New Standard Keyboard

An anonymous reader writes "There are two keyboard standards today - QWERTY and DVORAK. QWERTY, the one we usually have, was used on the first commercially produced typewriter in 1873. Ironically, QWERTY was actually designed to slow down the typist to prevent jamming the keys, and we've been stuck with that layout since. New Standard Keyboards offers new "alphabetical" keyboard. This keyboard has just 53-keys (instead of 101) and offers user-friendly benefits and quick data entry."

Comments

Ironically, that story isn't true

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop perpetuating myths.

Dvorak made up that story as marketing for the keyboard design he hoped to profit from. And, could they have made that new keyboard any uglier?

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[Trogre]

No, it's just a half-truth. The keys were placed such that the hammers were statistically less likely to jam, even if the monks typed at the same speed.

Nobody really denies that Qwerty is an inefficient layout. At least nobody who has done their homework. There are many studies comparing wpm speeds of people proficient in both Qwerty and Dvorak that show the clear advantage of the latter. I'll leave finding them as an exercise to the reader (read: I'm too lazy to look them up right now).

So let's use a keyboard designed for people, not machines, shall we?

(by that I mean Dvorak, not the monstrosity cited in this article)

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[CodeSniper]

How can anybody expect to believe you when two of the three links you cited were authored by the same people, and the other link was simply a news article about their work.
Get some real references.

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[Anonymous Coward]

Trogre could have all the energy and ambition in the world, and he STILL wouldn't find any studies showing a "clear advantage" to the Dvorak keyboard. That's because such studies do not exist, despite the urban legends to the contrary. The work of Liebowitz and Margolis, cited above, makes this abundantly clear. The two economists thoroughly researched the entire Dvorak saga, and discovered that all of the things people like Trogre have heard about the Dvorak keyboard simply are not true. Most, in fact, have their origins in propaganda from Dvorak himself. No serious objective tests of the two keyboards found any substantial difference between them.

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I ldve kearniny ti typo wuth Dvosak!

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[GreyWolf3000]

Much of the arguments about dvorak versus qwerty have to do with typing speed--as a dvorak user, I must contend that the greatest advantage is that my fingers don't hurt after 30 minutes of solid typing.

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[PaulBu]

There are many studies comparing wpm speeds of people proficient in both Qwerty and Dvorak that show the clear advantage of the latter.

Sorry, did not have time to read through all three linked articles, but did read the Reason one (due to the fact that I do trust the sourse) and one of its main punches was the UN-SCIENTIFIC ways those studies were conducted. And, unfortunately, in your comment you do show the same attitude of referencing "numerous studies" without considering what could go wrong with them.

Think about it in programmer's terms: ok, there is
this language called, say, "BigBigSea" which noone spends proper time to learn, but most everyone knows a bit and can handle (some can get really good at it). And then there is this new language called "Tea", and you did learn it, one of the early adopters... Would not you swear that since you've learned it your productivity increased 10-fold? Even when people would try to put a bit of a study together, you would sub-consciously give your old skill a disadvantage to provide advantage to your new skill, which can move you up in the food chain?

Paul B.

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[orzetto]

No, it's just a half-truth.

I think that it is simply unclear how they projected it. It was the nineteenth century after all, and some weird ideas were followed: eg, you can type typewriter with just keys on the top row (I read this was intended, for what reasons I'm not sure). Probably it was some trial and error, and they came with an half-baked design.

Oh, the exercise to the reader, yes: here is a Guinness record.

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[happyemoticon]

I can type at about 100wpm on a qwerty (well, with relatively spotty accuracy). This is because my mother forced me to do Mavis Beacon, as her father had forced her to memorize the layout of a qwerty and play-type even before they had enough money to buy a typewriter for the children to use. Also, I think EFNet owns some of the blame in this case.

The problem is, nobody can think at 100 words per minute. The only person who would ever need to type that fast would probably be a professional stenographer. Transcription and "typing pool" work is really on the outs, and if it's not, it damn well should be. I certainly can't think -- can't think WELL -- at 100 words per minute. I'd rather not learn a whole different standard which is fast, but, practically speaking, useless, just like I'd rather not own a DB7 Vantage when the Autoban is an ocean away.

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[Wavicle]

The work of Liebowitz and Margolis, cited above, makes this abundantly clear.

The study by Liebowitz and Margolis depend heavily on two assumptions:

1) Dvorak's studies were self-serving and therefore suspicious.
2) Strong's studies were well controlled.

The first is kind of hard to argue, as the studies were self-serving. However, Strong's studies were NOT well controlled.

Don't believe me? Try getting the original material of Strong's research to verify his claims. You can't. Know why? Strong destroyed the material. If Strong's studies were well controlled, why did he shred his research when people started asking about it?

So in "researching the entire Dvorak saga", the two economists failed to even mention that Strong's research, which they use as the fundamental support of their argument, may be seriously flawed. At the very least we cannot take it at face value since we cannot analyze the data ourselves. In fact, Strong was not objective at all, from the very beginning he intended to show that any speed up with Dvorak is sufficiently small that retraining the Navy's typists would be impractical. So why did these economists overlook this fact? Well, they were themselves trying to argue that the market always picks the best solution.

Keep this in mind when you think about window's dominance in the market, or any other product that rose to the top through whatever questionable means. The paper in which these two economists wrote about Dvorak not being better than Qwerty was actually a paper in which they were saying "The market always chooses the best option." The keyboards were just the whipping boy they chose to use.

So which serious objective tests between the two keyboards have there been?

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[Entrope]

Liebowitz and Margolis's articles mention other studies (by Western Electric and Oregon State University) that are in line with Strong's results but not with Dvorak's results. They mention a study by two people at the IBM Research Laboratory (and several other unidentified studies) that found no keyboard with clear advantage over QWERTY. The named studies do not appear to be online.

The reports that Strong was biased and refused to provide his raw data come from another Dvorak disciple (Hisao Yamada), who later published other defenses of the Dvorak layout and was not above using odd analyses to interpret data as being in Dvorak's favor. Not exactly a sterling source.

Complaining that Windows (or QWERTY) won the market instead of your favorite is petty: free markets are pretty efficient, and if the benefits were as significant as you seem to think, somebody would have switched and saved a bundle in the long run.

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[bergwitz]

...which they were saying "The market always chooses the best option."

Right on track you are. That's the real issue: does markets always choose the best tech? Or does tech-development follow paths which are chosen more or less accidentaly. There are stronger cases for this than the qwerty-story with a simple example's beeing the best.

Take a hypothetical story of a 10 year-old trying to deceide whether he should buy a X-BOX or a PS2. They're at approx the same price in the shop he visits and for some reason he chooses XBOX (he likes the green X). Then his friend is also to buy a game console. If the friend buys an XBOX he could borrow games from the first buyer whereas with a PS2 he has to buy all his games himself. What kind of console will these guys' classmates probably buy? The whole class is quite soon in a lock-in on XBOX. Does this make XBOX better than PS2?

Transfer this scenario into companies deceiding which console they should produce games for and you have a theory of economic behaviour. There are of course many more factors at work, but still there is some truth in this theory.

Slashdotter's may also notice that Liebowitz and Margolis has some interesting claims:"The pair also take aim at the VHS-Beta story. VHS won that battle, they say, because it could tape for twice as long, something consumers clearly wanted. Similarly, they note that DOS computers caught on because they were markedly less expensive than Apple's."(from the WSJ link above)
The availability of more videos (and porn) on the VHS format didn't affect VHS's market victory? Microsoft's market tactics had no effect on the lock-in on DOS and later Windows?

They also argue: "What's more, while today's personal computers can easily be reprogrammed to the Dvorak layout, few people do."

I wonder why? You may also use Firefox instead of IE, use a mail program which doesn't spread viruses as default behaviour, etc.

So which serious objective tests between the two keyboards have there been?
Not objective, but at least to be taken seriously.
Anti-Dvorak Crusaders
Keytime

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[nanoakron]

Just the proof that Letterman is a turd.

-Nano.

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[jacoby]

There is a clearn advantage to a Dvorak keyboard. I have one on my box at home. It has a clutch, making it switchable between Qwerty and Dvorak. My wife, an outstanding typist, refuses to even think about using it, thus keeping people away. Advantage: Dvorak

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[fuzzix]

The work of Liebowitz and Margolis, cited above, makes this abundantly clear. The two economists thoroughly researched the entire Dvorak saga, and discovered that all of the things people like Trogre have heard about the Dvorak keyboard simply are not true.

