The Myth of QWERTY 263
Eric Hillman writes
"I've been telling people for years that the Dvorak
keyboard is mostly hype. Contrary to popular belief, and
unlike certain "standards" I could name, the QWERTY
keyboard won its market share fair and square.
Now, that bastion of (mostly) unbiased reporting,
The Economist, has come to my side of the fray.
" I've been telling people forever that that tale
is urban legend, glad to see I'm not the only one.
Dvorak benefits not in speed (Score:1)
Frighteningly Poor Conclusion (Score:1)
I'd agree with the first sentence, but the second? They're confusing "it's good to have a standard" with "it's good that this is a standard", and they ought to know better when writing such an article.
please question this (Score:1)
(or overused) as an example of market failure, it is now being even more
rudely abused by the laissez-faire cause.
I don't have time to offer a lengthly analysis, but let me offer four
points:
- All of the current anti-Dvorak hype stems from a _single_ paper, "The
Fable of the Keys" (http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html)
whose authors have a vested interest in debunking Dvorak. First, it's not
a very good paper--both the evidence and the reasoning are weak (I wish I
had more time to support this here; maybe I will later, but read it for
yourself). Second, the paper merely points out flaws in some past
studies; it does not present any new facts, or any direct evidence that
QWERTY is better or even as good as Dvorak. The chief lesson is that the
matter has not been studied carefully and thoroughly.
- An excellent collection of counterarguments is at
http://www.ccsi.com/~mbrooks/dvorak/dissent.html
- The anti-Dvorak camp focuses entirely on typing speed and ignores the
ergonomic benefits that many claim for Dvorak.
- In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, try the Dvorak layout
yourself or talk to people who have.
Andrew
pimlott@math.harvard.edu
Dvorak for Geeks (Score:1)
So, the question I put to the dvorak users out there is how comfortable (in terms of finger movement, I guess) is programming? How does the placement of things like parenthesis, braces, and the semicolin compare to that of the qwerty keyboard.
(Hm... I wonder, as an aside, if C was designed, in part, to use the characters that were conveniently placed on the qwerty keyboard.)
URLs with More Details (Score:1)
URLs with More Details (Score:1)
How is Dvorak for programming? (Score:1)
the brackets []{} are slightly farther away, and the punctuation is slightly more convenient. The words you're typing for control (if, else, etc.) are so short that the difference in that respect is probably not all that much.
I would say it's pretty much even.
What The He He? (Score:1)
This will eventually not be a problem, since more and more agencies require CDs with the digital drawings themselves now.
As a happy Dvorak user.. (Score:1)
One-handed QWERTY (Score:1)
Show me the choof (Score:1)
Anyway, it's a good thing I looked, or I might have dissed the Economist. I nearly accept an assertion on the authority of a /. reader! Yikes!
It's about economics, not technical superiority (Score:1)
I mean c'mon, if someone regretted trying out Dvorak, would they have stayed with it?
Er sorry, that is a bit badly phrased. What I was really trying to say that you shouldn't discount the MANY personal testimonials (including my own) in favor of the dvorak layout and instead cite some stodgy economist saying "it isn't worth it TO BUSINESSES to retrain a bunch of people to type differently for a 5% gain in speed" [even if the better keyboard layout reduces the risk of carpal tunnel or similar RSI...]
What The He He? (Score:1)
One-handed QWERTY (Score:1)
I hope you don't get tired lugging that (Score:1)
Buh? what on earth are you talking about? Let's see.. I don't carry anything with me. Most of the machines I use (NeXT, HP's, and Sun's) switch the kbd automatically when I log in.
The Macs at work switch with a simple keystroke.
The PC's require some futzing with the control panel, but will (reluctantly) switch for me.
And I always keep a spare copy of the keymaps on the fileserver, just in case.
Article is not unbiased (Score:1)
From what I've seen, the Economist is generally biased toward defending free market capitalism, and this article was no exception. First it offered some anecdotal evidence that Dvorak's failure to replace QWERTY as the market standard isn't really a market failure. Then it gloatingly proceeded to generalize from this that all examples of market failure are also mere myths, which some economists seem to like quoting anyhow for some reason. All in all, a pretty shallow, transparently biased article.
MEE TOOO!!! (Score:1)
yep, I'm a dvorak uzer too.:) This is one area in which 'doze 9.11 (wfw 3.11) vastly outperforms LiNuKs, with 'doze I was able to switch it in less than 30 seconds without reboot. Linux took a bit longer and because the kernel is shit, It should be possible to do one mapping per user but there seemed to be only one for the entire system and the thing maps it differently in each environment such as X or possibly any game but I can't play games on linux because the soundcard doesn't work and I can't find or install any games. DOS does it okay but any program with its own keyboard driver gets hosed.
VHS (Score:1)
Who needs QWERTY/Dvorak as an example of bad technological choice when we have Beta/VHS?
Well I was sucked in... but strangely it worked. (Score:1)
I was sold on all the stories of how good Dvorak was compared to QWERTY, so I gave it a go.
But it did seem far more logical. You can't deny the fact that you can spell "TYPEWRITER" on the top row of keys on a QWERTY - it was designed as an amusing marketing gimic!
You also can't deny the difference in learning-rate between the two.
The bottom line? On QWERTY I got to the speed of 65 words/minute corrected (according to Mavis Beacon) I had used QWERTY for 16 years (since my ZX81, if that counts) After less than 2 years since my switch to Dvorak, I am finally back up to 65 words/minute. Yes it was painful at first, but luckily I was a student and had time to fritter.
As an added bonus, I can now touch-type perfectly! I don't have a choice, my keyboard is still QWERTY, so I physically can't peek at the keys. Thankfully Windows 95 comes with the facility to switch between keyboard layouts with a quick keypress. It eases the pain while learning.
I'm sold on Dvorak, and I'm glad I've changed; but as the article says - It's probably not worth the effort to switch unless you: (a) are learning to touch-type anyway (b) have time to kill & lots of patience, or (c) have a general desire for the world to be an easier, more logical place. [Lets not start on the question why Americans can't get out of the dark ages & into the metric system]
metric vs others (Score:1)
People always make the assumption that metrics are better, but in fact the other systesm do have advantages. For one, fractions work out very nicely in most non-metric systems, in particualr the third. Try taking 1/3rd a meter, it can't be done with any accuracy, but both the foot and yard can be divided into thirds readily.
And although moving the decimal to convert units is easy, in practice enough errors are made that it isn't done. (People forget the rarely used decimeter is between the centimeter, or they move one to far between the centimeter and milimeter. Stupid mistakes, really. (don't read this too closely, it slightly contradicts the top statement.
