Slashdot Mirror
QWERTY, Dvorak and More
We've mentioned stuff related to this in the past, but
louridas sent us an interesting article called
The Myth of the Keys which talks about how Dvorak isn't really any faster than QWERTY, but the most interesting part is how this relates to the MS AntiTrust case.
Looks like the proofreader is still asleep guys....
Well of course "Dvorak isn't really any faster than Dvorak". You mean QWERTY?
Deja Moo: The feeling that
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
well of course the Dvorak isn't faster than the Dvorak. i've known that all along. :)
the discussion of catch-22 situations in this article is very interesting.
Men use thought only to justify their wrong doings, and speech only to conceal their thoughts. -- Voltaire
which talks about how Dvorak isn't really any faster than Dvorak I'd hope not..
This article contains some good background material, and they draw some interesting conclusions, but I can't help being sceptical because of the way they are arguing other political/philosophical points using the keyboard design as an example. It's hard to place much trust in anyone who so obviously cares that the result come out a particular way.
Unfortunately, everyone cares about keyboard design. We've all spent years learning how to type, so we have a large investment in a QWERTY layout, while those few people who've spent the even larger investment to relearn a DVORAK keyboard are extremely unlikely to turn around and admit (even if only to themselves) that this was a mistake!
It would be interesting to do a truly neutral study, using a bunch of kids who haven't yet learned either method, but despite all the research quoted in this article, it seems that nobody has actually done that! Retraining existing typists is a useful test in practical terms, but doesn't tell us anything about which is the best design in an abstract sense.
The short of it - the economic discussions might be fair, but the DVORAK argument is not.
"But always she's the spectre of uncertainty I first endured, then faded, then embraced..."
Mindcraft ran some bechmarks and concluded that NT is faster than NT, too...
--
--
E2 IN2 IE?
Typing Errors in Reason magazine.
Network Effects, Path Dependence and Lock-In
DISMAL SCIENCE FICTIONS Network Effects, Microsoft, and Antitrust Speculation
Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect
Just think how fast a beowulf cluster of dvorak keyboards would be so much faster than a single dvorak keyboard. Massively parallel typing. whoooooooooooooooooooooo. We really need moderation for the main stories as well :-) typed on a dvorak beowulf cluster in 0.17 milliseconds
That no-one seems to have ever conducted an unbiased test. Of course, doing that is a little problematic in my opinion, as I would think you would need people who cannot type, and then train them on the various keyboards. Also, the one you learn first you might possibly be better at, and so forth.
Learning is a bitch. Once you learn one way, it's extremely hard to go to another way. Take me for example. I learned QWERTY when I was around 8 years old, and I didn't learn the "five-finger" method or anything like that. My method of typing is basically hunt and peck, with the advantage that I know from memory where the keys are. I get around 50-60 words a minute with no mistakes. I simply know my keyboard. Almost all my typing is done with 4 fingers out of 10. It generally upsets people who see me type, especially if they learned "the right way".
But that's just me and I'm odd anyway.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
My desktop runs qwerty, and my laptop uses dvorak. I'm perfectly comfortable with either keyboard, and I find them to be quite very much equal. But dvorak is significantly more _comfortable_ to type in then qwerty, typos are harder to commit, and words flow through my fingers more easily.
/. poll some day:
This article is better described as a book, though.
I have a question to throw at everyone - maybe it could even be a
How do you pronounce "dvorak"?
( ) de-vo-rack
( ) de-vor-jak
OFTC: By the community, for the community
I had an Apple //c in 1982-3. It had keys that could be removed and then replaced in the Dvorak format. You hit a button and boom!! You had the the other keyboard. I tried it for a week. The upside was to leave the Qwerty configuration but have it switched over to Dvorak. Early security. Frizzo 'All six of my nipples are tingling.
I agree, because in retraining someone to do something another way, you get one of 3 possibilities:
Such a situation incorporates the biases of the person, and ruins the empiricality of the experiment because the person as already been tainted by previous experience! As you suggested, they should take a group of people (children, most likely) who've never been presented with a keyboard before (never seen one, anything), and teach some how to type on a QWERTY keyboard, and some on a DVORAK keyboard, and see which group is faster, etc, etc.. And then they can begin to go back and do studies on
I think that once experiments like these were conducted, the greater part of the [computing] world would be eager to know the results... and we all know why...
My $0.02 worth
Insert mind here.