I would argue that both sides of the argument (Dvarok vs Liebowitz and Margolis) had something to gain by proving their point - Liebowitz and Margolis needed to debunk the idea that economic factors lead to random take-up of technologies regardless of quality/suitability just as much as Dvorak wanted to propagandise his new keyboard layout. It's in the interest of Liebowitz and Margolis to make economics sound good because they are... *drumroll* ...economists! You don't get priests and preachers standing up in the pulpit on Sunday encouraging open and frank discussions on the inconsistencies in biblical texts just as you don't hear your average economist debunking economic theory - they want to hang on to their jobs.

That said, can you guess which layout I use? I hate to admit I'm wrong :-)

In my own experience I must say I prefer Dvorak's layout - it's not perfect, but it's better. The simple idea of having the most commonly used consonants and the vowels on the home keys... why didn't that smack anybody in the face before? I didn't place my hands an the home keys when I used QWERTY - it didn't make sense to me to do so. Now I do as that's where it makes most sense for my hands to rest.

It's not all good - typos are weird (I get a lot of mexid vewols). Configuration can be a pain (some Linux distros do NOT work well with alternative layouts). Other people's computers make you look brand new, hunting and pecking, but on the upside nobody wants to use your computer :-).

I'll agree that it's not for everybody, but for those of you willing to put up with the slight annoyances the benefits are plain to see.

Re:Ironically, that story isn't true

[Bob Uhl]

Complaining that Windows (or QWERTY) won the market instead of your favorite is petty: free markets are pretty efficient, and if the benefits were as significant as you seem to think, somebody would have switched and saved a bundle in the long run.

True enough: for what it did at the price it cost, Windows was the better choice for most people for a long time (the Macintosh was a far better machine with a far better OS, but it cost far too much at the time). And now the free market is choosing another OS: GNU/X/perl/python/BSD/Linux. This one is even better than before, at an even better price.

favorite keyboard

[ch-chuck]

is this one

Re:favorite keyboard

[Deathanatos]

Wait, this wasn't your favorite keyboard?

Re:favorite keyboard

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

I've seen things that wired this into one single button for restarting a controller. Was a pretty scary thought.

Pressing Cntl alt del is so much easier when its one button.

Product won't fly, details scarce

[fname]

This story needs some more details. The website is a re-hash of the press release and appears to be a naked grab to get some adsense revenue. Not to mention that details on the product itself is scarce, and it takes a lot of digging to figure out that this keyboard doesn't even have dedicated number keys. Nice idea, no story yet.

Here's a close-up picture.

Re:Product won't fly, details scarce

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the product won't fly. /.ers have been complaining about 1 less button on the Apple mouse. Imagine the uproar over 48 less keys on a keyboard.

The QWERTY Rumor

[ewithrow]

From http://www.chicagologic.com/QWERTYrumor.htm --

A long-lived rumor is that typewriter inventor Christopher Sholes arranged the letters in the QWERTY layout to slow down the typist.

If this were true, he would have located popular letters such as "A" and "S" at the far corners of the keyboard and located unpopular letters like "Q", "Z", and "X" under your fingertips, right where you don't need them. Looking at the PC (QWERTY) keyboard shows us that, in fact, the opposite is true.

What really happened was Mr. Sholes varied from his original alphabetic layout* when he placed commonly used pairs of letters such as "sh", "ck", "th", "pr", etc. on alternating sides of the keyboard to reduce jamming of the typewriter's swing-arms.

This design change actually had the bonus effect of speeding up typing by letting the user alternate hands more often - think drum roll.

A 1953 U.S. General Services Administration study of the QWERTY keyboard and it's only serious challenger, the DVORAK keyboard, found no appreciable typing speed difference between the two keyboards. Fingers travel less distance on the DVORAK layout, but additional alternating-hand keystrokes speed up the QWERTY layout. The result - a draw.

The fact is, QWERTY works and it works quite well.

* You can see remnants of Mr. Sholes original alphabetic layout in the QWERTY layout, namely the keys "FGHJKL".

Re: The QWERTY Rumor

[alaivfc]

Why is it then that the world's fastest typists' use DVORAK? For instance: http://sominfo.syr.edu/facstaff/dvorak/blackburn.h tml

Plus, this post misses one of the key advantages of DVORAK: It reduces the various hand/arm injuries typing causes because you don't have to move your fingers as far.

Have you ever tried typing DVORAK? You'll quickly realize that its much, much easier on the hands.

Re: The QWERTY Rumor

[IO ERROR]

QWERTY is also the cause of these pains in my left hand.

And here is some nice debunking of other myths about Dvorak, including that GSA study you cited.

Re: The QWERTY Rumor

[trh]

Read this article (specifically, looking at the graphs) before you say anything. Then, determine if "... additional alternating-hand keystrokes speed up the QWERTY layout." I think you'll find that this is simply not the case. Once I show people this article and specifically, the charts, they know why I use Dvorak...

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~shipman/ergo/parkinson. ht ml

Re: The QWERTY Rumor

[pHatidic]

Yes the submitter definetly fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. Not only is what what he said about QWERTY wrong, but he gives no reason for why to use the new keyboard over Dvorak. I have been using Dvorak for years now and would never go back, let alone try some shitty patented keyboard designed for hunt-n-peck folks.

Re: The QWERTY Rumor

[Jerf]

The fact is, QWERTY works and it works quite well.

Yes it does.

That would be its primary problem.

There is nothing like trying to get people out of a local opitma, even if it is sending them towards disaster. It's like trying to quit smoking; you know it will lead to a better life, but the current cost of a cigarette is so minimal, and the current pleasure of it so high.

QWERTY won't kill your hand in ten minutes or ten days. More like ten years. For some people, maybe even never. But for others, much sooner. I for one would prefer to never get RSI, and I decided after I experienced what turned out to be a false alarm that I never wanted to experience the real thing. Unfortunately, no science has been done in this domain to my knowledge so we are on our own with anecdotes. I note, however, that while I have heard many "I switched from QWERTY to DVORAK and my pain got better" stories, I have never heard an "I switched to DVORAK and my pain got worse until I went back to QWERTY". (People with that story are invited to comment and tell it, please!)

DVORAK probably isn't an answer to all the problems, but it helps a lot. You really do move your hands a lot less. As a secondary result, you will also find yourself actually touchtyping; all my life my hands were always wandering with QWERTY, now they don't, because they don't have to; wandering hands always "wander" into sub-optimal positions, which if you think about it ought to be a characteristic of a properly designed keyboard layout.

It's also about the only ergonomic thing you can do to a laptop.

For most of us non-competitive typer types, i.e., probably all but maybe one person reading this post, speed isn't a reason to move to Dvorak. But comfort is. This is so much nicer; the gain-per-minute is small, but I still plan to put a lot more minutes in front of a keyboard.

Re: The QWERTY Rumor

[johnlcallaway]

Opps...never mind....i guess when one hasn't used one for 20 or so years it's easy to get confused. Either that or the mind just goes ....

Re: The QWERTY Rumor

[GlenRaphael]

Have you ever tried typing DVORAK? You'll quickly realize that its much, much easier on the hands.

I tried typing Dvorak. Used a typing tutor, remapped my keyboard at work and home, the whole works. After a few months, I was still slower and making more errors on dvorak than I had been on qwerty. And I couldn't use vi productively. I gave up and went back to qwerty.

The main way dvorak was "easier on the hands" for me was that it forced me to type slower. Other than that, I didn't really notice a difference.

I suspect 90% of the gain for people who notice a gain is that switching layouts forces them to train to a degree they hadn't recently (or perhaps ever) done and to pay more attention to their typing and hand position.

Re: The QWERTY Rumor

[mrsbrisby]

_I_ use QWERTY to avoid hand/wrist pains.

I am a capable DVORAK typist (0%err.approx. 45-55 wpm), and an excellent QWERTY typist (0%err.approx. 80-95 wpm).

I also suffer from incredible wrist and forearm pains from typing too long (or too fast).

Other hackers should be able to attest to this: under a good hacking session, that "0% error approximate" typing rate can go up quite a bit. I've had bursts of 5-12 minutes of well over 120wpm, with zero error.

I try and minimize those moments (when I notice they are happening) because it usually means my forearms are about to swell up and my wrists are about to stop responding without severe pains.

At first, when I was learning DVORAK I never had any pains- but I assumed this was because of the low typing speed, and in a way, I was right.

As I started picking up speed (and entering hack-mode in DVORAK), I noticed the pains coming. But even while barely reaching 45wpm in DVORAK, it was still hurting in about the same amount of time as my 85wpm QWERTY.

You see, when typing DVORAK, my hands certainly don't do much travelling, but I end up with enormous bias- using my left hand for several characters in a row, then getting a single right-hand key, before going back to the left hand. This lack of hand-travel definately contributed to learning how to type DVORAK very quickly.

