hand. • Unbalanced finger loads: The standard keyboard overworks certain fingers and underworks others, all out of proportion to their capabilities (taking into account strength and dexterity of each finger). • Excess finger movement: Because of the way the characters are spread out over the keyboard, fingers must reach from and jump over the home row far too often. This results in much wasted motion and fatigue. Indeed, on the standard keyboard, the home row’’ is not really a home row at all since only 32% of all typing is done there. The real home row is the third row from the bottom which accounts for over 50% of the work. This is why a typist’s hands may unconsciously hover over the third row instead of the home row (containing the letters asdfghjkl'') between strokes. • Awkward strokes: Obviously, some movement off of the home row would be required whatever the keyboard arrangement. However, on the standard keyboard, many high-frequency letter combinations are unnecessarily complex and difficult to execute (just try typing December’’ or ``minimum pumpkin’’ without looking). These awkward stroking patterns account for many errors, and also tend to lower overall typing speed.

Vested interests
Let’s look at some of the problems that Dr. Dvorak encountered when he brought out his new keyboard. First, in 1932, the year his keyboard was patented, the country was in the depths of the Great Depression. The typewriter companies were almost broke; so, naturally, they didn’t take too kindly to an inventor coming to them and saying, If you put my keyboard on your typewriters, you will be able to do twice as much work with the same machine.'' The manufacturers took this to mean, Oh, you mean we will sell half as many typewriters? Well, thank you very much. Don’t call us, we’ll call you.’’

This feeling was seemingly passed over to the typewriter dealers. If you went into a shop then (and in many cases even today) and asked for a typewriter with the DSK, they would almost always try to talk you out of it. The reasons were always similar:
• You would not be able to use any other machine.
• Nobody else uses the DSK, why should you?
• The standard keyboard is good enough. Typing speed is not really that important in comparison to the other skills necessary to office production. And, besides that, the world’s typing record is almost 150 w.p.m. on the standard. Isn’t that good enough?
• The Simplified Keyboard is not really any better, regardless of what anybody tells you.

Certainly it is easy to understand that the typewriter companies were concerned with what they would do with their current stock of machines if a change were made to the new keyboard.

They probably just felt they were protecting their investment.
In a letter from a typewriter head office to one of their branches, they pointed out that ``The Dvorak keyboard is not new … has not been commercially accepted by the public … for the reason that the present so-called standard keyboard has considerable merit and that typists for years have been taught the touch system on that keyboard. To introduce a keyboard with the alphabet keys rearranged in as radical a manner as the Dvorak keyboard would cause considerable confusion. … If a school trained its typists on the Dvorak keyboard, they would have difficulty in locating a position where the machines were in use equipped with that keyboard. … There is no definite evidence that the Dvorak keyboard will increase the speed of a typist regardless of statements to the contrary. Our most expert typists are able to write over 150 five-stroke words in a single minute, which means that they are able to hit over 750 keys in 60 seconds. A keyboard that is capable of being operated at that high rate of speed cannot be so badly arranged after all.’’

This is a pretty long comment but most of it is a copy and paste quote and so my key board is not yet overheated. lol

Barring acts of God or getting banned from this forum I will be back shortly with some more highlights from this magazine article.