I'm not saying that metric is a bad system. Indeed having a universial system around the world has advantages. The advantages we were taught in school (decimal system) are not nearly as great as promissed.
Ever tried to order a non-QWERTY keyboard? (Score:1)
context sendsitive. (Score:1)
Whenever I'm at work and switch to a PC, I start typing as if I'm on a sun keyboard. And people look at me like an idiot when I start typing the ` key at vi..
Dvorak In the article (Score:1)
120 WPM seems to be my mind's limit, not some inability to physically hit buttons. What have I gained from Dvorak? I make about four times less errors. Also, my hands are often focused along the home row. I find I can sustain 120WPM for longer periods of time without my hands getting tired. Surely, for people like me who enjoy CLIs more than GUIs, Dvorak has been a positive switch.
I am troubled by a point that the article makes near the end. "Ergonomists point out that QWERTY's bad points (such as unbalanced loads on left and right hand; excess loading on the top row) are outweighed by presumably accidental benefits (notably, that alternating hands sequences make for speedier typing.)
One of the features of a Dvorak keyboard is that both hands do as close to equal amounts of work, as far as being reasonable goes with the diversity of the grouping of characters in the english language permits. The largest number of letters used in a single right-hand word is five. The largest number of letters in a left-hand word is four. I cannot remember the atrocious number that was presented to me for QWERTY, but 'sweater' comes to mind almost immediately.
It would seem to me that the author of this piece is using pro-Dvorak logic to back up his thesis. The 'accidental benefits' of the QWERTY keyboard really are fabricated for this article.
I realise that this article focuses on the marketing side of things, but I see people interested in actually choosing keyboards reading this as well.
On a different note, one of the most bothersome things to any gamer is the raw keyboard mode when they have a software remapped Dvorak keyboard. Thanks to Open Source, I modified the svgalib sourcecode and changed my Quake/Quake 2 config files button choices, and now I can use Svgalib in Dvorak.
Dvorak has nothing to do with speed (Score:1)
It's the same thing with Dvorak. Sure, it's more comfortable and more efficient (RPN saves 30% of the keystrokes over algebraic entry), or at least we want to believe it's more efficient, but we like it because it lets us be different and eccentric.
So, we'll see the true nerds. They'll have RPN calculators and QWERTY-keyboards remapped and repainted to be Dvorak ones.
Try it yourself (Score:1)
My major qualm with it is that no platform I've worked with has a template for Dvorak that will also let you do international characters (such as the accented characters in Spanish). I would hope that someone would come up with a Dvorak-International layout. All other problems people have with it (switching back to Qwerty, learning hotkeys, finding less commonly-used symbols used in programming languages, etc.) I have overcome in the year since I started to learn it.
In the future, please read the article (Score:1)
In the future, please take the time to actually read instead of just looking at the comments and posting your own thoughts.
Show me the proof (Score:1)
So are all print publications just pulling fabricated crap out of their asses when they do quotes like this?
It would certainly be NICE if there were hyperlinks to appropriate publications, but what makes you think those other publications are available online?
Something to consider about these testimonials (Score:1)
I was doing QWERTY for a while, and then switched to Dvorak, and after a bit of retraining, I can type faster than I could with QWERTY.
Consider this:
- If you desire to work at something (like a Dvorak conversion), you're going to work harder at it.
- If you spend time learning something, you are going to be better at it than you were the month before.
- If you stop learning something, you are not likely to get much better at it by this time next month.
Everyone making these types of testimonials should (in most cases) at least concede the possibility that they worked their way up to a high level of proficiency with Dvorak. The fact that they type slower with QWERTY could easily be because they don't *use* QWERTY all that much anymore, or that they work harder learning Dvorak. I've yet to see a truly "objective" testimonial (if there is such a thing) that was able to convince me of that person's obvious success with Dvorak because of the LAYOUT (vs. the person's own will to learn).For those of you that want to put your faith in testimonials, all the power to you. For the rest of us, please look at everything with an objective eye.
Now, I'm NOT saying that Dvorak isn't a better layout than Qwerty. For typing English text, I will agree that Dvorak is much better, and if people are consistently typing up that sort of thing, it might be in their best interests to learn that layout. I, however, am a programmer. I hit perhaps 20% of my highest typing speed (~140WPM with prose) while I program, so layout here isn't a huge concern, and to be honest, I make more use of "obscure" keys (for obvious reasons), which makes QWERTY more efficient for me.
I do still tinker with Dvorak every once in a while (I have the machine set up so it's very easy to toggle layouts on a per-application basis), but I have yet to see a serious advantage to using it for things like this.
It's about economics, not technical superiority (Score:1)
Not that I necessarily disagree with you at all. I occasionally flirt with the Dvorak layout at home and at work, but your argument was just totally blown to pieces when you wrote that sentence above.
I mean c'mon, if someone regretted trying out Dvorak, would they have stayed with it?
That's what they want you to think: "Great story" (Score:1)
What statistics are you quoting? If there were actual trials done, consider this as a possible explanation: QWERTY typists account for all types of people from the computer veterans to the just-introduced high school mac user. Dvorak typists account for a small yet "elite" percentage of those that take their typing and computing seriously. These people WILL type faster on average than the average QWERTY person because most QWERTY people type slowly and most Dvorak people type quickly. Now if the time trials were done truly objectively, they must take this into account and get an appropriate cross-section of typists with similar typing abilities, independent of layout.
With respects to your 80WPM ceiling, I transcribe at ~140WPM with the QWERTY layout. I regularly go at 80-100WPM with few (if any) mistakes, but when my brain switches to a linear transcription mode, there's less thinking involved and I can hit 140WPM while correcting errors. Perhaps you are exaggarating the problem to help make your point? Or maybe you just aren't a good typist...?
Studies have found that the reason Dvorak users don't often type at the phyiscally possible rates of Dvorak (200 WPM+) is that their minds can't work that fast.
I'd appreciate URL's to statistics (unless you're just pulling some of these numbers out of your ass -- no offense). It's "physically possible" to type 1,000WPM using QWERTY, or 1 million WPM. I don't see where you get this ~200+WPM figure. When I'm transcribing, it feels like the bottleneck is in my hands, but when I'm just typing normal things like e-mail and this comment, the bottleneck is in my mind as I work to compose my thoughts and work out a nice way to say what I'm trying to say. This could be interpreted as an argument for the Dvorak layout, but I've not yet reached any form of proficiency with that layout to be able to say for certain that it is indeed better in this respect.
Dvorak is better, all around, and that article was defending (actually, denying) capitalism's inability to develop good standards. When it comes to keyboard layouts, folks, listen to science, not an economist.