When using QWERTY, on the other hand, my hands do MORE travelling (more still because of vi's escape-key fetish) but I find I'm using both hands more evenly. I've noticed that hand travel (however) doesn't stop my typing; i.e. my left hand will travel while my right is still typing.

Some say I can improve my DVORAK speed, and surely I know many folks that say their highest DVORAK speed is higher than their highest QWERTY speed. I also know of many more who haven't found any discernable difference in "top speed".

But note that I'm deliberately keeping my QWERTY speed down, as going MUCH too fast accelerates the pains.

Since DVORAK "hurts" at 50wpm where QWERTY "hurts" at 90wpm, I think it's easy to see why I use QWERTY to avoid hand/wrist pains.

Re: The QWERTY Rumor

[DragonGolem]

DVORAK probably isn't an answer to all the problems, but it helps a lot. You really do move your hands a lot less.

Agreed.

After seeing all the rumors, counter-rumors etc. about Dvorak being faster, I tried it for myself. After about 5 months of not-really-intensive training (an hour a day or less), I'm at about 90% of my original QWERTY top speed, with very small improvements suggesting I might top out at 100% or maybe a little faster. Switching back and forth at will is not a problem.

But the real benefit is less wasted movement. That part has never been disputed, and it translates directly to greater comfort.

To the grandparent post, having letter combinations like "sh", "th", "wh", "ou", etc on alternating hands (as they are in QWERTY) is fast, but I would argue that having them on the same hand as in a 'strumming' pattern (as they are in Dvorak) is possibly even faster, and can be done with about the least hand movement you can imagine.

The only real complaint I have with Dvorak is how much it is NOT suited to coding. Most of the symbols, e.g. []{}=\/+<> have all been rearranged and some have been placed even farther out of the way. And of course the standard keyboard shortcuts, but that has been addressed in other posts.

Re: The QWERTY Rumor

[alexq]

I know I have an unpopular and unusual opinion on this, but I also believe there is something to be said for it..

I never learned to touch-type properly - but I have been typing since I was about 5 years old (it's been decades since then). I can touch type now - but my "home configuration" has nothing to do with the traditional home rows - which I honestly do believe are ergonomically bad in design. The "home position" of my hands actually looks a lot like the position they would be in on an ergonomic keyboard -- slightly rotated.

(This means my gibberish doesn't look like adjlfhdlsfjl.. It looks like sdaopmeqcqwmwq)

If I try, I can touch-type over 100 words per minute (never timed it accurately), which is not a bad rate..

I'm not sure if I am an exception rather than a potential rule - being a musician, I am used to having my hands/fingers be somewhere very quickly without looking - but there is very little hand movement as I'm typing this.

Anyway, what I am suggesting is that perhaps the qwerty layout isn't at fault - that maybe it's the way we are taught to use it.

(Incidentally, I liked the post above mine, somewhere, about the alternating-hand advantage of qwerty... )

Origins of the new keyboard

[Indy Media Watch]

The new keyboard layout was designed such that computer salesmen of poor typing skills could type TUBGIRL with one hand, all along the same row of letters.

Unfortunately this did not stop the keys getting sticky.

Difficulty of change

[Staplerh]

The problem with new keyboards is the pervasiveness of the QWERTY system. One has to run a cost/benefit analysis of replacing QWERTY keyboards - be it with the DVORAK or this new alphabetical version. Many computer users are experts with the QWERTY layout, and can have a high amount of wpm (words per minute). Perhaps, if one switches, the benefit will result in a higher wpm achieved - but there will be quite the learning curve.

You'd have to institute it with people starting to use computers, because it'd be organizational suicide to replace QWERTY w/ DVORAK/alphabetical due to the steep learning curve and the resistance to change.

Personally, I'm great with a QWERTY keyboard, even knowing that it is designed to be an inefficient system and would never change to an alphanumerical keyboard, despite the ultimate benefits. Shortsighted perhaps, but I don't see the benefit to the steep learning curve. I'm willing to bet that many organizations won't be willing to make that step either.

Re:Difficulty of change

[cgenman]

To replace the QWERTY keyboard, one must offer something not only substantially better, but substantially better by an order of magnitude. Voice input might be it, once it's faster and all of the bugs are ironed out. Thought input might be faster still. You could also just moniter the nerves in a particular complex, like the inpulses through the arms to the fingers, and register that. All of these would be an order of magnitude faster, and perhaps more intuitive.

Just another keyboard layout, however, won't cut it. I learned Dvorak in college, and actually got as good typing Dvorak as I had been typing Qwerty. However, no matter where I went I was constantly running into Qwerty keyboards, and while I was learning Dvorak my Qwerty speeds went down significantly. Even if I could master Dvorak, it would bring my overall average typing speed down because everyone has a Qwerty. I switched back, and my typing speeds went back up.

Offer a truly revolutionary interface paradigm, or give up your illusions about changing the world.

Re:Difficulty of change

[notsoclever]

I tried switching to Dvorak a few years ago to help with my carpal tunnel. It just gave me headaches to have to keep on remapping my brain (particularly when using other peoples' keyboards), and as soon as I got up to 35WPM or so my wrist pains just came back anyway.

Re:Difficulty of change

[agusus]

It's not as hard to switch as you think. (on an individual basis; yes, a whole organization would be hard, and stupid).

I learned dvorak over the summer a few years ago, and was up to 30-40 wpm after a week, and at 60-70 within a month (and that's more than enough to do your work efficiently). After a couple more months I was back at ~80-90.

I don't know if qwerty vs dvorak has a speed difference, and it really doesn't matter. I switched to dvorak because my fingers travel noticeably less, and this seems to have helped reduce cramping and tendonitis that I used to get.

Re:Difficulty of change

[Coryoth]

The other problem with switching over to Dvorak is most common keyboard shortcuts aren't so convenient anymore.

Just use Emacs. Sure some keyboard shortcuts will be harder to reach, but some will be easier to reach. By using every possible key combination for something Emacs ensures that you're no worse off no matter what keyboard layout you choose.

Jedidiah.

Re:Difficulty of change

[Leo McGarry]

Have you ever heard of "Put That There?" It was a project at the Media Lab back in, I guess, the 80s that combined voice recognition with a gestural interface. The origin of the name should be obvious: The system's killer demo involved a guy sitting in front of a screen, pointing to a thing, saying "Put that," then pointing somewhere else and saying "there."

At the time, the system was slow and primitive, but more importantly it was big. It had a big-ass projection screen and multiple cameras, and I think the operator had to wear a glove. Very impractical.

Ironically, today we have basically everything we need to make a system like "Put That There" work. If you've got a Mac with an iSight camera, all you really need to add is software.

Anybody seen ToySight? We're already there. We just need to tweak the software a little bit.

Of course, something like "Put That There" would not be useful for actual input. Natural language recognition is a neat idea, but there are some very good arguments that imply that it'll never be good enough to supplant typing. So who the heck knows.

Re:Difficulty of change

[Hognoxious]

Voice input might be it, once it's faster and all of the bugs are ironed out.

Leaving aside how bloody noisy, I suggest you ask someone (such as a teacher or actor) just how hard it is to speak clearly for several hours a day. It may get rid of carpal tunnel syndrome, only to to replace it with some other ailment - viavoice voicebox, perhaps?
And faster? I doubt it could ever go faster than people can speak. By people I mean people who aren't horse racing commentators.

Offer a truly revolutionary interface paradigm

BINGO!

Re:Difficulty of change

[Thomas Miconi]

Thought input might be faster still.

Dear sir, after our recent discussion I am writing to you to tell you that you are a complete moron wait no that's not what I meant wait stop it suptid machine stop it now sob why am I not a train driver mommy mommy sob

Thomas-

Re:Difficulty of change

[This Is Ridiculous]

I've tried using speech-recognition programs. They worked adequately after I went through training, and performed well on my computer, but I found that I could type a lot faster than I could speak.

Besides, a lot of what I type is Perl code. Could you imagine speaking that? "dollar-sign e-mail space equals tilde space S slash carrot left-square-bracket backslash W dot plus minus right-square-bracket plus at-sign left-square-bracket backslash W dot minus right-square-bracket dollar-sign slash space or space die space double-quote capital invalid space e dash mail space address double-quote semicolon..."

where's the space bar?

[Neo-Rio-101]

Have you seen this thing? Since when did FisherPrice start making keyboards?

And where's the space bar?!

Re:where's the space bar?

[LoztInSpace]

I thought it was designed to blend in with the Windows XP scheme.

From the article

[bdesham]

After 130 years of typing the same way the keyboard has finally grown up.