Well...I've been using computers for only about 15 years or so, and typing on QWERTY layout for a bit longer. I changed to Dvorak about 6 months ago or so...it took me about a month to be back up to speed, due to the fact that I didn't want to loose my qwerty, so I was using both layouts.
The only real difference I've found between em is that I make less typos with the Dvorak (the "teh" mistake disapeared almost completely) and my wrists don't hurt much anymore (they used to hurt with qwerty after 6 or 7hr of typing).
I don't think Dvorak makes you faster, but it does make for a better typing experience, since you really use all fingers with it.
Vox, a Dvorak convert
Pain is the gift of the gods, and I'm the one they chose as their messanger...
You know, for a damn 30 page document, it seems to me (IMO) that this could have been summarized in a short page essay of, say, 5 paragraphs or so.
Somebody needs to send this guy a note on brevity.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
LOADING...
READY.
RUN
It is in the interest of pro-lassaiz-faire folk to deny network effects exist, since such effects point up a prime failing of the free market. Customers must be completely free to choose the best product. Unfortunately for them, I've heard far too much anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
Every time an article about applications for Linux comes up, for example, there are invariably a cascade of talkbacks and comments along the lines of, "Yeah, these are good applications, and I like them, but they don't have good enough compatibility with [Word|Excel|Access|Insert other here].
Deny as they wish, I'm already convinced.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
He pronounced it:
-=Maggie Leber=-
Where, pray tell, could you buy a DVORAK keyboard if you wanted one?
Insert mind here.
Leibowitz has served as a resource for the defense in the Microsoft trial. Unfortunately, his stuff seems to have been unconvincing there, as well.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
I switched to Dvorak almost two years ago. At first the switch was completely cold turkey. I carried my Kinesis Dvorak keyboard around with me everywhere.
Just recently (past three months) I've gone dual keyboard. I can type on either system now.
I've found that my speed is about the same on either layout. However I'm faster on my Kinesis because of the improved ergo features. IE the keys are arranged in columns rather than on the diagonals, and the keyboard is concave, because fingers are not all the same length.
The part that I lke the most is that I don't have to move my fingers as much. Having a home row that consists of "aoeuidhtns" vs "asdfghjkls" is great.
Well, a cursory test on a dvorak layout made it seem really "right-hand" centric. Typing:
"This is a new layout and I dont like it."
was roughly 75% right hand. If my KB was a twiddler, maybe...
Four-digit slashdot ID. Recognize.
It starts out:
And then goes on to thoroughly examine and refute the cited points- Seth Finkelstein
If we use the author's reasoning, then the English system of measurement is better than metric, since (at least in America), it "won" the market. Duh. Next they'll try to tell us that NT is better than ... oh wait, they have ...
If you follow the link at the top of the reference page, you'll see that these writings come from the Independent Institute, which had run full-page ads in the New York Times in support of Microsoft in its anti-trust trial. It was recently revealed, after explicit denials of such by the Institute's chairman, that the ads had been paid for by Microsoft. Draw your own conclusions.
After growing up on a Qwerty keyboard, I tried switching to Dvorak. It lasted about 6 months. My results? I never got as fast on Dvorak as I was with my Qwerty keyboard. One possible reason for this is that I was unable to use Dvorak exclusively. Every time I used someone else's computer or went to a computer lab, it would be a huge pain. After Dvorak was ingrained in my head (and hands) pretty well, I was embarassed at my hunting and pecking on Qwerty keyboards. But still, my speed on Dvorak was only about 80% of my original speed on Qwerty. However, my typing comfort and accuracy on Dvorak were much improved! After using Dvorak for a while, I was making fewer (and less serious) mistakes. I think the main reason my comfort was improved was that when I learned Dvorak, I actually learned proper typing form, which is something I never had with Qwerty (and still don't). So why did I switch back? Dvorak is only a viable option if one can use it exclusively. In my job and schoolwork, I had to often use other people's or general access computers. Switching back and forth was a real pain. It would get my hands confused. In the end, I decided it was not worth it. However, if I could put myself in an environment where I could use a Dvorak layout exclusively, I think I would switch back. My hands and wrists havn't felt as good since. I think I could get my Dvorak speed to where my Qwerty speed is now if I was able to use it exclusively. Just my $0.02
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
They switchable between QWERTY and Dvorak, real ergo, and extremely comfy to type on.
Drawback? $250. Trust me, it's time and money well spent.
http://www.kinesis-ergo.com
Believe it or not, they exist. ;)
I don't have a link, but Google will set you up I bet.