90

continued excerpts from the same article
xxxxxBefore continuing, some of the above arguments ought to be answered:
1. One reason that the Dvorak keyboard was never accepted was because the manufacturers never advertised that it was available, never gave any demonstrations of its advantages, etc. Obviously, if the public did not know the DSK existed, they would not demand it.
2. The standard keyboard definitely does not have considerable merit.'' Indeed, it can be shown by analysis that the arrangement of the standard keyboard is worse than if the keys had been pulled out of a hat, and distributed at random! 3. As to confusion, mass conversion is not recommended. However, a DSK typing element for the IBM Selectric (TM) typewriter would allow instant interchangeability of keyboards and would minimize any problems an office might have in switching back and forth between the two keyboard arrangements. 4. If manufacturers and schools were to cooperate with business, there would be no real difficulty in placing students. A businessman would doubtless be happy to lease a DSK typewriter, if he could then hire a 100-w.p.m. typist to operate it. 5. There is very much evidence that the DSK is vastly superior to the standard keyboard. This evidence is just not well known, having been made unavailable or suppressed for various reasons. Another company commented openly in their advertising: No one has ever studied typewriting without worrying about the madly inconvenient arrangement of the keys … (produced) to avoid jamming keys and similar problems. … From very early in typewriter history, the idea of changing Sholes’ nonsensical keyboard has been hopeless. Typist opinion was against change, and all of the companies that tried to prove that a more sensible key order was desirable, have long since departed! Typewriter buyers of the country know how to typewrite by `touch’ and don’t want to learn a different system. And before you invest time or money in a keyboard-reform scheme, consider the facts. If people would buy it, [name of company] would be selling it!’’
It is interesting that here, the company has actually recognized that the standard keyboard arrangement is bad, but then proceeds to tell us why we should still not try to change it!

One could agree that typist opinion would likely be against the DSK. But, most people don’t type. Many of them would like to. Why should they be forced to learn an old (1873) and awkward keyboard, when a more modern and scientifically designed one is available? That’s as if the world’s typists all belonged to a huge union that says: To join our most-esteemed group, you must learn to practice our trade exactly the way we learned to do it. No matter that you think you have discovered a better (faster, easier-to-learn) way. We are against your way.'' One can hardly argue that that makes any sense. From 1906 to 1932, 26 years, typewriter manufacturers used annual World Professional and Amateur Typewriting Contests to prove the merits of their machines and for advertising. For the professional contests, manufacturers maintained speed stables’’ of outstanding typists whose duties were to practice speed typing (while under full pay from their sponsoring company) and periodically demonstrate the superiority of their employers’ machines. Some professional typists practiced up to 25 years to improve their speed and accuracy, which were widely advertised as World Records.'' Eventually, these contests were combined and included in the International Commercial Schools Contest (I.C.S.C.) to be held each year. The I.C.S.C. also include categories for shorthand, machine calculation, and dictating machine transcription, in addition to the typing events. The extent to which the equipment manufacturers and publishers of shorthand materials subsidized I.C.S.C. was not widely publicized. Beginning in 1933, Dr. Dvorak started entering his DSK-trained typists in the I.C.S.C. His students began sweeping the field.’’ Ten times in 1934-41 DSK typists not only placed first in their class event, but also placed first in events for contestants with much more training. In the 1935 contests, nine DSK typists won twenty awards. The contest officials became more and more upset. In 1937, after Dvorak spent $1,600 bringing nine contestants to Chicago, the I.S.C.S. Committee informed him that DSK typists were to be disbarred from competition because they were unfair competition.'' Another interesting thing was the way they reported the winners. The score would be given, along with the brand name of the typewriter they used (e.g., IBM Electromatic, etc.). However, when Dvorak's students began winning with quite superior scores, there was no mention that they had used the DSK, only that they had used a machine produced by such-and-such manufacturer (after all, the real purpose of the contests was to prove the superiority of each manufacturer's machines, not the keyboard used on those machines). During World War II, the I.C.S.C. were cancelled. In 1946, when they started up again, Dr. Dvorak had no students ready to compete because he had been serving in the armed forces. With no DSK typists in the contests, the performances on the standard keyboard were so dismal (at least one contestant won a third place with a zero net score) that they did not bother to announce the winning scores of each winner at the awards ceremony, as had been the case in previous years. After that, they decided to cancel the competition altogether because they proved nothing’’ (except perhaps the superiority of the DSK?).

91

continued same source
xxxxx

What about running some experimental classes?