Which is why it looks like it was designed by Fisher-Price?

keyboard "standards"

[mschaffer]

There is only one "standard" keyboard (QWERTY) and everything else.

And until there is something that is easy enough to learn without any practice, I doubt that anything will replace QWERTY.

What is this, PR-Newswire-Blog?

[SuperBanana]

Why does the "Tech-Blog" have no author and read exactly like a corporate press release, trying to cram down my throat why I NEED this keyboard?

It's probably some of the most blatant advertising copy I've read in quite a while. At least have some subtlety to get your product "reviewed" by one of the tech magazines or something...

No thanks

[Skidge]

From the article: After 130 years of typing the same way the keyboard has finally grown up.

Alphabetizing the keys and giving it a garish Fisher-Price color scheme does not make a keyboard grown up. One of the benefits of a QWERTY keyboard is that a good deal of typing is done with keystrokes alternating between the hands, speeding things up quite a bit. Alphabetical keys may make it easier for "hunt and peck typists as well as senior citizens who have never had a computer because they are challenged by the difficult basic keyboard," but it is far from becoming a standard, since the layout is very inefficient for a touch typist.

This article really reads like a marketing press release.

Re:No thanks

[La Camiseta]

Maybe because it is.

Re:No thanks

[jdreed1024]

This article really reads like a marketing press release.

And a stupid one, at that. Particularly the bit about senior citizens. I've worked with quite a few senior citizens - getting them to "learn computers" (ie: word processing). The hardest part is familiarizing them with the mouse (particularly double-clicking, right-clicking, and dragging), and with concepts such as cutting and pasting. The keyboard was the easiest part, since it was the most familiar to them -- aside from some extra keys, it was basically a typewriter.

Keyboard layout not slowing me down.

[shitdrummer]

I find it's not the keyboard layout that slows me down, but rather the speed of my fingers. I can type pretty fast, but until someone comes up with a keyboard layout that includes multiple letter keys (e.g. qu, the, to etc) then I can't see how I would be able to type any faster.

Even number entry is very quick and easy. I just can't see how a new keyboard layout would change typing speed dramatically.

Shitdrummer.

Horrible, just horrible

[Trogre]

Current keyboards do have problems, but this *ahem* example just throws out the baby with the bathwater.

One of the biggest problems with the current AT-keyboard layout is the ordering
of digits on the numeric keypad.

I mean, damn near every other keypad in existance begins with 1 at the top left and works its way down to 9 at the bottom right (think telephone, ATM, eftpos terminal, security keypad).

But for some unfathomable reason the AT keyboard standard has transposed the top and bottom rows, so you get 1 at the bottom left and 9 at the top right, making it much more difficult to master data entry.

Which of these looks more familiar:

1 2 3 7 8 9
4 5 6 4 5 6
7 8 9 1 2 3
0 . 0 .

I'm betting most will pick the former, since the pattern in the latter is much less recognizable if it's not shown in the context of a computer keyboard.

Re:Horrible, just horrible

[Skidge]

Heh, I had a problem one day where I had to type in my ATM PIN using an AT-keyboard style number pad that was on a card swiper. I could not for the life of me remember what the PIN was, because the number pad was upside down compared to the one on the ATM. My PIN seemed to be stored in muscle memory rather than brain memory. My friends were disappointed when I came out of the liquor store empty handed. :)

Re:Horrible, just horrible

[quacking duck]

But for some unfathomable reason the AT keyboard standard has transposed the top and bottom rows...

Unfathomable? Take one look at a calculator and it instantly becomes obvious. I can't say for certain since it predates my time, but I'll bet tape calculators used by accountants existed for some time before the numeric keypad was standard on keyboards.

Once that happened, it was far more logical to model the keypad after the calculator pad, since you're more likely to be punching in numbers in a spreadsheet, than punching in phone numbers into the computer.

Re:Horrible, just horrible

[Dun Malg]

One of the biggest problems with the current AT-keyboard layout is the ordering of digits on the numeric keypad.

I mean, damn near every other keypad in existance begins with 1 at the top left and works its way down to 9 at the bottom right (think telephone, ATM, eftpos terminal, security keypad).

What it comes down to is that there are two original progenitors of keypad layouts. The ones you list all go back to Bell Labs design for the Touch-Tone(tm) phone keypad. They even spent a fairly good chunk of change testing for which was more efficient. The results were that for dialing phone numbers, the "123" pad was faster, even for people who were experienced 10-key ("789" keypad) users. The reason is actually quite simple. 10-key is generally used for financial data entry, so the most commonly entered digits (0 and 1) are placed close together where they are easier to hit without looking (some proprioception issue there-- the exact explaination why eludes me). As the 0 is under the thumb, that means the 1 has to be in the bottom row to be close to it. Thus the bottom-up layout.

Dialing telephone numbers, however, isn't something that's done repeatedly. Almost nobody dials a phone by touch*; rather, they look at the dial pad to guide their fingers. The "123" layout is better suited to visual navigation because we're already trained to read from left to right, top to bottom.

Computer keyboards still use the 10-key style layout because the primary use for the keypad is still the same as its ancestors, the calculator and adding machine. Changing it to the telephone-style layout makes no sense as there's already an even easier to use "visual navigation" set of number keys above the letters.

* after 10 years of programming names and numbers into phone systems via the keypad, I actually no longer look at the phone keypad as I use it; but I've only ever noticed that skill in phone techs who install systems.

Re:Horrible, just horrible

[Tablizer]

I had a problem one day where I had to type in my ATM PIN using an AT-keyboard style number pad that was on a card swiper. I could not for the life of me remember what the PIN was, because the number pad was upside down..... My friends were disappointed when I came out of the liquor store empty handed.

Just have your buddies hold you upside down. It is a liquor store, so nobody will give such odd behavior a second thought.

More info

[IO ERROR]

More info about this keyboard:

Original press release
Engadget reivew
From the CES show

My problem with this so far is that the alphabetical layout is about as bad for your wrists as QWERTY. And I type too many numbers and symbols to seriously consider this type of keyboard.

Not to mention it has a Windows XP ^W^W Fisher Price theme.

And there's....

[sepluv]

the PLUM keyboard (similar idea).

Re:And there's....

[complete loony]

Perfect for all those times you want to write "Dont read this plum". Yeah that happens to me all the time.

Fewer keys a step back in useability for many

[Eravnrekaree]

For many, including me, having to use a keyboard with fewer keys would actually be a step backwards. I like to have a lot of extra keys that I can map to do interesting things and special function keys, these are great timesavers. I often look for keyboards that have more keys, not less, Ive had a keyboard from Gateway 2000 from years ago which allowed you to remap the keys on the keyboard and had several extra keys which I found quite useful. Often it is nice to be able to map macros to certian keys so when they are pressed they can reproduce several characters These can actually save time.

The Dvorak Layout

[Sirex]

Regarding the content of the post, dvorak is far from a standard. I say this primarily from my own experience of having been denied a data entry job because I used the dvorak layout and they didn't want to accommodate me. Even in the modern day, qwerty is the accepted standard in America. I suspect that being able to use any other keymap will be difficult for a while since: 1. The majority of computers that one would use while not at home are probably windows. 2. If I recall correctly, all windows platforms, with exception of XP, require the install disc to be present to change to a keymap that the system hasn't loaded. 3. Even in XP, if you are at a terminal that is not yours, the computer that you are using may very well have restricted access to keyboard settings. About dvorak itself, I've found it to be more fluid than qwerty (certainly less gangly). I never bothered taking typing tests with it but I feel confident that my speed was improved. Unfortunately, my denial of a job and other factors have made me reluctantly switch back to qwerty.

Re:The Dvorak Layout

[eobanb]

No; Windows 2000 allows you to change the layout without a system disk. I don't know about 9x though.

This submission is why...

[gkuz]

we should be able to mod articles as well as comments. Start with a half-true myth about QWERTY, then lead right into a naked press release. Puh-leez. What a piece of crap, just like the stupid keyboard that "anonymous" (no wonder) is shilling for.

spacebar

[ArmorFiend]

Where's the spacebar? Dude, if I can't hit the spacebar reliably with my FOREHEAD, then I'm not interested!

I still manage to type my /. replies in 20 secon

[Russ Nelson]

Maybe I'm typing slower on a QWERTY keyboard, but I still manage to type my /. replies in less than 20 seconds ... and get hit by Malda's spamtrap.
-russ

wrong

[bani]

studies show neither dvorak nor qwerty have an advantage. in fact they show almost any random arrangement of keys appears to work equally well.

Re:wrong

[iocat]

Most of the "Dvork is better than Qwerty" studies were done during World War II by - wait for it - Dvorak.

