The Importance of Input

Note: I originally wrote this on February 1, 2010 as an essay project for a philosophy course (PHIL 366).

From the first binary computer to the astounding power of modern computing devices such as touch-screen tablets and OLED displays, society has found itself captivated by the exponential growth of technology. In less than a century, the computing world has exploded; in 2002, it was estimated that over 1 billion computers existed in the world. [1] Because computers are used so extensively, it is undoubtedly crucial that efficient input methods be researched and developed. There have been many developments in this field in recent years such as T9 for mobile phones, voice dictation, and handwriting recognition; however, until these methods become much faster and more reliable, the standard keyboard will remain the most common device for entering text. The keyboard is here to stay—but are we really using it to its full potential? Could keyboard keys be rearranged to make typing faster and more accurate? In English-speaking countries, the most common keyboard layout by far is known as QWERTY. [1][2] It is difficult to find keyboards for sale which support other layouts; usually, software must be used to emulate those layouts. Despite this, numerous attempts at rearranging the QWERTY keyboard have been made—and consequently, several more efficient layouts have been made available. In particular, the layout known as the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard [3] (or simply Dvorak) was created in response to the issue of input efficiency.

To realize the inefficiency of the QWERTY layout, it’s important to understand its origins. The arrangement was originally created for use with the typewriter, not the computer. Notably, the most common letters in English (E, T, A, and O) [4] are spaced out across the entire keyboard, and the less common letters (such as V, B, X, and Z) tend to be jumbled together. By keeping common letters separate from each other, the risk of jamming the typewriter’s internal components was reduced. However, this came at a cost: by spacing these letters out, some of them became harder to reach, and as a result a typist’s efficiency (WPM count) can be decreased dramatically. The most efficient theoretical layout possible is one where keys are positioned such that their ease of reach matches how common they are in the English language. The Dvorak layout mentioned above acknowledges this as follows: the five vowels, as well as the common consonants S, N, and T, can all be found on the home row. The top row is easier to reach than the bottom row, and as such the very commonly-used punctuation keys (period, comma, and apostrophe) are found here. The keyboard is designed so that the alternating of hands between adjacent letters in words is encouraged; typing a word like this is faster than typing it with only one hand. [5] When this layout is used, approximately 70% of typing in English is done using only the keys on the home row. [6] Because of these advantages, the world’s fastest typist (Barbara Blackburn) achieved her record using the Dvorak layout. [7] Additionally, a study conducted by the US Navy in 1944 showed that the typing accuracy of fourteen former QWERTY users increased by 68% and their speeds by 74% after switching to Dvorak. [8] The layout’s efficiency and superiority over other layouts has been exemplified many times over the years.

In many careers available in North America today, the majority of one’s time at work is spent typing. Take, for instance, a journalist for a newspaper. If she had learned to type on the Dvorak keyboard, her typing speed would surely be higher than it would have been with QWERTY; production would be faster, and in the end more could be accomplished (or time could be freed for other tasks). Full implementation of this layout would have a significant, measurable impact on the productivity of any company with employees whose job involved typing in some way.

There are a number of reasons why Dvorak has failed to displace QWERTY as the mainstream layout. Perhaps the main reason is that nearly all typing classes available in schools offer training for the QWERTY layout only. By the time someone realizes that other layouts are available, he or she is often unwilling to learn simply because the advantages are not worth the time and effort which must be spent to learn a new layout. Additionally, the fact that very few physical Dvorak keyboards are available is a potential deterrent, although most modern operating systems (including all versions of Windows and Mac) come with software support for easily switching; furthermore, the mislabeled keys pose little hindrance because a Dvorak typist typically learns to touch-type, or type without looking at the keys. The simple fact that QWERTY is mainstream and has so much momentum makes it very difficult to displace; the greatest hindrance to Dvorak is that people simply aren’t aware of it. So, how can Dvorak be made mainstream? Typing classes offered in schools should give students the opportunity to learn Dvorak instead of QWERTY; if someone is just learning how to type, the Dvorak layout is far more appealing than if they are forced to relearn later. Desktop and laptop keyboards should also come in Dvorak versions; giving users the option when ordering a new computer would not cost much more, but it would spread the word about this more efficient layout.