Firstly, I do listen to science, and the first sentence here is an opinion, not a scientific conclusion, so you'll have to forgive me if I dismiss it as such. The article was not saying Dvorak was bad, and if that's the conclusion you drew, perhaps you should re-read it. They were saying that there hasn't been any conclusive evidence that the Dvorak layout is indeed conducive to fast typing.
Dvorak vs Qwerty (Score:1)
I've been typing for around 12 years now 10 of those 12 years was spend in the QWERTY world so I was pretty fast.
Here is just a few things that I noticed when switching over. This after almost a year of using the dvorak layout and still typing faster on the qwerty layout.
1. With Dvorak you tend to make more mistakes.
2. Dvorak have to be setup and this causes problems when youn need to fix your computer.
3. Nobody else can use your console and this is sometimes an atvantage (yes they can and do telnet/ssh/rlogin in).
Advantages:
1. Keys are placed in more logical arrangement. (A new typist must start looking at the hame keys and then move to the outside)
2. To reach the same speed with the Dvorak as the QWERTY you type much ligter (not as much noise).
3. It's ligter on the fingers I spend 8 hours in front of a computer after 8 hours with a Qwerty keyboard you hurt really bad Dvorak solved that for me.
4. You learn to touch type with Dvorak that I could never really pick up with the Qwerty. (Yes I could type faster than most secretaries. But I still use 8 fingers and only occasionally my pinky. I'm starting to touch type aftter about 2 years of fultime usage.)
5. The most impartant reason to use a dvorak keyboard is of course the coolness factor. Very few people can use the dvorak keyboard and feel really uncomfortable using it so they tend to leave my computer alone when I'm not there.
I'll have to test my typing speed again but I think I'm still under my Qwerty speed but that doesn't really matter because I have increased the quality of my Linux experience by switching to the dvorak keyboard.
The cost of retraining is worth paying (Score:1)
Some friends of mine decided they were going to switch at the beginning of the school year, and I followed a little behind them for a little while, but I didn't make the entire plunge. I kept my QWERTY knowledge while gradually building up my Dvorak. I slacked off for a while, but then during Christmas break, I took the full plunge, which took me a week before I felt up to speed in Dvorak. (During that time, however, my typing speed suffered. That's why I switched over a break in which I had enough time to spare.) My friends tell me they spent two weeks the cold turkey method before they were up to speed.
And let us not forget that Dvorak is perscribed by doctors (I do need a reference for this) for patients with RSI. Of all of the computer users out there, we are the ones who need to worry about it.
My point: the cost of retraining is worth paying. If I had to do it over, I probably would have switched years ago. (However, it is convient to have a group of people around you also switch, so you can build up infrastructure. In the local computer lab (albeit populated by evil win 95 boxen), one of my Dvorak friends wrote a Delphi program to switch between Dvorak and QWERTY.)
Power to Dvorak. Death to QWERTY.
betcha didn't know (Score:1)
the feedback loop of adoption meant that the qwert kbd has reigned ever since...sorta like MS on the desktop
The Origin of QWERTY (Score:1)
Cheers
A more interesting question... (Score:1)
However, I think it would be more profitable to ask why there have not been more alternative keyboard formats than the Dvorak, given the widely -held beliefs in the deficiency of the QWERTY layout. So much else has changed in society in the 100+ years that the QWERTY keyboard has existed; why hasn't the keyboard?
-----
dvorak is better (Score:1)
Dvorak tutor (Score:1)
Here [unc.edu] is a good dvorak typing tutor program in a tarball. Enjoy!
What The He He? (Score:1)
The caps lock key makes a great ESC key for vi... Its one of those keys that can safely by remapped for personal use.
Tried Dvorak, didn't like it (Score:1)
I have little doubt that many people experience real improvements in typing speed and so on with Dvorak. I also have little doubt that winners of typing contests get an edge from the Dvorak layout. But it only takes a slight edge to win - how much real performance advantage do Speedos really make for swimmers? All Olympic swimmers wear them, but for recreational swimming, the difference is lost in the noise.
I think that the win that people get from learning Dvorak is that they are forced to spend time learning to type correctly. I (and many other hackers I know) have a very sloppy keying style, including moving the hands arounnd and using whichever finger is closest at the time. When I learned Dvorak, I tried to learn it right, and it wasn't possible to go back to being sloppy just out of habit, because then you hit the wrong keys (or, in Dvorak, yd. ,prbi t.fo). Training for speed typing would probably be just as effective, but who's motivated to do that?
The irony is that if Dvorak had taken over in the early days, most present-day hackers would get a similar benefit from learning Qwerty :)
The main reason I went back is that I'm often having to deal with other keyboards that haven't been remapped. The cognitive dissonance of having to go back and forth between the two layouts just wasn't worth it, and almost certainly decreased my total performance, even though the burst performance may have been higher when I got into the Dvorak "flow."
The reasoning in the editorial is pretty bogus, though. Just because the value of Dvorak doesn't exceed the cost of retraining does not imply that there's no economic lock-in effect - quite the contrary. It's only if the benefit were exactly zero that this would be the case. The authors have a point that the benefit of Dvorak is not as great as sometimes assumed, but that's not at all the same as claiming it's zero.
Raph, who's glad not to be locked in to either Speedos or swim trunks ;)
Dvorak Reference and comments (Score:1)
Mr. Brooks has some good comments [ccsi.com] about Dvorak vs. QWERTY, including comments on why the Liebowitz and Margolis article [utdallas.edu] isn't exactly proof that dvorak isn't better. He goes over [ccsi.com] each of the major points of their article.
Regarding the Economist's editorial, I can't say I agree with their analysis: They don't take into consideration ergonomics, the cost if dvorak or qwerty is learned from the start, and the fact that there are no unbiased studies showing one is better than the other. (The GSA study was biased, Mr. Strong had an investment in QWERTY, having put lots of effort into improving/using it).
It is easily shown that that the dvorak keyboard moves the more commonly used keys under the stronger fingers, important to prevent RSI. In addition, the alteration of keys is much better than the QWERTY keyboard, important for speed. (The QWERTY keyboard has this property too, but they keys are on the weakest fingers. This is the accidental benifit mentioned by the economist, tho it possibly risks injury.)
Even Sholes thought that the original keyboard needed improvement, having taken out a patent on this keyboard:
X P M C H R T N S D G K
J B W F L A E I O U Y
Q V (punctuation goes here)
Notice that the vowels are under one hand and that most common words would alternate well.
Regarding Dvorak being baised; I think not. The book, Typewriting Behavior: Psychology Applied to Teaching and Learning Typewriting [amazon.com] , is authored by four people (Dvorak being only one) and consists of information pertinent to all aspects of typing. In fact, the Dvorak keyboard is only called the simplified keyboard at this point. The book cites several hundred case studies. This book is the result of the $130,000 dollars from the Carnegie Commission for Education.