Speaking of which, y'all should check out my new IOCATB keyboard layout. It takes a little while to get used to, but once you do, it feels faster than anything else.

Re:wrong

[EnderWigginsXenocide]

I beg to differ, ever try using shortcuts on anything other than a QWERTY? A BIG problem with switching to Dvorak is most common keyboard shortcuts aren't convenient. Imagine stretching your fingers over the keyboard to do a Ctrl-C Ctrl-V (or Cmd-C Cmd-V for those folks using MACs). Most shortcuts are not remapable and were coded with QWERTY in mind. They would not make sense on a keyboard layout that is radically different from QWERTY.

Re:wrong

[Coryoth]

A BIG problem with switching to Dvorak is most common keyboard shortcuts aren't convenient. Imagine stretching your fingers over the keyboard to do a Ctrl-C Ctrl-V

You've never used Emacs have you?

Alt-W, Ctrl-Y

yes, that's easy to reach. Undo? Why that's simply Ctrl-Shift-minus. Oddly however, once you get used to using the modifier keys these shortcuts seem natural rather than hard to reach. Any keyboard layout is good if you get used to it.

Jedidiah.

Re:wrong

[Daniel]

Not to mention that some shortcuts are all-too-easy to hit. After one too many accidental exits, I rebound the "quit" command to "C-c f10". (for unbelievers: the default is C-x C-c; for comparison, "save" is C-x C-s and "load" is C-x C-f)

Daniel

Re:wrong

[Anubis350]

he was talking about common keyboard shortcuts, not specialized ones for geek apps that have shortcuts that can be remapped to anything your grubby little mind can think of including a switch hooked up to your toilet bowl (actually did that one :-P). look, the most common shortcuts, the one's hard coded into many apps and OSs are designed for the INDUSTRY STARNDARD qwerty keyboard. a few exceptions so not make a rule. I've said it before and I'll say it again, /.ers need to repeat "we are not the normal set of users" to themselves. Most users do not use apps that have remappable keys and most users do use apps that use the common key commands like cntrl (or command)-c, -v, -x, etc.

Re:wrong

[BobPaul]

yes, that's easy to reach. Undo? Why that's simply Ctrl-Shift-minus. Oddly however, once you get used to using the modifier keys these shortcuts seem natural rather than hard to reach. Any keyboard layout is good if you get used to it.

That's great. So EMacs has different shortcuts than other programs, and that's fine. I can deal with that, cause the association is gone. But I am a touch typist. When I see a webbrowser, or an e-mail client or etc on the screen and want to copy something, I don't think "Ctrl+C" I think pinky here and index there.

If I were able to switch to dvorak and the keyboard driver in the OS was able to also remap shortcuts for me somehow so I could use Ctrl+J instead of Ctrl+C I would switch instantly (since those keys are in the same physical location and copy would feel the same in my head). I've tried switching numerous times and it's always been nice (but slow, cause I'm always just starting out.. again) but as the grandparent states, the shortcut issue can really hold on back.

Sure, I could learn the new shortcut keys--or rather, the new possitions of the old shortcut keys--but this is many many years of habbit and is strangely more difficult than learning an entirely new typing layout.

Re:wrong

[Gob Blesh It]

If you pick the Dvorak keyboard layout on Mac OS X, there's an option to preserve QWERTY keyboard shortcuts. Basically the effect is as if your Mac temporarily switched back to QWERTY for as long as you hold down the Command key.

(BTW, it's called a "Mac.")

Re:wrong

[gameboyhippo]

Let's see. In this post I have used the letter 'e' at least 10 times so far. I have used CTRL+C zero times (hey look more 'e's).

By the way, I'm typing in Dvorak. I don't find the odd shortcuts to be a problem. I just got use to their position and I can hit those shortcut keys just as fast. I think the benifits of not having to reach for keys outweighs the shock of having to relearn where all the shortcuts are. In fact, I find it easier to reach my middle right finger up for CTRL+C and my ring right finger for CTRL+V. Try it! :) It has a sorta teeter totter effect.

I can also type in qwerty. I have to at work. I don't get confused when I switch back and forth. It just takes practice. Kinda like when we all switched over from Windows to Linux. It wasn't as easy at first, but the benefits motivated us.

Re:wrong

[ari_j]

And quadruple-bucky-shift-left-foot-cokebottle is the shortcut that does a cvs download of the Hurd, finishes the unfinished parts, and prepares it for release.

Some friends and I were actually going to make a footboard once, not that long ago, to move all the modifier keys to the floor. We figure that, if a church organist can play scales with her feet, we could speed up our typing significantly by never having to use two finger simultaneously by way of our feet doing that part of the job.

Re:wrong

[Quarem]

Two years ago I became interested enough in DVORAK to actually learn the layout. It would have been very frustrating to have to relearn command key placements like you say, but at least in Mac OS X, the system I was using, there is a keyboard layout called "Dvorak - Qwerty Command". This feature implements the Dvorak keyboard layout, but when the command key is pressed it reverts to the Qwerty layout so that all the command keys are the same as you are used to in Qwerty.

After using this layout for several months, the only programs that didn't accept it were Microsoft applications, which seemed to randomly decide if they would follow the Qwerty or Dvorak layout for command keys. If you are on Mac OS X there really isn't a lot of disadvantages to trying Dvorak out if you are free from MS applications (I haven't tried Mac Office 2004 to see if this problem persists).

The only bad thing about learning Dvorak is that when you go back to a regular keyboard you are basically back to hunt and peck. I found it really difficult to be able to switch between the two and maintain typing speed; I can type at over 100 wpm on either layout after sufficient time is given for me to adjust. That said I would way rather use Dvorak it just feels nicer on your hands, you can type faster, and I found I made less typos.

Re:wrong

[asdfjilk]

I'm not sure if you can do this in windows or linux, but in OSX you can have your keyboard mapped to dvorak-qwerty where if you hold ctrl or alt, the keyboard reverts back to qwerty for just that reason.

Re:wrong

[j1m 5n0w]

I would tend to be suspicious of studies comparing qwerty to dvorak, since most people who learn dvorak learned qwerty first, whereas most qwerty users know only qwerty. Because of qwerty's ubiquity, it's very difficult to make an objective comparison.

I use qwerty and dvorak interchangeably, and am probably slower in both than if I had stuck with qwerty alone, but I find dvorak much more comfortable (and that's something that's much harder to quantify).

According to a quick google search, Barbara Blackburn is the fastest typist in the world and she uses dvorak. That carries more weight than questionable studies in my book, though I would prefer a better reference than a random web link.

Does anyone have data comparing the fastest known dvorak typists to the fastest known qwerty typists?

Re:wrong

[Methuseus]

How much did you have to smoke the night you thought about making that footboard?

Re:wrong

[Max Romantschuk]

Such things exist, and people are using them as well:
http://www.kinesis-ergo.com/foot.htm

Remove the foot.htm bit for the whole site, it uses frames.

Re:wrong

[Moraelin]

Actually, you know, I got used to the older shortcuts, which is to say CTRL-INS, SHIFT-INS and CTRL-DEL. And ALT-BACKSPACE for undo. They work just as well, if that's what you're used to. (Incidentally, they'd also be in the same position on a Dvorak keyboard)

Or I pretty much grew up on WordStar. To do the equivalent of the CTRL-C CTRL-V you mention, you'd have to use block commands, which were prefixed with CTRL-K. But an even more fun command group were those starting with CTRL-O. Don't even try doing that with the left hand only, it's not comfortable. Again, it worked well enough and people were typing whole books in WordStar. (And I stuck to Borland IDEs for programming until 2001 or so, because they let me use the WordStar key mappings.)

Or here's an bit of fun about German keyboards. The CUA Undo is CTRL-Z, and German keyboards are QWERTZ. I.e., CTRL-Z is where CTRL-Y would be on the USA keyboards. People use it with no problem, though. More fun for programming is that the square brackets have been moved on RIGHT_ALT-8 and RIGHT_ALT-9, instead of being a single keystroke, to make way for the national characters. And "@" (as used in emails) is RIGHT_ALT+Q. Again, seems to work OK, if that's what you got used to.

Basically as was said, _any_ keyboard arrangement works just as well, if that's what you're used to. Including, I'd add, any arrangement of the shortcuts on the keyboard.

However, the reverse is also true. Switching to a new arrangement just brings a long learning curve before you get back to speed. So buying Dvorak keyboards for the whole company to "improve their productivity" might have the opposite effect, as well as needlessly annoying everyone.