In summary, the extensive use of computers in today’s society has made the issue of finding efficient data input methods extremely important. The majority of English-speaking typists are using the inefficient QWERTY layout which hinders their productivity and the productivity of the companies they work for; the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard is the most ideal alternative, and implementation of it would have significant advantages. A good way of encouraging this implementation would be to teach the Dvorak layout as an alternative (or replacement) to QWERTY in schools offering typing classes, and making physical Dvorak keyboards more widely available. While these changes might not have an immediate effect, they would certainly increase the long-term productivity of typists around the world.

Footnotes and References:

1. Citation: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/number_of_personal_computers
2. The QWERTY keyboard derives its name from the left of the top row of keys on the keyboard itself.
3. Other Latin languages use variations of the QWERTY layout, which is shown by this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_layout.
4. An image showing the layout of the Dvorak keyboard can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KB_United_States_Dvorak.svg
5. Information on letter frequency in English can be found here: http://letterfrequency.org/
6. Citation: http://www.theworldofstuff.com/dvorak/#advantages
7. Citation: http://www.dvorak-keyboards.com/
8. This article has information on Barbara Blackburn’s typing record: http://thebrainiac.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/the-worlds-fastest-typist/
9. Citation: http://www.mit.edu/people/jcb/Dvorak/index.html

All URLs listed above were accessed on 28/01/2010.

Omniscient Machines

I'm avoiding studying for exams, so I decided to discuss something I've been thinking about. I'll try to make it as short as possible so I can effectively convey my ideas.

We can certainly agree that the concept of randomness exists; in fact, the concept has many practical applications, particularly in computer science when random number generators are employed for some purpose. If we define a random number generator as one which outputs numbers with no predefined conditions, then it does not follow any pattern, and each time it outputs a new number, every possible output is allotted equal chance of appearing. Real-life random number generators mimic this definition, but they aren't perfect; every digital random number generator in existence must be seeded by some constant flow of input, whether this be the current system time, the digits of pi, or otherwise. Because of this, there is always some bias (however small) towards certain numbers, and thus the machine doesn't meet our qualifications to be considered a true random number generator.

From an analog perspective, we can consider the rolling of a six-sided die; theoretically, each time the die is rolled, it has an equal chance of 1/6 of rolling any of the six numbers. However, this isn't truly random either; it's impossible to make the die perfectly symmetric, so the geometry will always apply a small bias; on top of this, the number rolled is largely dependent on the initial force applied to it. If you could throw a die and know its exact position, speed, and trajectory, as well as the effects of air currents, restitution, and miscellaneous forces, you could predict with certainty which number it will land on. And if it's possible to predict the output, the die certainly can't be considered random.

It would seem that in any situation where we use the term "randomness", we're referring simply to a near-perfect simulation of randomness. From this claim, it would seem that true randomness is purely theoretical and doesn't actually exist in the real world.

If you accept this claim, then imagine the entire universe frozen at one instant. Suppose you had a machine capable of collecting every bit of data available at that instant, down to the position and velocity of every particle. Say this machine were capable also of carrying out calculations using the laws of physics. In this case, the machine would be able to eventually predict the exact state of the entire universe a moment (say, one millisecond) later. Through recursion, the machine would therefore be able to predict the state of the universe after two, three, fifty, or one million milliseconds into the future. Using this same principle, the machine could also work backwards, predicting the state one millisecond before, etc. Given enough processing power, the machine we have is effectively capable of telling us everything about the universe at any arbitrary point in time. Thus, looking forward into the future or backwards in time is possible.

I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks about this.