This is the quintessential book for understanding how humans use keyboards. There isn't anything like it since (tho some have built upon it).
Finally, I have to state my opinion on Economists in general; Most don't know simple math. A good explination of what I mean can be seen on AdBusters' [adbusters.org] Economists Must Learn to Subtract [adbusters.org]. This wouldn't be the first time an economist was unable to see past the obvious dollars. Why should they worry about the pain a person will have, later in life? Especially if they can fire that person first?
Economics is currently where physics was in ancient greece. We know a few concepts, one or two working formula, but we're missing huge chunks. Human health, long term viability and quality of living are all left out.
Well, that's all I can think of at the moment. I'm sure I'll get at least one colorful response. Oh, BTW, CmdrTaco, what irks you about the QWERTY origin story/mythos? That dvorak is touted as better for speed? That dvorak is possibly better for your hands? Or that it acts as a possible exception or counter-proof for current economic theory?
Personally, I'm only interested in ease of use and my precious wrists. And since dvorak makes my wrists feel better (even now that I'm back to my QWERTY speed) and switching most systems to dvorak is trivial....
Ciao!
Well, it's simple. (Score:1)
God forbid they should have to make the effort to put a few pages up on the web. If people want to read that stuff, they can just dig up a print version. When I was young we didn't need no fancy schmancy hypertext systems. We walked seven miles to the library in the snow, barefoot! And we were GRATEFUL!
PS. I'm not saying they made it up. To take what I said that way is a bit of a stretch.
--
Show me the proof (Score:1)
I'm not the previous poster but for me, if it ain't hyperlinked, it ain't there.
--
What The He He? (Score:1)
I use caps lock for Multi_key. CAPSLOCK-"-i -> ï, etc.
These lines in .Xmodmap will arrange that: clear Lock keycode 66 = Multi_key
--
Doh! (Score:1)
keycode 66 = Multi_key
--
metric vs others (Score:1)
Hmm, I was born in such a country and I don't recall ever using the dm except in math class. Decilitres are another story. On the other hand, *what does that have to do with anything*!?
I find the imperial system quite silly, the metric system perfectly logical. An added bonus is that it's easy to remember the Earth's circumference in metres.
--
Health benefits of Dvorak??? (Score:1)
microsoft analogy (Score:1)
HPUX's best feature (was: Dvorak has nothing)... (Score:1)
;)
A few facts about the QWERTY/Dvorak debate (Score:1)
I find it pretty rude to slander someone by saying their work is fraudulant without good proof. You're going to have to go farther than poor scientific procedures, financial intrest, and misreported numebers to prove it.
FACT: Every national typing contest since 1931 has been won by a typist with a Dvorak keyboard.
Typing contests are NOT random samples, but rather self-selected samples (generally of those with an incentive to prove that their method is best).
No, but these typing contest were not method debates, they were speed contests. The typists were not out to prove their method, they were out to prove their speed. If every Indy 500 was won by the same model of car, I might take it be indication about the quality of the car, despite the fact it's not a random sample.
What The He He? (Score:1)
Christopher A. Bohn
typing costs (Score:1)
Dvorak vs. QWERTY (Score:1)
I can see the Economist arguing against Dvorak strictly on economic merit (retraining costs etc.) But I also hear similar arguments against Esperanto -- even though it's an extremely simple language to learn (15 grammatical rules), nobody wants to touch it because everyone uses something else.
For that matter, I hear similar arguments against Linux - "not enough apps right now", etc.
Nobody makes a buck off selling the Dvorak layout -- unlike the "Microsoft Ugh-ohnomic keyboard". I can reprogram X etc. to process Dvorak at no cost; I can do the same in Windows with a little more effort.
Dvorak bindings for emacs and games (Score:1)
However, I now control all the machines I use, and so I'd like to give it another shot. I remember the lovely way words like T-H-E rolled off the fingers in Dvorak, and I can feel how much travel my fingers are doing now and would like to reduce it. The big problem is programs that depend on physical location of keys.
For instance, emacs uses Control-X heavily, and Control-X is a pain to reach on a Dvorak keyboard. All you Dvorak fans, what do you do for C-x? Grin and bear it, or do you have elisp to globally swap C-x and C-t, or what? It'll still be a huge pain to reflash my fingers with the new chord locations, of course...
For another example, countless games use IJKL or equivalent; and sure, I can usually reconfigure the keys within the program or with X resources, but man would it be a pain to have to do that manually for every single game I play. Being able to use the defaults occasionally is nice. Is there some way to click a window and say "QWERTY in this window" when you're using Dvorak everywhere else?
Suggestions, or pointers to web resources, would be most welcome. Thanks.
Alan
GSA studies prove nothing (Score:1)
(That said, I personally use QWERTY, and feel that Dvorak is overrated. The speed increase is minor, and takes a long time to develop if you're already experienced at QWERTY; and recommending it as a primary treatment for encroaching RSI symptoms, which far too many Dvorak advocates and ignorant doctors do, is nothing short of insane. I'd be surprised if it weren't a superior layout, but it's far less important than many other aspects of ergonomics and typing technique.)
Alan
Dvorak: Right pinky overload (Score:1)
Unfortunately, I've had recurring trouble with RSIs. One of the first places I notice it is in my pinky fingers. And right now, my right pinky is howling.
No surprise. Insanely, Dvorak puts two of the 10 most common letters in English text (L and S) on the right pinky. Maybe this wasn't so bad in typewriter days, but on a keyboard, the pinkies are already burdened with Return and meta keys and a whole slew of punctuation. QWERTY gives the fingers an unbalanced load, but at least the extra burden is on the relatively strong and flexible index fingers.
I suppose I could design my own layout; I did a long time ago, and even swapping L and K in Dvorak would be a huge improvement; but then I'd be really screwed trying to use anyone else's machine. (At least with standard Dvorak, "loadkeys dvorak" works on any Linux box, and most Windows machines have it as an option.)
The hell with it. I'm sticking with QWERTY.
Alan
okay, but... (Score:1)
So, how does this article explain that the people who win the speed-typing contests are always Dvorak typists?
It doesn't - which is OK, because that's totally irrelevant to the point of the story.
It is not claiming that QWERTY is better than Dvorak. It only says that QWERTY doesn't suck as much as economists seem to think it does.
Why QWERTY *REALLY* won out... (Score:1)
-Ken
Cost of training or retraining (Score:1)
And let us not forget that you are a sample of one.
And as for doctors, have they actually done studies on the RSI effects?
--
Show me the proof (Score:1)
the cost of retraining might be prohibitive but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't train the next generation of keyboard users (all the children who have yet to start using keyboards) to what might be a better way of doing things...
for all the Economist says about economists using anecdotal histories, this article has its own logical problems...