Re:wrong

[Frymaster]

ari_j, emacs user writes:
Some friends and I were actually going to make a footboard [for emacs] once

Taladar, critic of vim writes:
You forgot to mention the mode-change-key (or however vim users call it) that is for some strange reason the one key worse reachable than almost every other: Escape

given the choice between a text editor that requires me to hit the escape key and one that is so complex that a footboard is proposed a solution to control key chaos, i'd choose the escape key!

Re:wrong

[epine]

No no no. Eliminate the ESC key by depressing a foot pedal to activate insert mode. Extra bonus: eliminate modes as well as the spastic reflex to slap the ESC key every time your mind wanders. Or here's another idea: put a torsion sensor in your seat pan to detect left cheek lilt, right cheek lilt and use that to control insert/command modes in VI. Extra bonus: more opportunities to unleash "silent but deadly".

Re:wrong

[808140]

I use both vi and emacs extensively. I originally coded entirely in ed (I'm actually not kidding), and I still enjoy it. Then I started using vi (I was already using emacs at this time for most development work) for lots of short edits -- it was more convenient for remote sessions and sus and loaded faster, making it ideal for mutt.

I always hated vim, because it took what I perceived to be vi's primary selling point -- its light weight -- and perverted it beyong recognition. Check this out:

40 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 39544 2003-04-03 00:23 /bin/ed*
4316 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4404276 2004-10-17 00:26 /usr/bin/emacs21-x*
1056 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1074424 2004-12-19 20:06 /usr/bin/vim*

vim is a full fourth of the size of emacs! Keep in mind that emacs includes X11 support, and my vim doesn't have X11 support compiled in. I don't actually have nvi or better, Bill Joy's original vi installed on this system, but compared to how light-weight vi used to be, I always considered vim to be an evil editor, installing nvi on all of my machines instead.

Recently, though, I've been using vim much more, because it has good unicode support (nvi doesn't, at all) and I currently operate in a completely unicode environment. In the past, emacs kicked the crap out of vi in terms of internationalization -- it could do unicode-style editing before unicode existed. But emacs 21 has some random wackiness where utf-8 isn't considered a valid encoding for CJK, and since I work in China, that's a bit of a deal breaker. Emacs 22 is a unicode-based rewrite that aims to fix this, but you know how GNU is ... release Real Soon Now[tm].

So I installed vim. Now here's the point I'm getting around to: the mode key.

A lot of emacs users think the mode key in vi sucks donkey nuts. Similarly, every vi user makes jokes about the cryptic control character sequences used by emacs users. Personally, I'd never found either to be at all annoying. Until I started having to type Chinese in vi.

Up until then, I'd only ever used emacs for internationalized editing. Emacs rules in this respect. It has very nice input methods built into the editor -- by which I mean of course that they're written in elisp -- meaning that I don't have to rely on XIM or anything similar and can be sure that inputing stuff won't interfere with emacs' default user interface paradigm.

In vi, here's an example session:

:10
$
a
Alt-Space (enter XIM)
Chinese characters go here
Alt-Space (exit XIM)
ESC
...

Now, if I forget to exit the XIM, ESC typically does nothing (or sometimes, depending on the input method in question, will transparently be passed to the application) and then my vi editing keys go to the input method and not to vi! ARGH!

See, one mode is no problem -- but two, nested modes definitely are. I have to enter insert mode, then enter chinese input mode, then type, then exit chinese input mode, then exit insert mode, then type commands. Do you see how these two levels suck penis?

This is where the non-extensibility of an editor like vi really bites it in the butt. It would be cool if I could have one key that puts me into insert mode, and turns on the Chinese input method. Not possible to do, not the least because vi already uses pretty much every key.

In emacs, for comparison, I put myself in Chinese mode at the beginning, and because the characters I type that get inserted into the buffer (or in this case, fed to the input method system) are never interpreted as commands, I don't ever have the problem of emacs thinking that some characters I want to type are actually commands. When you don't need an IME, this isn't a problem -- but when you do, it's a pain in the butt.

That having been said, I'm quite fond of the modal system, most of the time. And I do use vi a lot (more than any other editor, nowadays, because it allows me to edit CJK-having utf-8 files). But this one thing about it is just infuriating.

And unfortunately, I don't see any way to really fix this, without completely destroying vi's input paradigm.

Re:wrong

[arose]

No, other programs just have different shortcuts then Emacs.

Re:wrong

[sbryant]

I've had worse than just quitting emacs... the shortcut for auto-indenting a block of code is CTRL-ALT-\ (backslash). The backslash on my keyboard is right under backspace; CTRL-ALT-backspace kills the X server.

Been there. Done that. More than once. :-(

Back to the original story: see that line about there being two keyboard standards today (QWERTY and Dvorak)? That's bollocks! Germans, for example, have a QWERTZ keyboard which includes the umlaut characters. Other countries have other weird and wonderful layouts, some of which look nothing like the QWERTY layout.

-- Steve

Re:wrong

[logpoacher]

What an excellent post - I wish I had mod-points!

But ....

It would be cool if I could have one key that puts me into insert mode, and turns on the Chinese input method. Not possible to do, not the least because vi already uses pretty much every key.

Have you tried to map a key, using good old ":map"? I can go:

:map v ihello

and it maps the command mode "v" key to put me insert mode, enter the "hello", and leaves me in insert mode. I could put a ^V^[ on the end to escape back to cmd mode - but it sounds like you want to automate something that stays in input mode.

Of course, you may have been trying this for the last year and have written a textbook on why this doesn't work ... but if you haven't, then it might be worth a try.

Note that you can stick the map into your .exrc to make it permanent. I usually use 'v', 'V', 'Q' for mappings, as they aren't used for anything I've ever found. Or you can use #1 to #9 for function keys. Also, note that :map! will define the map to work in insert mode, not cmd mode, so you can write "get me out of ins mode and then do something else" macros.

Have you ever seen that maze solver, written entirely in vi mappings? Awesome. Terrible. Nerve shaking. After I saw it, I had to write a useful expression solver the same way, just to prove that I still had any testicles at all ... :-)

Re:wrong

[cocotoni]

But different keyboards are better for different things. I have a Swiss French keyboard (QWERTZ layout), and it sucks for any programming. The fact that I have to press AltGr to get some characters as [, ], {, } and # is not acceptable for any programming in C.

Fortunately, I grew up on the US keyboard, and now I use this mapping as I touch type. When I have to write a letter or a document in French or German I switch the layout and get the full glory of the accents and umlauts, but then I hunt-and-peck.

Re:wrong

[808140]

Very cool, and let me just say, I wasn't aware of the map feature. I'll stick that into my ever-increasingly large bag of vim tricks. Of course, this won't work here, because the Chinese input method is not part of vim -- it's a normal XIM (in this case SCIM, but I use XCIN as well sometimes). Therefore, even with a yummy feature like map, I can't tell vi to switch on my input method. Or switch it off. They're two different apps.

I mean, while my criticism of vim in this respect is valid, let's not blow it out of proportion -- it's a pretty specific complaint, and it doesn't detract from the utility of vi as an editor. It's just one place where the modal paradigm can be something of a pain. But to quote a documentary on male models I saw recently, "Come on! The guy had to magically pull his underwear out of his butt just to beat you!"

Emacs would work better in this particular instance, but the emacs guys fail it, because they can't get unicode to work properly. So vi still gets a point. I wouldn't sweat it too much :)

I'll just use vim until emacs 22 comes out.

Re:wrong

[cL0h]

The same methodology would not but if you wanted to achieve top speeds on a formula one track it would. All tennis players serve overhand because it's the best way to play tennis but it's not the best way to serve in raquetball.

Re:wrong

[jrumney]

But emacs 21 has some random wackiness where utf-8 isn't considered a valid encoding for CJK

The tables for mapping CJK onto Unicode are not present in 21.3, but they were posted to gnu.emacs.sources by Dave Love around April 2002, and are available somewhere on his FTP site. 21.4 will have the tables, and dynamically load them as needed, and that can be got from CVS now (and is reasonably stable, certainly more stable than the unicode branch).

Re:wrong

[QMO]

I had a foot pedal for my computer, once.
But then I called tech support and they told me that it was the mouse.

Re:wrong

[CoughDropAddict]

Not being able to find a key to map to "enter insert mode and enter XIM" is a poor complaint. Do you really use every single default mapping?

If you wanted, you could just remap "i" to always enter XIM also, or alternatively remap "I" to do the same. (Do you really use the default binding of I: "Insert text before the first non-blank in the line [count] times."

I don't know anything about XIM mode, but I would be surprised if you couldn't map a key to press CTRL-SPACE and Esc in sequence.

Re:wrong

[jonadab]

The problem with Dvorak is that it makes the same mistakes as QWERTY.

