The single alphabet demands much less from the optical memory, and the
corresponding motor inner attitude of consciousness is adjusted to a
smaller number of possibilities. But the pressure on the shift key,
which goes with the single alphabet, is not only a time-wasting act;
from the psychological point of view it is first of all a very strong
interruption of the uniform chain of impulses. If the capital and
small letters are written for a minute alternatingly with the greatest
possible speed, the experiment shows that the number of letters for
the machine with the double alphabet is about three times greater than
for the machine with simple alphabet and shift key. Both systems
accordingly have their psychological advantages and disadvantages.
Human beings of distinct visual ideational type or of highly developed
motor type will prefer the double alphabet, provided, of course, that
the touch system of writing is learned, and this will be especially
true if their inner attitude is easily disturbed by interruptions. But
those who have a feebly developed optical mental centre and who have
small ability for the development of complex motor habits will be more
efficient on the machines with the single alphabet, especially if
their nervous system is little molested by interruptions and thus
undisturbed by the intrusion of the shift key act.
In a similar way the visibility of the writing will be for certain
individuals the most valuable condition for quick writing, while for
others, who depend less upon visual support, it may mean rather a
distraction and an interference with the speediest work. The visible
writing attracts the involuntary attention, and thus forces
consciousness to stick to that which has been written instead of being
concentrated on that which is to be produced by the next writing
movements. The operator himself is not aware of this hindrance. On the
contrary, the public will always be inclined to prefer the typewriters
with visible writing, because by a natural confusion the feeling
arises that the production of the letter is somewhat facilitated, when
the eye is coöperating, just as in writing with a pen we follow the
lines of the written letter. But the situation lies differently in the
two cases. When we are writing with a pen, the letter grows under our
eyes, while in the machine writing we do not see any part of the
letter until the whole movement which produces the single letter is
finished. By such a misleading analogy many a man is led to prefer the
typewriter with visible writing, while he would probably secure a
greater speed with a machine which does not tempt him to attend the
completed letters, while his entire attention ought to belong to the
following letters.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account