Maltron layout and reduced hand motion (Score:1)
The Maltron layout was designed based on a corpus of English text and is claimed to greatly reduce hand motion. I use a Maltron keyboard with Qwerty layout but even that is a huge improvement over flat keyboards.
For anyone interested in RSI (and you should be, it's not uncommon, painful to treat, and easily prevented), there are some links at http://www.bigfoot.com/~rdonkin/
butthead revisionist crap? (Score:1)
It also has nothing to do with the quality of a keyboard. Quality is not a "different input" as you said, just a variation on the current method. Just because the IBM keyboard is better because of quality (not better because is more efficient, etc.) does not mean every body will use it. I think a better example is the comparison between gas and steam powered automobiles. There is a real difference here, not just a quality difference.
The fact that we are continually searching for something better is a part of human nature, not necessarily because the current method is so fundamentally flawed.
Also, ergonomic keyboards are becoming more and more popular because they are better and solve certain problems. But it has nothing to do with the QWERTY layout. Putting your hands in that position with any layout is eventually going to cause problems.
--
QWERTY to prevent key jams. (Score:1)
At least that is how I heard the story. As far as I am concearned Devorak is faster, but who cares. I can type in both at about the same speed but I could see where I could type twice as fast in Devorak (like a freind of mine can)
A Carpal Anecdote (Score:1)
I code about 8-10 hours a day, and I never have problems with my wrists. The one time I did begin to develop some soreness was during a two or three-week span where I was playing a lot of xpat2. All the mouse-clicking was killing my wrist. I dropped the game and my wrist healed up.
By way of observation: the only person in this office who has a case of carpal tunnel syndrome sits lower than her keyboard and rests her hands on one of those keyboard-wrist pads. Ridiculous! When you're typing you shouldn't be resting your hands on the desk, and you shouldn't be sitting in a hole in the ground. All you end up doing in both cases is torquing your wrists.
(Okay, I might be wrong about the pad; I've been trying to analyze what I do when I type, and I can't be sure about that. But sitting in a hole is wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm convinced that better practices with one's typing posture would alleviate this problem.)
IMO,
microsoft analogy (Score:1)
http://www.jwz.org/worse-is-better.html [jwz.org]
Dvorak vs. QWERTY (Score:1)
And people DO make money from selling Dvorak keyboards. Considering the exhorbitant price for some of these "ergo" keyboards they sell, one would think they make a killing for just moving the keys around and popping a different keymap into the controller.
Locked in Standards (Score:1)
"My car gets 4 cords to the furlong and that's the way I like it" - Abraham Simpson
Chuck
In answer to my critics (Score:1)
Obviously, the Dvorak/QWERTY debate won't be settled by this, or any article, study or personal opinion -- like choice of window manager, text editor or automobile transmission, it's simply up to the unique preferences, prejudices and experiences of the individual.
But, a number of people have politely inquired whether I've ever actually tried to learn the Dvorak keyboard.
So, here is my story:
Long, long ago, I owned a "Laser" computer, which was an Apple II clone. It had a switch on the back to go between Dvorak and QWERTY. Having only recently heard about the Dvorak keyboard, from none other than sci-fi/fantasy author Piers Anthony (who mentions it in the preface or postscript to one of his Incarnations of Immortality books, which I was avidly devouring at the time), I decided to give it a whirl. I magic-markered the new characters on the keys, and got my typing speed up to a pretty respectable level after a while.
As fate would have it, this was just before I started taking typing and computer classes in school, where the keyboards were, of course, QWERTY. After a few exceedingly poor typing test scores, I gave up trying to be biclavial and went back to QWERTY for good. Before very long, my QWERTY typing speed was as good as my Dvorak had ever been, and over time greatly exceeded it.
All in all, my experience with Dvorak, however brief, did nothing whatsoever to convince me of its supposedly evident superiority. I now type with great speed and accuracy with my QWERTY keyboard, and the simple expedients of good typing habits, regular breaks and a wrist-rest have saved my fingers from RSI's so far. My preferences, prejudices and experience tell me that Dvorak is an inconvenient solution to a problem I just don't have.
Also, I now think Piers Anthony is a boring, no-talent hack. But that's a subject for a whole other flamewar.
Making the switch (Score:1)
cya
1956 studies seem to apply to manual typewriters! (Score:1)
The studies cited would not be very current, in that manual typewriters would benefit much more from alternate-hand typing. Nowdays I believe, with computer keyboards and N-key rollover, a strong case could be made for Dvorak. In my experience, Dvorak is quite efficient, though like QWERTY it does take quite a bit of practice to make it work well for you.
The problem is maybe not a market failure....there are inherent limitations to what a market can do. If no one asks the right questions, the answers don't automatically spring from the ether.
Personal anectode (Score:1)
--Tom
Myth, My Eye (Score:1)
mouthpieces, and the article of theirs cited in
the Economist piece is old, old, old. Why would
the Economist suddenly bring it up now? Shouldn't
be hard to guess. Anyway, I'm a QWERTY guy, and
obscenely good at it to boot, but it takes me two
seconds of study to see that Dvorak rocks.
Another source. (Score:1)
This one is from Reason magazine. It has some political commentary as well, but I found it interesting. It is kind of old.
What The He He? (Score:1)
I dislike the QWERTY (Score:1)
The Origin of QWERTY (Score:1)
Mycroft
morons abound in unix community (Score:1)
Is this an example of your critical thinking?
> For the record, let me talk a bit of personal experience for those interested.
Critical thinkers do not generally rely on testimonials. Controlled experiments and thoughtful consideration of the literature are hallmarks of critical thinking. Name calling, alas, is not.
> I try not to support stupid things, such as Qwerty, vi, unixism and perl.
Critical thinkers, I fear, do not believe that one can "prove" an opinion.
microsoft analogy (Score:1)
Stenographers aren't typing every letter of every word, which is why they can type faster. They don't have to convert every letter of every word into a neurological impulse.
QWERTY to prevent key jams. (Score:1)
The notion that we are tied to QWERTY because of the mechanical failings of early machines is the myth that the journal article sought to disprove.
Free Market Principles and The Economist (Score:1)
interesting, but... (Score:1)
QWERTY was not a standard until after the mechanical limits were surpassed. QWERTY was adopted much later throughout the world, where standardization simply can't be argued.
Although Dvorak was proposed after QWERTY was adopted, similair layouts did compete (and lose) to QWERTY.
microsoft analogy (Score:1)
Why QWERTY *REALLY* won out... (Score:1)
QWERTY was not an immediate standard. Few people knew how to type and virtually every typewriter sold to a business resulted in training. Faster, easier keyboards has plently of opportunity to compete. The mechanical drawbacks of the original QWERTY had already been overcome:
The Blickensderfer used a type-bar configuration similar in principle to the IBM Selectric type ball and, so, could easily offer many different configurations.