Fundamentally, how you arrange the letters -- assuming you use some logical
arrangement that makes a bit of sense -- is not the only thing that matters.
QWERTY (in order to keep typewriters from jamming) arranges them so that it's
statistically less likely for adjascent letters to occur on the same finger
and more likely for them to occur on opposite hands. This does speed up
typing somewhat over, say, an alphabetical layout (once you are comfortably
familiar with the layout you are using, of course). Dvorak instead goes out
of its way to put the letters that are most frequently used in English on
the keys that are easiest to hit. This too speeds up typing somewhat over
an alphabetical layout.

But they both have serious flaws, and it's not in how they lay out the letters.
It's in how they handle the other keys, which they do virtually the same way.
The numbers across the top are okay, and the spacebar is okay -- well, the
spacebar would be okay if it didn't waste one whole thumb. The thumb is
unique among the hand's fingers in that it can easily operate independently
from the other fingers. This makes it ideal for the spacebar, because space
is statistically more likely than any other character to be typed right
before or right after any other character. However, the thumb is *also*
ideal for a bucky key, the most important being shift, for a similar reason:
you can hold a key down with the thumb, and all your other fingers can still
hit any key they could hit before. Try that with the shift key where it is
now: it doesn't work, which is the main reason we have two shift keys,
which is wasteful and makes the layout larger than it needs to be. A second
thumb bar for shift would be much more efficient, in terms of typing speed,
and as an added bonus it reduces by one the number of keys needed. *Plus*,
it substantially reduces the frequency with which you hyperextend your pinky.
If your pinkies hurt after a long bout of typing, this is the answer.

There are other mistakes both layouts make. Ctrl is similarly poorly
positioned and should definitely be put where it's easier to hit. On the
other hand, the window key is in a bad place. It's effect is much more
drastic than ctrl, in that it takes keyboard focus completely away from the
application or window that had it and thoroughly disrupts whatever was being
done, so it should be out of the way more. Where the traditional layouts
have put it, it gets hit mostly by mistake and becomes an annoyance -- quite
needlessly, because there are plenty of out of the way places where it could
be put such that it would not be hit by mistake while the user is typing.
Right next to Print Screen, for example, would be a great place for it.

I could go on and on, but basically it comes down to this: QWERTY and Dvorak
both took great care when arranging the letters, and it shows: they're both
pretty decent arrangements for that (for different reasons). But they appear
to have put no thought whatsoever into the arrangment of the other keys
(except the spacebar), and that shows too: the arrangement of the other
keys *sucks* on these layouts. That is where the next round of improvements
needs to be made.

I'd start by putting shift and ctrl below the spacebar, where they can be
hit or held with the left and right thumb, respectively, with no impact on
where the other fingers can be. (This makes *one* combination hard --
Shift-Ctrl-Space -- but that's a rather unusual combination, and it makes
every other shift and ctrl combination much faster and easier. Care would
have to be taken so that normal hitting of the spacebar with either thumb
would not hit these keys by mistake, but that's easily possible if a gap
the size of a single key is left between them and the spacebar.) Then I'd
proceed by putting as much thought into the placement of every other key
as was put into the placement of the letters.

I call bullshit

[hayden]

All the "evidence" to support that theory comes from a single paper (all three links point to it). If you are will to read a reasoned rebuttal to it then read this.

Short version. The two authors are economists who don't know crap about typing. Dvorak wrote a 500 page book about just typing of which only a small part was about his alternative keyboard. So, believe the suits or believe somebody who actually knows what he's talking about.

Re:I call bullshit

[Jugalator]

So, believe the suits or believe somebody who actually knows what he's talking about.

You mean the guy trying to sell his keyboard?

West, East, South, and 3 for North

[bzipitidoo]

Some old games used the w, e, and s keys for west, east, and south. Pretty lucky that the qwerty keyboard happens to put those letters next to each other and in the correct orientation for that usage-- for English speakers. Some games used i,j,k,m instead of 3,w,e,s. Turned out that i,j,l,k works better than i,j,k,m. (What's with vi using k,h,l,j anyway?) Suppose this isn't really worth considering when designing a keyboard layout.

Switched to Dvorak, Switched Back

[tetsuo29]

I used to do phone support for a now defunct brand of PCs. This was circa 1997/1998. The job was mind numbingly boring. I'd heard how great Dvorak was supposed to be. I saved a Dvorak keyboard layout in my home directory and I would configure the machines I logged into with it and I started logging my calls typing with the Dvorak layout. It took me about 6 weeks to be able to type Dvorak as easily as I had done Qwerty, and the new challenge of trying to keep up with my work load with the new keyboard layout helped stave off some of the incessant boredom. I honestly didn't notice any difference in my speed, comfort level, etc. What I did notice was that when I used a computer that I couldn't easily switch to Dvorak, I was back to being a hunt and peck typist. This turned out to be a major PITA. Finally, I gave up and switched back to Qwerty. It took me longer to relearn Qwerty than it did to learn Dvorak, but in the end, it was worth it as I could now use 100% of keyboards I came across. I'm willing to go against the grain in a lot of ways. I'm a mac user, a vegetarian, an agnostic, and bleeding heart liberal, but the fight against Qwerty keyboard layouts was a cause that turned out to just not be worth it. Too little return on investment for the effort involved.

Will someone buy London bridge from me then?

[StonyUK]

Can someone more enlightened or chemically enhanced explain how somebody can get the financial backing necessary to actually get a production line producing what is obviously (to me anyhoo) a product with no chance of success?

I mean what are these people thinking? That cornering the 'Fisher Price, water-proof keyboards for the nearly toilet trained' is going to make them rich?

Sheesh!

Better ways to make a new keyboard.

[mauthbaux]

The big problem with changing to a new layout is not so much the learning curve for the new board, it would be the further steepening of that curve created by the persistence of the qwerty layout.

I had planned for quite awhile to switch over to a dvorak layout keyboard, but haven't just because I would be switching daily between the keyboard on my personal computer, and the ones that I use at school/work. Having to learn something new once would not be bad. Having to learn something new while constantly being reminded of how things used to be would be a real pain.

One thing that I would like to see in the keyboard market is more variety in the shape of the board itself. I have one of those 'split' Micro$oft keyboards and love it. Unfortunately, there aren't many other manufacturers out there that use this layout. Being able to adjust the exact angle of the split, and the distance between the halves would make the board even better, but I can't see this happening in the current market. Closest thing to inovation that they've done in awhile is make keyboards that light up. It may look cool, but hasn't really improved the functionality or versatility of the product at all.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Crap!

[erikharrison]

I can't get to the article, but an alphabetic keyboard is just plain dumb.

1) The QWERTY keyboard is established tech
2) I see no empirical evidence that alphabetic is easier to learn or use
3) Alphabetic keyboards overwork one area of the keyboard
4) It would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange keys to allow alternating of hands, which speeds typing.

Can anyone list any real reason that this is better? Other than the reduced number of keys, of course.

Are they crazy?

[Kraemahz]

70 bucks for a keyboard with half as many keys as usual? It's that like Apple charging twice as much for a mouse with only one button?

Re:this will not fly

[myowntrueself]

'> It is compatible with all systems running Microsoft Windows 95 and above.
And this is called "Standard Keyboard"?'

'And above'.

So it'll work on Linux or OSX but not DOS, right?

120wpm QWERTY & Dvorak Experience

[Sean Clifford]

During the period when I was working on my undergrad thesis I had my my typing speed tested via both software and good ole fasioned professor with a stopwatch. My speed averaged 120wpm on QWERTY, pretty blazing.

I've slowed down since and now average about 80wpm and have learned not to strike the keys quite so hard. My hands don't ache as much and I've considered going with one of those whiz-bang carpal-friendly keyboards before I come down with CTS. Coding can be tough on the hands.

Anyway, one semester my room-mate and I believed the Dvorak myth and decided to try out switching. We bought new keyboards that supported both standards and came with two sets of keycaps, then made the switch.

It took us about a month to re-learn touch typing and it was a bitch. Neither one of us caught up to our previous speeds - we even played typing games to help - we got to maybe 2/3-3/4 of our previous typing speeds.

While we were okay on our computers we both found it very frustrating to use others. Being geeks, we frequently needed to work on other machines and lugging a keyboard around wasn't really a solution. We decided to abandon Dvorak and went back to QWERTY. In a week or two we were back to ballpark of our old typing speeds, though it was a frustrating transition.

The moral of the story is an old one: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Who needs 53 keys?

[craXORjack]

I only need 28. I use vi.

Re:Who needs 53 keys?

[chrysrobyn]

I only need 28. I use vi.

