Bolding mine.
This statement is false, and so clearly biased that I would be highly suspect of anything else she had to say.
Sheesh, I blame the fever I’m running. The second was supposed to read:
b) QWERTY was designed haphazardly for the first typewriters. These had a problem with jamming, and the designers moved letters so that typists were slowed down to reduce jamming.
I suppose for clarity I should have have changed a to
a) QWERTY was designed haphazardly for the first typewriters. These had a problem with jamming, and the designers moved letters so that common letter combinations, and their mechanics were placed further apart to reduce jamming.
Your opinion, which you are quite entitled to hold.
Joe
And here we are in 2011, even further removed from the creation of QWERTY, and, as you say Dvorak has made little impact, yet the story still lingers on.
Either there’s a huge conspiracy by Dvorak supporters (still!!) or the story is based upon fact. 
Exactly. Why not? I’ve not heard anybody here say they’d known of Lilian Malt’s paper prior to seeing it here, so there’s nothing to say that she DIDN’T have access to some now lost documentation, given that documentation DOES disappear over time.
In (Australian) law, there is a concept called “judicial notice”, where the court accepts that certain facts are so widely known that there is no need to prove them. It is then up to the opposition to DISPROVE the fact. I’d submit that since it has been accepted here that the story of QWERTY was so widely accepted then there was no need for Malt to cite a reference.
Regardless of the truth or not of the story, my idea in posting was simply that there were a couple of comments about lack of authoritative sources for various matters, and I supplied one. I’ve got no knowledge of its veracity, and don’t care a jot either way. I simply lead you to the authority. If you choose to disbelieve it, as I’ve already stated, you have an avenue to pursue. If you choose not to pursue that avenue, that is entirely your choice.
Whether an intentional design factor or not, QWERTY does slow the typist down.
Personally, I’ve got nothing but disdain for both QWERTY and Dvorak (and just slightly less so for Colemak). I’ve been using Maltron since 1986 and have absolutely no doubt of its superiority, but that isn’t what this thread is about.
Joe
Just an additional thought. Since she appeared to be working in some way with or for PIRA in her research, then it would be almost certain that she DID have access to otherwise unavailable documentation, since PIRA would have probably the most complete library of documentation on this topic.
Joe
You really don’t get it, do you? Rumor + no evidence = Rumor.
There’s nothing to be gained trying to argue with me. If you don’t accept the academic paper then you take it up with PIRA. They’re prepared to accept Malt’s findings. They’re the experts, probably the world expert in this field.
Joe
It don’t work like that, bud. You’re the one who’s putting this paper up as evidence; it’s up to you to defend it. PIRA ain’t here.
Powers &8^]
They aren’t?
http://www.pira-international.com/Home.aspx
Well, I’m sure they’ll be heartbroken to hear that.
Shall you tell them or shall I?
Joe
There’s a very apt legal maxim "Res ipsa loquitur" (roughly translated, “Let the thing speak for itself”.)
I proceed to do precisely that.
Joe
And that’s wrong, too. You’re mistranslating the Latin, and the maxim does not even remotely address the issue of hearsay evidence, anyway.
Joe
Incorrect. She was promoting Maltron, she had motive to disparage alternate layouts - especially the most commonly used form. If you are trying to break into a monopoly market (and QWERTY is a fairly strong monopoly), you use any tool you can, including using rumors about the origins.
So far, you have presented that she could conceivably have had access to records. You have not shown the records, or that the records did exist but have been destroyed. Meanwhile, it is much more plausible that she was repeating a rumor because it conformed to her prejudices.
Or you could contact PIRA and Stephen Hobday and request they provide the information that bolsters your position.
It plainly says that your translation is wrong.
Please explain for the slow the substantive difference between “the thing speaks for itself” and “let the thing speak for itself”. Granted, one of them has the word “let” in it, but what is the effect on the meaning?
It’s the same as the difference between “Let Usama bin Laden be killed” and “Usama bin Laden is killed.” But that pales into insignificance compared to the fact that, as I have already remarked, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has bugger-all to do with the question of the acceptability of hearsay evidence.
What are you talking about? What did you think I meant by “here”?
Powers &8^]