QWERTY won on its merits. When the rivals failed, QWERTY was not a standard:
The rival keyboards did ultimately fail, of course.53 But the Qwerty keyboard cannot have been so well established at the time the rival key-boards were first offered that they were rejected because they were non-standard. Manufacturers of typewriters sought and promoted any technical feature that might give them an advantage in the market. Certainly shorter training and greater speed would have been an attractive selling point for a typewriter with an alternative keyboard. Neither can it be said that the rival keyboards were doomed by inferior mechanical characteristics because these companies went on to produce successful and innovative, though Qwerty-based, typing machines. Thus we cannot attribute our inheritance of the Qwerty keyboard to a lack of alternative keyboards or the chance association of this keyboard arrangement with the only mechanically adequate typewriter.
Finally, with no standards or mechanical incentives, QWERTY dominated world markets when it was initially introduced:
We should also take note of the fact that the Qwerty keyboard, although invented in the United States. has become the dominant keyboard throughout the world. Foreign countries, when introduced to typewriters, need not have adopted this keyboard if superior alternatives existed since there would not yet have been any typists trained on Qwerty Yet all other keyboard designs fell before the Qwerty juggernaut.
please question this (Score:1)
The superiority is NOT the myth in question. The fable that Liebowitz and Margolis refute is that the acceptance of QWERTY is a market failure.
In all, it's actually a pretty dry topic outside of economics, but the hacker aspects of Dvorak seems to have really incensed passions.
I would gladly wager that, if better studies are performed, the Dvorak layout will be found objectively better for anyone who touch-types regularly.
Well, I wouldn't take that wager. Dvorak might easily win such a contest. But *until* it does, it doesn't make economic sense for it to be adopted as a new standard.
Further, even if it were superior, the real question is HOW MUCH more superior is it, and HOW MUCH it will cost to convert.
Evidence already exists to suggest that the improvements simply won't be too great over the entire population. QWERTY gained early acceptance while there were plenty of opportunities to produce a "better" system before it became standard, and so it is questionable just how much better Dvorak could be.
Changes in language, the original article argues, are fairly common and do not impose high costs. But changing the definition of an inch could be extremely expensive. To do so, all for marginal and unproven gains, are not economically effecient.
A few facts about the QWERTY/Dvorak debate (Score:1)
True, but the journal article did not do that. It was also a critique of the pro-Dvorak studies and a more thorough consideration of how QWERTY was adopted in the first case.
Of COURSE it's a pain in the ass to relearn how to type. It can take up to a month before people are up to snuff in Dvorak.
Before QWERTY was adopted, virtually every typists was a "new" typist. The "retraining" costs weren't there and if there were incentives to develop layouts that could be taught more quickly. Mechanical failures had been overcome and QWERTY won its merits.
Dvorak spent over 10 YEARS developing the Dvorak layout, under the guise of a study for the Navy. He filmed typists, found the common problems, and fixed them. I'd like to see ONE study that supports the claim that QWERTY is as fast or faster. It just doesn't make sense:
Dvorak had a financial incentive to "prove" his keyboard was better. The Navy tests were not controlled and were most likely cooked. The journal article goes into great detail to get the original studies and critique them.
FACT: Every national typing contest since 1931 has been won by a typist with a Dvorak keyboard.
Typing contests are NOT random samples, but rather self-selected samples (generally of those with an incentive to prove that their method is best).
One of the main reasons is ...
Scientific studies have shown that the most limiting part of typing is being able to translate thought into physical action. The theoretical advantages to Dvorak have not been adequately proven.
FACT: With a QWERTY keyboard, only 30% of your keystrokes will be in the home row.
FACT: With a Dvorak keyboard, over 70% of your keystrokes will be in the home row.
Again, this does not seem to be the major limiting factor to typing speeds.
You can realize for yourself what this means to the average typist.
Nevertheless, it has yet to be proven.
These OSes have a program called xmodmap that makes it simple to switch their keys around.
This doesn't relabel the keys. It doesn't address the fact that no matter what OS you run, you will find yourself at someone else's keyboard. All for advantages that
As for hotkeys, deal with it. It took me about a week to get used to the new keys in vi--they don't have intuitive positions, but realistically, once you get used to them, it doesn't really matter ...
If it doesn't matter where the hot keys are, why does it matter where the other keys are? If the answer is to "get used to it", why bother? Why not "get used to" QWERTY?
NO (Score:1)
Second, the article argues that there is no CLEAR advantage to Dvorak. One should not adopt new technology with evidence that it is superior, and the evidence for Dvorak has been cooked.
I learned both- I prefer Dvorak (Score:2)
I learned Dvorak and QWERTY at the same time, and I can assure you their is a difference.
My father is something of a nerd, and when I learned to type (I was homeschooled/self-taught) he had me learn Dvorak at the same time as QWERTY. To be honest I *could* already type a little QWERTY, but in the neighborhood of 25-30WPM. I spent about equal time each day learning both keyboards. Not only can I type faster today in Dvorak (15+WPM faster), I reached 50WPM *faster* with Dvorak than w/ QWERTY. And I already knew how to touch-type properly on QWERTY, though at a lower speed.
I type in QWERTY about as often as Dvorak by nature of doing about 1/3 of my typing at school where they refuse to let me install Dvorak drivers (darn committees!). However typing in QWERTY still feels awkward to me compared with the freedom Dvorak offers. I can be typing at the same speed on Dvorak & QWERTY and on Dvorak my fingers flick every so often from the home row- where on QWERTY I'm doing serious finger gymnastics over the whole keyboard. I've actually had people notice I was using a different layout 'cause they saw my fingers remained on the home row. If you've ever seen a video of a Dvorak keyboardist and a QWERTY keyboardist typing the same doc in sync (don't ask me how they do this) you would be amazed.
This leads Dvorak to have *FAR* higher accuracy as the majority of typing errors are caused when fingers land improperly on a new row. If you switch rows far less you make fewer errors.
Some people may also be worried about confusing their fingers in typing. I must admit that when I am typing QWERTY I very occasionally mistrike keys (that would have been the correct Dvorak letter). However this probably accounts for less than 5% of my typing errors. I can sit down at a keyboard, be typing full speed in Dvorak, switch the keyboard w/ a three keystrokes (about 2 seconds) and resume typing full speed in QWERTY or vice versa.