Many people have suggested proving the worth of the DSK by running experimental classes. The question is: What will be done if the experiments show that the DSK is indeed all it is claimed to be? The plain facts are that the DSK has been proven experimentally, but those in power in each case chose to disregard the results of the experiments and everyone just went on using the standard keyboard arrangement.

Some examples would be helpful here:

Tacoma Schools Experiment. During the Depression of the 1930s, an experimental program in personal typing was instituted by the school district in Tacoma, Washington. Great care was taken to choose students who wanted to use the typewriter for personal use, rather than in a business environment. Parents understood that they would have to purchase DSK typewriters for their children to use after finishing these experimental classes.

Two thousand seven hundred students were put through the various courses in DSK typing. These classes showed that senior high school kids could learn the DSK in one-third the time it took to learn the standard keyboard. The program was an outstanding success, and was reported in various educational publications.

But, then came a school board election. And typing in the schools became a political issue: whether or not they should allow the Simplified Keyboard classes to continue, etc. The man who was against the new keyboard won the election. So, what did he do? He ran a survey. He asked businesses in the area how many DSK machines they had in their offices. Answer: None. Then, he asked how many standard keyboard typewriters the had. Answer: Why, all of them, of course. On these grounds, he closed down the personal typing classes (regardless of the fact that these students were not planning to go into office typing, but wanted the typewriter for their own personal use). It’s amazing what one man can do to help shoot down a good idea.

U.S. Navy Department Report: One of the most interesting experiments was conducted by a group of management engineers in the U.S. Navy Department in 1944. In this test, they retrained a group of standard keyboard typists on the DSK in a period of about two and a half months. The retrainees’ progress was also compared with that of a group of standard keyboard typists who were given some additional training on the regular keyboard. The results, together with the data supporting them, were most conclusive. The DSK retrainees increased their productivity by an average of 74%! Not only that, the total cost of retraining was completely amortized in only ten days after the tests were finished.

The improvement in the comparison group was much less dramatic, amounting to only about 26% increase, and the comparison group took twice as long to acquire their slight increased performance.

On the basis of this test, the Navy Department issued a request for bids for 2,000 DSK-equipped typewriters. They figured that the amount of money that would be saved during the war effort would be tremendous. But the request was turned down by the Procurement Division of the U.S. Treasury Department (which was responsible for all government purchases of typewriters at the time). No satisfactory reason was given (at least from the viewpoint of the Dvorak proponents). The request was simply denied!

Later on, Dr. Dvorak heard over the ``grapevine’’ that the reasoning went something like this:

There are over 800,000 typewriters in the government.
It will cost $25 each to convert them to the DSK. (They were not manufacturing any typewriters at the time; all the typewriter companies were making war goods instead.)
It will therefore cost $20,000,000 to convert all of the typewriters in the government.
But, what if the DSK does not work out? Then, all of those machines will have to be converted back again. And, that’s another $20,000,000!
So, that’s a total of $40,000,000, just because some people ran a study in the Navy Department. Are you sure we should approve that order for 2,000 DSK machines? What will people think if it doesn’t work out?
Although it would probably be very hard to prove whether or not this rumor was in fact true, one can nevertheless ask: ``If this is not the case, then why was the order turned down by the Treasury Department Procurement Division?’’ Surely they must had some reason for the rejection. If it was not political, then what was it?

92

Don’t overdo it. The administration frowns on extended quotations of copyrighted material.

And don’t bother. You are simply not listening, understanding, or believing that NOBODY IS ARGUING WITH YOU! The Dvorak layout may be more efficient, which wouldn’t be hard because the QWERTY layout is shite. We are mildly interested in your completely unsupported claims of a vast conspiracy to keep the Dvorak down (personally, I think Dr D would have gone a long way toward getting it accepted if he hadn’t charged a licensing fee because he was competing with a layout that was in the public domain), but that conspiracy, like the Dvorak layout, is a historical curiosity.