I use vim almost exclusively. Most people use either vim or elvis symlinked from vi and don't know it, although vi is its own program. I can come up with 26 letters [a-z], 10 numbers [0-9], shift (gotta hit that "!" you know), escape and colon. Then we can't forget / for the searches and replaces, \ to be able to match special characters, and newbies will want the arrow keys instead of h, j, k and i.

Your humor isn't lost on me, but a seasoned vi user will use at least 41 keys, 45 for the inexperienced. The other 8 must be for Emacs.

Re:Who needs 53 keys?

[nyri]

I use vim almost exclusively. Most people use either vim or elvis symlinked from vi and don't know it, although vi is its own program. I can come up with 26 letters [a-z], 10 numbers [0-9], shift (gotta hit that "!" you know), escape and colon. Then we can't forget / for the searches and replaces, \ to be able to match special characters, and newbies will want the arrow keys instead of h, j, k and i.

Your humor isn't lost on me, but a seasoned vi user will use at least 41 keys, 45 for the inexperienced. The other 8 must be for Emacs.

You must be one those perl monkeys. Otherwise you would need space and return keys.

Down with keyboards!

[kiddailey]

What we really need are alternatives to traditional typing -- ways to communicate with the computer in a more efficent manner.

I'm personally waiting for the wireless implant in my head so I can just "think" the words onto the screen :)

In the meantime, I've tried out the Twiddler2 chorded keyboard, which is a combination key entry and mouse device. Although a bit slower, it is FAR more comfortable surfing and chording with it than using the traditional keyboard and mouse (though you can forget programming). And it plays nice with OS X and Windows.

If you're interested, there are many other chorded "keyboards" as well as many more ergonomic variations to the standard keyboard. A useful resource is the exhaustive Alternative Keyboard FAQ and this alternative keyboard gallery.

Don't forget about the Microsoft Keyboard

[Tablizer]

Microsoft Keyboard

Patented,huh?

[Trogre]

This monstrosity had better not become a standard, what with the patent and all.

the only other ABCDE device I can think of...

[utexaspunk]

is the speak n' spell which was, of course, designed for 5 year olds entering one word every 15 seconds or so. This thing is retarded...

False

[monk]

That's a much repeated falsehood.
Besides, everyone knows that all real geeks chord.

Re:Why not...

[Mr. Byaninch]

All keyboards can do this. Just pull up the plastic key-caps and then put them back down in any random order. It's lots of fun.

What about people who don't speak English?

[boky]

> So let's use a keyboard designed for people, not machines, shall we?

Funny, haven't seen a Dvorak keyboard yet designed for non-English speaking people (read: no international characters!)

Pirate keyboard

[trenton]

53 keys? Still too many. What you need is the full featured pirate keyboard which has only 6 keys! Bad ass design, if you ask me.

Re: Two Guys Say It.. So What IS the Truth?

[Wavicle]

So this Dvorak Debunking lies in two people's research.

The only support that Liebowitz and Margolis provide as evidence that there is no speed difference between the two layouts is the research of Dr. Earl Strong in the 1950's.

So the Debunking actually boils down to the research of one person. Done in 1956. And he didn't want Dvorak to win. Oh, and he destroyed his data before anyone else could look at it, so all we know is what he said it said.

The truth isn't out there. Nobody has done a good study.

foot pedals

[Tkil]

You can actually buy foot pedals for certain keyboards. My Kinesis Contour keyboard has 1- to 3-button foot pedals. I have the older 2-pedal variant, and being an Emacs user, I had them mapped to "control" and "meta". Was interesting, but my wrists aren't bad enough to put up with the learning curve of training my feet...

Finally!

[Physics Dude]

Finally! A keyboard to match the Look-and-Feel of Windows XP! ;)

Actually, it's very clear

[Moraelin]

Typing "TYPEWRITER" fast was simply a sales gimmick, so the salesmen could tell clueless PHBs "see! It doesn't slow typists down! I can type TYPEWRITER quickly!" And unsurprisingly, clueless PHBs existed in 1870 just as well, long before computers, and corporate purchases were made based on some rigged non-representative demo.

But there were real mechanical considerations there too.

Typewriters used to be purely mechanical things. Hitting a key physically pressed a lever, which swung a small hammer at the paper. Actually, at the ink ribbon. And on the hammer a letter or digit was embossed. (Actually, two. SHIFT would physically raise the carriage, so the second letter on the hammer hit.)

Because it was purely mechanical and involved densely packed thin levers, it was jam-prone. If you hit two keys at the same time, two hammers would try to occupy the same space at the same time. If they were coming from opposite ends, not much would happen: 99% of the time one would just hit on top of the other. But if they were adjacent (or almost adjacent) levers, the machine would jam.

That was the problem they tried to solve: keeping the machine from jamming. Which involved moving the hammers for most common letter combinations further apart from each other. Which, since it was a purely mechanical contraption, involved moving the keys too. (It wasn't as simple as defining a new mapping table, like on computers.)

And whatever effect it had on typists and typing speed, was side-effect rather than considered in the design. Whether it sped them up or slowed them down, it still ended up faster if it didn't require unjamming twice a minute.

However, here's another fun fact: the typewriter for which that layout was designed was very different even from typewriters manufactured after 1900. After 1900 the hammers were arranged in an arc in front of the paper. Before that, they were arranged in a circle or bucket shape.

That bucket shape is what the QWERTY layout was designed for. Which meant that moving the hammers had some weirder effects on where the keys moved. E.g., near the middle of rows, two adjacent keys would swing hammers from opposite sides of the bucket. Hence the "TY" in "TYPEWRITER" would not jam that machine, which is why they're still near each other.

It would, however jam a post-1900 typewriter.

So basically the short story is: QWERTY was never supposed to be ergonomic, it was supposed to just prevent jams. And even that was a quick mechanical hack, which missed a lot of fairly commong combinations. _And_ even for the purpose of preventing jams it wasn't that useful any more, for any post-1900 typewriter.

Yet, more than 100 years even after the new typewriter design, and half a century after keyboards being used in computers (which don't jam) we're still stuck with the QWERTY idiocy.

Its saving grace, though, is that basically on a computer keyboard _any_ layout works just as well. Neither jams nor alternating hands (which made sense back when you had to hit the keys HARD on a typewriter) are relevant any more. You just type faster on whatever layout you're the most used to. For most people that means QWERTY.

Which means there's little real incentive to switch to a new layout.

Re:Actually, it's very clear

[-brazil-]

Actually, the very thing you're dissing is the reason why QWERTY is a good layout for typing fast: letters that often occur together in are placed far apart. Which means that they can be typed with different fingers, often different hands. Which is faster.

Well, that's nice...

[skrolle2]

...and the 26 color-coded keys for the letters of the English alphabet are all nice and green and such, but how would you internationalize the product? The Swedish alphabet has 29 letters, where would you fit those three extra keys? I know there are other alphabets that have something inbetween or more. How would you make those?

I, for one, do not welcome our new narrowminded keyboard overlords.

My only problem with Dvorak keyboards...

[Libertarian_Geek]

I'd have to reconfigure all of my first person shooters!

Dvorak and me and studies and keyboards...

[cliffyqs]

I say:
I switched because less finger travel made my hands less tired at the same typing speed. I still use both layouts, but if I am typing a lot, I will use dvorak.

When I first thought about switching, I created an Excel macro to count finger reaches in QWERTY phrases and one for Dvorak. I also started making a list of common words that can be typed on the home row in each. In both of these endeavors, Dvorak won. roughly 25-30% less finger travel, more in some phrases. Many more common words on the home row.

Here http://www.kinesis-ergo.com/ is a company that makes ergo keyboards with vertical rows, QWERTY, Dvorak, or both.

History says:
The slant of the columns on the keyboard is an artifact left over from mechanical typewriters.
For those not acquainted with the story of the keyboards, here's a short version:
http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/jcb/Dvorak/

Lets bring some plain old reason

[trezor]

You can troll all you want for qewrty or dvorak layout. You all seem to be missing a fundamental piece of the picture though.

When discussing what layout recquires least handmovement and so on, you all seem to assume everyone in the world types in english, or that all other languages in the world has the same basic construction of words with the same sounds.

Let me inform you, as I'm not even from a country where english is native language and am somewhat capable in at least three other languages, that this is definetly not the case. My effiency when it comes to words per minute is very dependent on what language I write. Not because I have to stop and think about the language, but because the keyboard mapping may be practical for that language or not.

So all you idiots trolling about qwerty or dvorak, would you please shut up? If you take into account that different languages relies on regular use of character combinations different from your english, you should easily be able to realize there is no such thing as an ultimate(tm) keyboard layout.

So please shut up, and try to think before you crap out any more nonsense.