History is interesting, but I think personal experience is more important. I don't really care about typing speed; I can touch type with both layouts. But a Querty keyboard will give me wrist pain in the matter of an hour, whereas the dvorak layout lets me type for several hours without pain. To me that's the true test. In addition, I've never met anyone who can touch type on both keyboards and prefers Querty.
Of course, neither layout can overcome the limitations of a keyboard whose keys are lined up in horizontal rows, but my DataHand testimonials aren't suited to this thread.
I am interested in getting a Dvorak keyboard just to see the differences. It would be interesting to see if I can relearn how to type. Where can I get one cheap?
We'll all be better off just to ignore this. The author is just an economics hack with his own research agenda. His argument at best is that no good scientific study has been done. Just like no scientific study has shown that computer experts are more productive using Unix. I will however add another personal, unscientific testament that Dvorak typing is more natural and comfortable. I am measurably faster as well.
That report was mostly blather about history and economics. Statistics are what matter in such a case. Why is it that the only test anyone ever cites about Dvorak vs. QWERTYUIOP is the Navy retraining? It's pretty easy to conduct another, more fair one.
All my friends who switched to Dvorak have increased speed from their QWERTY days. Personally, I learned to touch-type in school in a semester and maxed out at 60/70 wpm after a few years. Later, I taught myself Dvorak. In about two weeks, I had completely forgotten QWERTY and was basic in Dvorak. After not too much longer, I tested at 90 wpm in Dvorak. A significant increase. Because I was taking comp sci classes in school throughout, I was forced to accidentally remember QWERTY (it's not forgotten, just pushed aside). Now I can type at my previous speeds in that as well, with no switching time and only a little annoyance over punctuation, which is typed less frequently. I feel that if I wasn't forced to hold myself back by using QWERTY all the time, I could become even faster in Dvorak.
Anyway, I don't know about all the so-called "tests" that have taken place, but from personal and observed experience, Dvorak is faster and more elegant, and takes very little time to learn. QWERTY just feels jumbled to me. It seems fairly unlikely that a mostly random misplacement of the keys could be more optimal than a statistically developed one.
---
---
Silly rabbit. Sleep is for class!
I feel about Dvorak the way a lot of people here feel about Linux. That is, that it is better, and I don't care what other people say or do or "prove", it is better.
I like my layout. It's faster, feels better, works better. No amount of study, scientific or otherwise, is going to change my personal experience.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Out of concern of developing wrist problems, from years of much typing, I learned Dvorak last year. I got up to about 40 wpm on it, where I pretty much peaked. Considering that I type between 100-120wpm on a QWERTY, that's not much of an improvment.
:)
I don't mean to say that it's not possible to type as fast on a Dvorak as it is on a QWERTY. But I found there to be little advantage to the Dvorak and, to be honest, I found it awkward. This is likely related to the fact that I've been using the standard keyboard layout for 14 years. Still, with all the time that I spent on Dvorak, I'd like to think that I found have found some improvement.
The idea that the most-accessed keys are on the homerow is a cool idea, but it slowed me down. I type with all of my fingers, but I don't always hit the keys with the textbook-correct fingers. As a result, Dvorak makes me use, say, my index finger for the QWERTY-equlivalent ASD and F. Theoretically, this would be faster if I could use all four fingers on my left hand with equal agility. But, because I can't type perfectly, I found that it was slower to use Dvorak.
There are other examples, but they're pretty much the same deal. Essentially, I'm used to QWERTY, and I've let my typing become less-than-perfect to adapt to it. Would be better on Dvorak if I'd started on it? Probably. But for most of us, QWERTY should do nicely.
(Sidenote: Dvorak is the best system security that you can get, especially if you switch your keycaps around. Ain't nobody can use your system.
Heard it before, don't believe it now either.
I think these guys just like whatever is best right now. They feel QWERTY is better than DVORAK RIGHT NOW, probably cause somebody paid them too. They feel that MS is better than No-MS because MS pays a LOT of economists to think that way.
The fundamental point of view of an economists is "Anything that causes money to flow from other people to me is good for the economy."
I don't mean to be hypocritical, that's the way I feel, too, but I don't get cited as an expert on these things.
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
I can touch type with both. I type 20-30 wpm faster on Dvorak, and it's noticably more comfortable, as many people have said. You don't really know how awful Qwerty really is until you learn Dvorak and then switch back- it's so obvious it either 1) wasn't designed at all or 2) was designed to slow people down.
