The QWERTY Phenomenon and the Game of Cricket

The QWERTY Phenomenon and the Game of Cricket

In "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", Dennett describes the QWERTY phenomena in biological and cultural evolution as an example of how "mere historical happenstance... restrict[s] our options" (6:131). Economists add a value judgment to this description, some using QWERTY as an example of market failure and inefficiency. However, the evolution of QWERTY, like cricket, follows rules that are enigmatic at first glance. Economists do not pursue the analogy with evolution and, as a result, do not detect the fundamental change in the system of production that rewrote the rules of efficiency. A historical retracing disentangles the reasons for QWERTY's continued dominance of keyboard systems. The integration of parts in the system of production demanded compatibility: the efficiency of the whole above the efficiency of the individual.

QWERTY: Rise to fame

In the first row of letters on your keyboard, the first six keys spell out a nonsensical string, QWERTY, that gives this layout its name. In the nineteenth century, it was found that if two adjacent keys on a typewriter were struck too quickly in succession, the type bars would jam. The alphabetical arrangement of keys proved to be problematic as it placed many commonly-used letters close together. Spacing these letters apart resulted in the somewhat arbitrary re-arrangement we see today. Given that computers have gotten rid of this mechanical problem, why does QWERTY continue to dominate keyboards around the world?

First, a quick history. In the second half of the nineteenth century, typewriters with a variety of key layouts competed for commercial success, and the first to achieve it used QWERTY. Diamond argues, however, that the role the keyboard played in the typewriter's success was incidental rather than instrumental, crediting instead other advantageous components that the machine boasted, such as type bars, an inked ribbon, and a cylindrical paper carriage (2). But as this typewriter became more widely used in offices, more new users chose to train to touch-type using the QWERTY layout. As people climbed on the bandwagon, QWERTY experienced decreasing costs of selection: it became more likely to be picked over other key layouts (1).

The "wrong" answer?

Early dominance meant not only that QWERTY became the standard, but that it stayed that way too. The layout became locked in by the quasi-irreversibility of investments in training touch-typists and in equipment, and by the high costs of conversion (1). In fact, numerous attempts to implement improvements to the layout have met with failure.