My advice- if you currently type QWERTY seriously consider switching. If you know somebody who doesn't really know how to type yet, teach them Dvorak (even if you don't know Dvorak). Use Mavis Beacon, it teaches Dvorak pretty well. They'll thank you for it later. They will inevitably learn QWERTY from daily life, and proper typing technique can be taught as well (or better) with Dvorak as with QWERTY. So in the end they'll know two layouts well, but I'm betting they'll use Dvorak on their home computer!
Just attempted random credibility data (yah, right!), I'm not exactly the fastest typist in the world, but I'm no slug. I type about 95WPM on Dvorak and about 75 on QWERTY. My accuracy on Dvorak is about 98%, my accuracy on Q is lower though I'm not sure of the exact figure.
-Seth N. (snickell@bigfoot.com)
Dvorak: It just feels right.
Unix shell optimized for pessimum keyboard (Score:2)
Just typing 'ls' (r-ring, l-ring to r-pinky+, r-pinky) a half-dozen times killed the joy. vi and other utilities which rely on a "logical" placement of movement keys are utterly broken by Dvorak. Such is the power of lock-in.
That said, I found I had a more natural rhythem using Dvorak for text and documents.
BTW: pessimum = ! optimum. The Yellow Book.
',.pyf or qwerty (Score:2)
I see no reason to argue, it is a matter of personal choice. I use Linux because it is the best for me. Dvorak is supported in almost all OS. My dinosaur 386 supports Dvorak under DOS and Win3.11.
Dvorak tutorials:
http://www.karelia.com/abcd forms based tutorial. This is how I learned.
unix software called dvorak7min uses ncurses to teach you the lessons of karelia's abcd. It is available in
The Economist gets their economics wrong. (Score:2)
The Economist needs some basic lessons in economics, it seems. If the Dvorak layout is indeed more efficient and it is only the cost of retraining that keeps people from adopting it, then the market is not efficient because, clearly, the most efficient technology is not being used.
This argument is only the tip of an iceberg of economic discussion (follow the references from the article). To many economists, the notion that markets cannot be anything but efficient is so ingrained that they try to explain away common sense facts using circular reasoning. "If people use QUERTY, it must be efficient [no matter what experiments may show]." "If people use Windows, it must be the optimal choice [no matter what the technical experts may say]."
As a recent switchee... (Dvorak wins) (Score:2)
1) I haven't had that sore-typing-hands feeling since.
2) Typing on the qwerty keyboard now feels like I'm tying my fingers in knots. Typing on dvorak just "flows".
3) I've gained approximately 15 WPM since switching. My old qwerty rate was approximately 80wpm- with dvorak, I'm up to 95wpm. I've even hit around 120wpm a few times.
4) If anything, my typing is more accurate. I did not track this- however, I certainly haven't lost any accuracy.
5) Yes, I even like it more for programming.
Papers and studies and articles in nonwithstanding, the only way you will ever know if it works for you is to try it. From the web pages I've seen, an overwhelming majority have been pro-dvorak.
Finally, I remember last year reading a very convincing rebuttal to the "Fable of the Keys" article on which this Economist article is largely based. I'll post the URL as a reply here if I can find it again. I've been unsuccessful so far.
Some good links for those who want to see for themselves:
Comparison of Dvorak and Qwerty typing "demons":
http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/Dvorak/demons.ht ml [mit.edu]
Introducing the Dvorak Keyboard:
http://www.ccsi.com/~mbrooks/dvorak
Let Your Fingers Do Less Walking:
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~s ander/mensa/dvorak1.html [davis.ca.us]
RSI: A change is as good as a rest (Score:2)
Because Dvorak use is such a small percentage of the population, RSI injuries due to long-term Dvorak use are, as a total, lower. However, someone with a Dvorak-induced RSI may gain from using a QWERTY keyboard.
(One exception -- folks who don't have their kb's angled properly/at the right height/etc may be more susceptible with a QWERTY keyboard because of the need to move to the upper row more often.)
Mind, all these studies were based on typing English text. C coders are going to have a different pattern of key usage (probaly going for the very top row a lot more often).
okay, but... (Score:2)
Okay. If this were true, how would it be relevant? Meanwhile, if you take a look at the URL posted on this thread from the U. of T. Dallas researchers, you would find that this isn't (or, at least wasn't) true. Good typists who had a vested interest in typing really fast are the people who win (and have won) speed-typing contests. These days, there really aren't very many typing contests, and I would suspect that the only people with a huge interest in entering or winning them are people who sell either "improved" keyboards or "improved" training programs.
Typing-related injuries are definitely a real problem. But, I just checked the recent psychological and medical literature (Psychlit and Medline) for any references to studies that claimed RSIs could be reduced by keyboard layout. I found nothing, although it could be hiding under a different set of keywords than I used.
This is not to say that current keyboards are perfect; Donald Norman, in particular, has noted that one could potentially improve on the typing speed of either QWERTY or Dvorak with other designs. It is also true that until very recently, nobody even thought much about designing keyboards or keyboard layouts to minimize the effect of carpal-tunnel-like injuries. But I would have to be very skeptical about anybody's untested claim that their favorite keyboard reduces typing injuries.
King Babar
Show me the proof (Score:2)
From the article:
and also:You did read before posting, yes?
john.
Dvorak pros and cons (Score:2)
Since when are accidental benefits a justification for bad design?
I decided a while ago that I should switch to Dvorak, after reading about it quite a while. At the time I had developed tendonitis in both my wrists, thanks to the job I was working. I can say that i agree 100%. The Dvorak keyboard *feels* so much easier to to type on. Your hands feel "lazy" almost, compared to the amount of work they do on a QWERTY. I even went so far as to pry all the keys off of my keyboard and rearrange them. All in all it took me about 6 weeks to get up to speed on Dvorak, and I can say that it was a definate improvement over QWERTY. It really felt like there was a plan behind the layout of the keys, instead of feeling like you were accomidating someone's arbitrary decision.
In the end, I had to switch back as my new line of work found me working on different computers all the time, most of which didn't belong to me. It took me about a week and a half to convert back.
Remember to think critically people (Score:2)
Scientific American story on QWERTY (Score:2)
It's about economics, not technical superiority (Score:3)
You'll notice that most articles that say the dvorak layout "isn't worth it" mostly say that it isn't worth the costs of retraining hundreds of people. They do not make the case well against an individual learning dvorak. They point out the fact that the tests of the dvorak keyboard were biased and this is true, but also a large part of the issue up until the last ten years has been that to retool for dvorak would for a business or agency involve scrapping thousands of dollars in QWERTY typewriters and buying new dvorak layout ones. With moderns PCs, remapping one's keyboard layout is trivial.