Typing on Qwerty now feels like I'm trying to tie my fingers in knots. Dvorak just.... flows.
Gosh, they make this out to be so complicated. The keyboard analogy has often been used as an example of "market failure," much like the supposed VHS-Beta example.
It's wrong, and you don't need to be a microeconomist to figure it out. It doesn't even matter which keyboard is "superior". People chose qwerty, end of story. True, there weren't many choices initially (one, I guess), but once that choice was made, nobody wanted much to change to another keyboard. The lesson? Standardization is more valuable than an "optimum" layout. People chose standardization, and the public settled for the first standard that came along. That's a valid market result.
One bit I did find interesting was the bit on the ergonomic studies, and the arguments that:
A. The loads on the right and left hands are equalized.
B. The load on the home (middle) row is maximized.
C. The frequency of alternating hand sequences is maximized and the frequency of same-finger typing is minimized.
It's Friday, so I think I'll hack together a keyboard monitor and see what keys I really hit. Then I'll do some unscientific analyses on the results. If anyone's already got a keyboard monitor, save me a bit of work,eh?
The article considers very interesting factors - forces that affect the market, a serendipitous solution to fast typing coming froma solution to a mechanical limitaiton, limiting factors maybe not the keyboard, but neurological, but does not explicitly consider the factor you mentioned - which one is less stressful on the wrists?
It seems to me that the solution of spreading alternating keystrokes to alternating hands might have solved not only the jamming problem, but also the wrists one, but reducing the stretching of the fingers and allowing some rest time between strokes. Sufficient spacing between the keys to avoid cramping is also necessary.
It wsn't that the qwerty typewriter was supposed to be faster. It was actually designed to be slower, so you would spend less time unjamming keys, as they got stuck together. If anyone as used an old typewriter that has the arms that strike the paper instead of a platten knob that strikes the paper, they understand this.
I don't regret switching at all.
:)
Besides the fact I think the article is a load of crap
We've discussed this EXACT article in the past. See: The Myth of QWERTY.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
If you go up to their page about the MS anti-trust case, they put forward some evidence that prices of software products in markets where Microsoft compete have dropped much faster than prices in markets where Microsoft does not compete. At first glance this suggests that Microsoft is not a monopoly, since monopolies usually exert their influence to keep prices inflated.
However, the reasoning is fallacious:
So everyone's still arguing if it's faster. One thing's for certain, your fingers move a LOT less. Which in the end is all that really matters - more comfortable definitely.
As soon as I saw mention of arguments as to why Monoposoft isn't a
monopoly, etc., I left. Anybody, economist or otherwise, who keeps
insisting that MS is somehow good for consumers has no credibility,
in my eyes.
Isn't this sort of a rerun...we already had an article that basically debunked the conventional wisdom that dvoraks were so much greater. I wouldn't mind it if we all used dvoraks though, because the qwerty unevenly distributes keys (not to say that it is slower...left hand is just used a lot).
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
So many people jump to the conclusion that because the Dvorak tests were biased, that means that Dvorak is no better than QWERTY. This is a very invalid argument. Just think about it: How many words can you make with the letters on the home row of QWERTY (asdfghjkl;)? Not very many. How many can you make with the home row of Dvorak (aoeuidhtns)? A whole lot more. My friend here says it's about 100 vs. 3000. Now, unless you assume that finger movement is "free", there's going to be SOME speed advantage there, not to mention being easier on your wrists.
Whatever the motivations, the dvorak layout has the look of having been "planned", and the QWERTY layout has the look of either having been slapped together randomly or antagonistically.
I have never met someone who properly started using dvorak (that is, cold turkey) who ever regretted it. Certainly testimonial evidence is not as good as scientifically rigorous testing (it could all be psychosematic), but it IS something. So we have
1. A biased scientific test
2. Hypothetical anagram test
3. Testimonial
Each alone would be severly suspect, but together they give a pretty clear picture that Dvorak has some advantages.
Remember: this article does not say Dvorak is no better than QWERTY.
Microsoft's questionable research papers
An excerpt:
-- Seth Finkelstein
Going through these people's other articles linked from the page, I find some very obvious logical holes which leave me with little confidence in the QWERTY article.
For instance, they claim that if Microsoft was a monopolist, they would raise their prices after getting a high market share, but that software prices in areas where Microsoft competes are actually decreasing faster than in other areas.