You refuse to see that, despite its availability on virtually every computer made since…ever, hundreds of millions of people who had never used a keyboard before a couple decades, or days, ago did not choose to go Dvorak. Instead, you blather on with cites from back when, had the Dvorak been that much better, it would have mattered, without addressing any of our points or questions. It didn’t happen then and it’s not likely to happen in the future. Come up with something that works better when you type with just your thumbs and we’ll talk. BTW, the Dvorak probably won’t work then because a teeny keyboard with the most-used keys in the middle would get awful crowded with two big thumbs keying it.

93

The problem as I see it is that it’s not really a decision I can make isolated from the rest of the world. I can use whichever system I want on my own keyboard. But I’m also going to be using other keyboards and virtually all of them will be QWERTY keyboards. So switching to Dvorak for my own personal use at home is going to require me to switch back and forth on a regular basis. And I feel this going back and forth will keep me from using either system at my potential highest speed.

94

I didn’t type fast enough:

Don’t blame QWERTY. I’m lying down with my laptop on my chest.

Why? I mean, why bother? See my points above. And how many of those tests were NOT run by Dr D? Any of them? Wikipedia claims he spent WWII commanding a Gato-class submarine, but ask yourself: They made only 77 Gatos. Dvorak was 48 in 1942 and a college professor, not a career naval officer. I know that some (some?) people in the military are oddly assigned, but don’t you think the Navy could find something better to do with a noted efficiency expert?

As a taxpayer I would think they were criminal morons for wasting 2,000,000 man months of productivity making a minor improvement in Radar O’Reilly’s efficiency when there was a freaking war on! How is that not obvious to you or the author? Are you really so fixated that it seems like a good idea?

95

At this point I am going to post a few things that are my own opinions but these opinions are in excellent accordance with what just about any old soldier will tell you about the armed forces of this or almost any other country.

Modern generals are supposedly different but generals have always had reputation for sticking with the tried and true and resisting change and most of the time they have had good reasons for doing so. Buying new equipment and retraining the troops and reorganizing the supply system is a hell of a job and one not to be undertaken lightly during wartime unless the change has the potential to actually win battles.

During the war the production of tools such as typewriters was curtailed in order that the people and factories could be put to work manufacturing war materials.

A colonel in the Pentagon might easily have looked at the results of the military tests and thought ‘‘great idea’’ but vetoed it on the grounds that implementing it would not help win the war given the disruption to armaments production and the supply system, etc. Most of us have used a pair of pliers to make some simple repair even though we own the right wrench for the job–because the pliers were handy and fetching the wrench would take longer than just using the pliers. This sort of argument holds water rather well in a wartime situation.

And yes I do know a number of soldiers including my sister the nursing professor who is a retired Army captain and her husband who retired as a noncommissioned officer only a couple of steps down from the highest rank he could have attained plus several more relatives and coworkers and neighbors. Some people seem to think you need to be a scientist yourself in order to know a few scientists but nothing could be farther from the truth.

There are for instance dozens of scientists on government payrolls whose job it is to answer questions from any body who has a need of their expertise. I took my degree in agriculture and have called on research specialists who work for the USDA and my state land grant university many times and have always gotten a call back and a courteous offer of further assistance. There are scientists at almost every university worthy of the name and just about all of them have office hours for the benefit of undergrads and are willing to spend a few minutes here and there with anybody with an interest in their work.

There are also plenty of free presentations with question and answer sessions and making friends with such people is as easy as making friends with anybody else.I have made it a point to make friends with as many as I can because talking to them is a hell of a lot more interesting that watching tv.The only ones in my experience who are not easily approachable are the ones who are famous but there aren’t very many of them,percentage wise , even at an elite university.

Beyond this there might have been a few arms twisted in government offices by businessmen who had a stake in the status quo and didn’t want their apple cart upset by Dvorak.There are stories in the paps

96

I guess I timed out. There are stories about such escapades in the papers almost every day if you look for them.