Now, as for specific technical issues... The QWERTY layout has to it's advantage the fact that the keys are all splayed out, as so that while you are typing one key your fingers can set up to type the next key. While this gets you pretty good speed, it tends to be at the expense of good typing style and in the long run can be absolute hell on your wrists. The dvorak layout tends to induce better typing style because the home row is where the most used keys are - no jumping around the keyboard to hit everything. Just comparing the two keyboards is rather telling - with QWERTY, you can type something like maybe 100 common words using the home row. With dvorak the number is something like 600. Qwerty graces the home row with such useful characters as "j", "k", and the ever-useful ";" - useful for programming perhaps, but the majority of typing I do each day is not code. Analyzing a bit of english for letter frequency and mapping it onto qwerty and dvorak shows commonly used letters all splayed all over with qwerty - with dvorak, the home row is most common, then the top, then the bottom, with the more common letters in the middle and moving out to the edges of the keyboard.
Lastly, ask the average person who has taken the plunge and stayed with it and they will tell you they havn't regretted it at all. It just feels better to type dvorak, and when you try to type quickly on qwerty it just feels like you are moving your hands way too much. Finally, you really aren't risking all that much. You won't lose your precious QWERTY skills when you are forced to use other people's computers - once you can comfortably touch-type dvorak (it takes about 2 weeks) going between QWERTY and dvorak takes very little effort - for example, I only use dvorak in X. At the console, it's qwerty all the way. Often when I'm playing a game or doing something where key position matters and I'm not touch-typing I'll switch back to QWERTY because that's what the key labels still say on my keyboard :)
If you've been sold on the wonders of dvorak, check out my page [umass.edu] which has an xmodmap file to load a dvorak mapping (it also has some tweaked-out shifting bits - Super, Meta and Hyper baby! :)
This bit of unabashed dvorak advocacy was typed on a dvorak keyboard
Dvorak pros and cons (Score:3)
The best thing about dvorak off the bat wasn't any type of speed increase (though I KNOW that if I stuck with it I would have gotten much faster because it's so easy to type on), but the fact that my hands didn't hurt at all anymore. You don't really move your hands around like a QWERTY.. it's pretty crazy how far your hands jump around the keyboard on a QWERTY. In dvorak, the home row has all the vowels and major consonants, and you'd be surprised how many entire words you form just by typing along the home row without even moving your hands!
As for the cons, there were a few. First of all, if I wanted to use dvorak anywhere but home, I had to setup the computer to be dvorak (not a big deal, but a pain no less). Also, if I left it on dvorak and didn't switch it back to QWERTY, oh man were people scared then!
However, the MAIN drawback to dvorak has got to be hotkeys. My hands were so used to key combinations in programs and things such as copy and paste that didn't make sense after dvorak. Ctrl-Z is undo, and is a very easy one-handed key combo. With dvorak (if I remember correctly) it's a little more out of the way. This was the main thing that brought me back to qwerty, among the other small things. If dvorak was everywhere and well supported, however, I'd be very happy.
P.S. - The best trick I would do with my dvorak typing skill would to open up notepad and tell someone "Hey you! Type something!".. of course they'd jump away from the computer once they realized the keys were all messed up. Then I'd just go over and type like it was no big deal, and it would really freak em out
A few facts about the QWERTY/Dvorak debate (Score:3)
Dvorak is superior to QWERTY in almost all respects, and the ONLY drawbacks are due to the commonness of the QWERTY layout.
A very interesting article, but flawed. You can't judge the QWERTY/Dvorak debate solely on Economic grounds. Of COURSE it's a pain in the ass to relearn how to type. It can take up to a month before people are up to snuff in Dvorak (it depends on how much you have QWERTY ingrained--i.e., how much you look at the keys, how much you type words instead of letters (that is, you don't think "d-o-g-" when you type, you just think "dog"), etc.).
Dvorak spent over 10 YEARS developing the Dvorak layout, under the guise of a study for the Navy. He filmed typists, found the common problems, and fixed them. I'd like to see ONE study that supports the claim that QWERTY is as fast or faster. It just doesn't make sense:
FACT: Every national typing contest since 1931 has been won by a typist with a Dvorak keyboard.
One of the main reasons is that to execute extremely fast typing (I can do over 150 WPM in QWERTY, no joke), typists form "chords". For examle, to type "the dog" in QWERTY, a fast typist will place his or her fingers over all of the aforementioned keys and then just hit the keys in sequence. This is MUCH easier to do in Dvorak. Here is the Dvorak home row:
A O E U I D H T N S -
So to form a chord for "the dog", you only have to move off the home row for the G. You only move your hands off the home KEYS for the D and G, in fact. This is inherently better than QWERTY. Just watch your hands when you type either. QWERTY is ridiculous.
FACT: With a QWERTY keyboard, only 30% of your keystrokes will be in the home row.
FACT: With a Dvorak keyboard, over 70% of your keystrokes will be in the home row.
You can realize for yourself what this means to the average typist.
There are some disadvantages that others have pointed out. Leaving a keyboard in Dvorak will mess up friends who use your computer. Hotkeys are all messed up. Switching can be a pain in the ass.
But all of these are easily solvable. I run Linux, and I'd guess that a fair number of /. readers use some form of unixish OS. These OSes have a program called xmodmap that makes it simple to switch their keys around. So in my .login, I run "xmodmap $HOME/keyboard/linux.dvorak" (I also have files for Sun and SGI keyboards). This means that others can login to my computer with no problems. The keyboard itself is a QWERTY layout (I love the macro keys on Gateway 2000 keyboards). All the translation is done in software.
As for hotkeys, deal with it. It took me about a week to get used to the new keys in vi--they don't have intuitive positions, but realistically, once you get used to them, it doesn't really matter where the keys are. And if stuff like that really bothers you, hack the programs to change the hotkeys--it's pretty simple.
Switching back and forth will blow your mind the first few times you do it. As it is, I type Dvorak on every computer I log into, but if I am trying to fix something for someone, I will have to type QWERTY more than likely (I haven't managed to convince anyone to switch).
I liken switching from Dvorak to QWERTY to programming in several languages. It doesn't take me 10 seconds to forget everything I know about Perl and start coding in C, and the same goes for the other 10 languages I know--I never get confused, even though several of the languages have similar syntax (Java vs. C++, etc).
But I didn't intend this text to extoll the virtues of Dvorak and beat down the evil QWERTY. It's pretty obvious that Dvorak will stay where it is for some time until there is a sweeping revolution in the keyboard. We can't simply replace the keyboards in our schools with Dvorak because the teachers will refuse. Even if we did, the children who learned to type on these keyboards will only be able to type decently on these keyboards, and will be utterly confused elsewhere. I think the best compromise (at least until QWERTY/Dvorak hardware switchable keyboards are prevalent) is to have everyone learn QWERTY (because it's the most prevalent) *AND* Dvorak.
But enough ranting...
URLs with More Details (Score:4)