If Microsoft is dumping to get a monopoly, you would expect that prices would go down, not up--decreasing prices is exactly what one would expect. Increasing prices only happen afterwards.
To give an extreme example, Internet Explorer is free (of cost). That is certainly a price that went down, to zero.
Furthermore, the authors note that prices of software are going down. The price of Windows hasn't. Even by their own reasoning, the price of Windows is much more than what it should be had it followed the trend--i.e. Microsoft _is_ charging monopoly prices for Windows.
You can find lots of counter examles for each key board both pro and con. For A bad Qwerty, "as fast as fast can be" is all left hand except for one letter. For a Good dvorak, "quantos anos tienes" is all on the home row except the first letter. Over the long run, the averages work out like they say.
One can almost bet without risk that any positive spin wrt Monoposoft is
fabricated, it would seem.
I'm wondering if there isn't a BETTER keyboard then QWERTY _AND_ Dvorak.
:-)
i.e.
Instead of arguing which keyboard is better, why can't we design a better one? (with respect to key layout)
Come on you people in kinesiology, do some ergonomics studies, and design a better keyboard.
If we already have a better/new keyboard, does anyone have any links? (I'm intereseted in NON QWERTY and Dvorak keyboards.)
Cheers
i posted about this journal article to slashdot like a year ago or something.... anyone living near a decent university library could have gotten a copy in about an hour or two. anyone in a public library could have done an 'interlibrary loan' and waited a few weeks and gotten it. however, the ideas within the article seemed to be lost in some kinda paper hell hole in the bottom of the shelf. but now they are on the internet for free. anyone can go read that article. im surprised the journal of law and economics let their copyright rules be broken, let alone Leibowitz deciding to paste his article on the web instead of charging $ for reprints or something. anyways the internet is great.
If "lock-in" were a powerful and pervasive phenomenon, so that it is commonly impossible to switch from an inferior standard to a superior
standard, then it is not likely that Linux could
ever unseat Microsoft Windows products, no matter
how much better.
But the lesson of the article (and much academic
research in the same vein) is that path-dependence
is much overblown and much overestimated as a force in the economy. If Linux is better (it is!)
then we should see exactly what we are seeing now -- development, both technical and business-systems, on many simultaneous fronts to
facilitate the conversion of the world.
Far from being a pro-Microsoft article, the conclusion here is more that the Right Thing
_can_ win out.
Wikia
The problem with this kind of argument is that it so easily gets entangled with other, separate discussions and issues. Is Microsoft a monopoly (and if so, rightly so)? Do inferior products win market share for good reasons every time? Is the market always right? What about VHS vs. Beta? Yadda, yadda.
Fine. I am happy and willing to discuss and think about all those things in good time. And I can see some points from both positions (ultimately I support the Free Market). But it all, in truth, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Dvorak keyboard, and whether or not it is a better layout than QWERTY. It's a separate argument.
Well, from my experience (I know, unscientific) it is better. I converted to Dvorak about a year ago as a test to myself - would my typing efficiency increase with a new keyboard layout?...
The ultimate result is - yes, it very much did! Not at first, mind you, and not so easily to acheive... but after about a month and a half of struggling with this new layout (I still wanted to retain proficiency in QWERTY, which made the learning process steeper), my brain one day just "clicked", and I could type Dvorak. I was pleased.
So, about my typing efficiency - am I significantly *faster* on Dvorak than on QWERTY?... I am faster, but I wouldn't say night 'n day faster. In Qwerty I can max out at about 65wpm... with Dvorak I top out at about 75, sometimes 80 - both touch typing (without looking). Not bad. Writing books helped my speed somewhat. ; )
But would I say that switching was *worth it*, and something that everyone should do? Based upon the ***raw speed measurement alone***, I would say NO! (And therefore agree with the resources at hand). Switching was grueling and slow. If your livelyhood depends upon your ability to type, switching to Dvorak could cost you two months of productivity for a small raw speed increase.
BUUUTTTT.... There is another side to this! My raw typing speed increase was NOT drastic... but my typing **COMFORT** was!!!!! I can type for much LONGER periods of time on Dvorak without stopping - which, when coupled with speed measurements does increase the total average **considerably**!!! This is where the speed increase comes from. My hands do not hurt on Dvorak after a couple of hours as they do on QWERTY. (And so I find myself switching the keymap to Dvorak, much to the frustration of friends and coworkers, everywhere I go! ; )
In this day and age of ERGONOMICS, CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME, and JOINT PAIN, Dvorak could be a life-saver for millions. And for people who must type not sporadically, but for long periods of time, such as secretaries, authors, etc... Dvorak is a better solution, and I dare say **IS DEFINITELY WORTH** the switch, despite the learning curve, if you have two months to kill.