97

I will repeat and go to bed.
**
That was 70 years ago! The world has changed! Nobody except a few obsessives gives two shits about the Dvorak keyboard anymore! I think I know half of them and they are all a little nutty about this and a lot of other things! It had its chance in the marketplace and it lost! Get a new hobby, like listening to what other people say for once!**

Good night.

98

Dropzone,

So far as I can determine nobody gives a hoot in this case since this stuff has been up on the internet for years at the same spot and nobody has asked that it be taken down.

I have already noted that the moderator may remove these comments for reasons of copyright infringement. If they do I will write the meat of them up in my own word and indicate where the original may be read in it’s entirety.

I would not go to these lengths if I hadn’t been challenged to come up with some proof.

I have enough to enjoy this for a lot of evenings to come if I don’t get banned.

In that case I will just get a friend or two to take up the battle flag for me and continue the crusade for the memory of fine scientific researcher who has been crucified by people who have swallowed the kool aid dispensed by his enemies.

This started out as something I thought would be worth a Straight Dope update but it has morphed into something bigger.

When I am finished here I will probably write the whole thing up and submit it to a number of blogs and business sites that are always ready to run something with a human interest angle that also touches on the primary interests of the readers.

More evidence is on the way.

Incidentally we do agree on at least one thing. The people at the top in the Pentagon probably killed the adoption of the DSK for reasons of wartime expediency.I was composing and drinking coffee while you were posting.

99

TCH TCH TCH

Shouting is not nice.

I try not to shout very often but I may capitalize a few words here and there for emphasis since I can’t use italics here.

I am out to prove that the DSK is a better keyboard rather than that old qwerty typists should try to switch to in their dotage— although I do highly reccomend that anybody with age or stress related hand, wrist, and or finger problems look into switching if they expect to be doing a lot of typing.

I am having a good time and have a ton of evidence ready to post and intend to prove my case to honor the memory of Dr Dvorak.

100

Here is an excerpt from the same source telling about at least one test that was not so far as I can find out run by Dr Dvorak.

xxxx

What about running some experimental classes?
Many people have suggested proving the worth of the DSK by running experimental classes. The question is: What will be done if the experiments show that the DSK is indeed all it is claimed to be? The plain facts are that the DSK has been proven experimentally, but those in power in each case chose to disregard the results of the experiments and everyone just went on using the standard keyboard arrangement.

Some examples would be helpful here:

Tacoma Schools Experiment. During the Depression of the 1930s, an experimental program in personal typing was instituted by the school district in Tacoma, Washington. Great care was taken to choose students who wanted to use the typewriter for personal use, rather than in a business environment. Parents understood that they would have to purchase DSK typewriters for their children to use after finishing these experimental classes.

Two thousand seven hundred students were put through the various courses in DSK typing. These classes showed that senior high school kids could learn the DSK in one-third the time it took to learn the standard keyboard. The program was an outstanding success, and was reported in various educational publications.

But, then came a school board election. And typing in the schools became a political issue: whether or not they should allow the Simplified Keyboard classes to continue, etc. The man who was against the new keyboard won the election. So, what did he do? He ran a survey. He asked businesses in the area how many DSK machines they had in their offices. Answer: None. Then, he asked how many standard keyboard typewriters the had. Answer: Why, all of them, of course. On these grounds, he closed down the personal typing classes (regardless of the fact that these students were not planning to go into office typing, but wanted the typewriter for their own personal use). It’s amazing what one man can do to help shoot down a good idea.

xxx

I have not yet located and copied the articles in the educational journals since most of the ones that old are not on the net but I am a capable researcher and can locate them a

101

and I will locate them easily enough. The librarians where they are archived will be glad to scan them for me for a trivial fee and email them to me.

I will actually most likely get them free when they seen my EDU email address since nobody ever wants such documents for any reason other than research purposes.

That’s part of the job description of university librarians, ya see?