Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
is this one
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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.
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".
http://almostsmart.com
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.
Indy Media Watch-Proctologist of the Internet
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.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
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...
Please help metamoderate.
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.
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.
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.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
the PLUM keyboard (similar idea).
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Where's the spacebar? Dude, if I can't hit the spacebar reliably with my FOREHEAD, then I'm not interested!
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.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
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.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups. -- 0 1 My two bits
I only need 28. I use vi.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to 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.")
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.
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.
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?
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.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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.
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
Finally! A keyboard to match the Look-and-Feel of Windows XP! ;)
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/
I have nothing witty to fill this space with yet.
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.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.