Now, can this idea be sold to the average consumer? Well, probably not. Two months is a long time. We want immediacy - not commitment. And that's not the end of the world, nor the Free Market as we know it! ; )
What does this mean for the other stuff - market mindshare, inferior products, Microsoft?... I don't think it effects all that one way or the other. I use Dvorak, and I like it, so there. : P
And I still believe the Free Market is the only economic system that promotes individual liberty more than any other system, and is therefore my favorite, even if it does mean dealing with crappy MS products.
And remember - dealing with crappy OSs means that us sysadmins and consultants can MAKE MORE MONEY! ; ) Imagine what our jobs would be like if every system was as reliable and stable as those Linux systems... We'd have nothing to do!!! ; )
In all seriousness, though, the Market does make the most correct choices for the largest number of people in most cases. The mere existence of Linux is proof of that (we were unsatisfied with the choices available - we built something better). 9 million strong and growing fast! We get what we want (a powerful POSIX OS on open hardware) - Joe Dblclick gets what he wants (an easy OS on open hardware)... We ALL WIN.
And the fact that most people don't use Dvorak really has little bearing on economic issues such as this one way or the other. It's all just intellectual tub-thumping. One of these days we'll do actual benchmarks. When the Dvorak-ists win, I hope the people at Reason magazine don't see that as a loss for the Free Market... Just a win for Dvorak. : P
And there are other issues in the Market than mere superiority - availability for one. Ease of use. Cost. The commitment thing with Dvorak fits in here. A Microsoft split keyboard is *not* as good a Dvorak keyboard, but it does address the problem immediately, as opposed to two months later... The cost might be lower in the long run. ; )
-Josh
The ergonomics section of the article kept talking about typing speed. Ergonomics also deal with comfort and endurance issues as well. I have heard of other stories/articles that show Dvorak keyboards are more comfortable to use and can be used longer.
Any one remember reading something about this?
I got the dual legends but I've yet to find time for the week off to re-learn. Bummer!
I would advise getting the Savant keypad rather than the footswitch. If you key a lot of numbers (IP's included), this will save you a lot of wear and tear on your keypad button.
Their analogy strikes me as really weak: 1. Qwerty and Dvorak keyboards are at the same technical level; the differences between the two are certainly smaller than, say, the differences between Windows and Solaris. Neither keyboard is likely to fail more than the other, and most of us don't even care that much about 20% increases in typing speed. 2. Qwerty isn't a company or a single company's product. It's a mostly universally accepted standard that anyone can manufacture, and it doesn't change. As to their assertion that Microsoft keeps prices low, I'd also like to point out that MS doesn't exercise their monopoly power by raising prices, but by forcing people to keep buying the same product over and over. A $20 keyboard will last through at least $300 of Windows upgrades.
exactly. ppl have too much riding on proving this
old case one way or another.
I do not have scientific proof, but I suspect that DVORAK is marginally faster, based on the reality that many typists have learned QWERTY so well that they have overcome most of the design limitations.
This is very much like the classic argument "May dad could beat up your dad!" - it is a moot point because fathers almost never had to fight each other, and besides, what would be the difference if he could beat up your dad?
The authors have smashed the so-called scientific claim that Dvorak is a better layout than QWERTY. They used the tools, reason and accurate scholarship, that I thought most nerds believed in.
However, we have all these so called nerds making claims based upon personal anecdotes. Personal anecdotes do not prove crap. They are the anathema of science.
I prefer empirical scientific studies. The authors showed that the pro-Dvorak studies were not rigorous and are unacceptable. Most importantly, there are no empirical scientific studies that support any claim of Dvorak superiority. There are none. Zero. Therefore, I can make no scientific claims about Dvorak superiority. Any claim is just some silly opinion.
you got them confused.
your claim: nobody want to change to another keybaord.
your mistake: you didn't look at other posts.
your claim: standardization is good.
you mistake:it should have been "standardization, WHILE NOT COSTING US MORE MONEY(ie, MONOPOLY) , is good." but then again you are probably using IE to type this post.
Lastly, for your info, "Monopolistic Market" is regarded as "Market FAilure" in economy. Therefore, in economic terms, (using your very goofy definition of standardization) Standardization is Market failure. now does that make sense to you? no? it's because there's something wrong with your claim as states earlier.
I thought about calling this "Economists: Whores and Pimps" but thought that might draw too many 'Flamebait' moderations ... :^)
Some observations on economists and their activity in a slightly different industry than computers. These are from Wendell Berry's Home Economics:
Disclaimer: I studies just enough economics in college to learn some of the vocabulary, but not enough to get brainwashed into taking economists pronouncements seriously...
well, since you ask, I usually pronounce it
dvo - rack. (said as one word, quickly and without a pause)
why? it causes less confusion for the non-Czech speaking population. Even so, most people insist on spelling it with an E after the D. So then I go thru my spiel of saying "spelled d as in david, v as in victor, o , r , a , k. There's no E in it."
The pronuciation of the name comes from the accents that are supposed to be over the r and a. (all czech words are pronunced phonetically, based on the accent marks.. none of these hidden rules like english or french!) The r gets a hook or carrot and the a gets a small apostrophe or forward slash over it.
the hook over the r changes the sound of the r form an english r to a rolling r sound, which does not exist in english. Surprisingly, native english speakers absolutely cannot make this sound. (russians, poles, slovaks can) The accent over the a makes it a long a, like the sound in "aaahhhh"
In no case is the pronunciation "deee --- vorr ---aack" or any of the other "dee" variations.
some people like to say dvo-jack, and while I usually complement them on the effort, and ask them to say dvo-rack.
ps, no, I can't spell.. English is my second language!
George Dvorak
I learned QWERTY touch typing in 1962, and changed
/usr/doc tree. The file name
over to Dvorak in 1980. I will never go back;
QWERTY is too slow, too error-prone, and too
fatiguing. My speed increased from 40wpm to 70wpm
within a year of the change, but more importantly
my error rate was about 2/3 lower and typing was
much less fatiguing.
I've used the Kinesis keyboard for a year now, and
I don't ever want to go back to straight
keyboards. My speed went up about 20% with the
Kinesis, and my error rate is a bit lower too.
The Kinesis Essential is available for about $210
shipped. See the
Kinesis homepage for vendors; I have had good
prices and service from Softek Business Systems.
I too would like to see some unbiased scientific
studies of Dvorak vs. QWERTY. Until then I will
listen to my hands and observe my error rate; both
tell me clearly that QWERTY is perverse and
unergonomic.
For Linux users, there is a Dvorak remap file for
xmodmap in the
is"xdvorak.xmodmap".
The crucial distinction made in this article is between "excessive inertia" and "reasonable inertia". The question is, as an already-skilled qwerty typist, would you be selfishly happy if the rest of the world made the switch? Obviously, the generations of unborn children would be happy, because Dvorak is acknowledged to be better. But the inertia can still be "reasonable" if the average skilled typist's investment in relearning is not repaid by a significant margin. Inertia's only "excessive" if everyone wishes they could switch (as opposed to wishing that they'd made the right choice the first time) but is just waiting for the other guy to do it first.
Obviously, this article argues largely from a lack of evidence, and so doesn't prove that the inertia's not excessive. But its thesis is at least plausible; I know a lot of people who would not be happy if the world switched to Dvorak. Can you imagine how your average user would scream if suddenly they had to learn how to type all over again? And it's not just that they don't know what's good for them. If you're never going to be an excellent typist, the hassle of relearning the layout probably won't ever repay itself.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
"The Christmas we get, we deserve." -- Greg Lake
The QWERTY keyboard was designed to keep nearby keys from being struck consecutively, which is different from slowness in general. However, it just so happens that for typists, there's an advantage in striking consecutive keys with different fingers, because the other finger can move into position while one is typing the previous key.
There are many economists who treat historical evidence as important, in addition to theory. Unfortunately, there are many who don't. They tend to ignore or use convoluted routes to explain how free-market theory deals with externalities.
Of course, it's only the really radical folk who believe the market never fails. These are the ones who tend to back Microsoft, frequently on the grounds that antitrust law is bad in the first place.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
The referenced article only used Dvorak peripherally, however, to try to support a rather teunuos and IMHO incorrect supposition about economics. They could just have easily used Twinkies. They evidently started down the Beta-VHS track, but found too many dessicated corpses littering that trail and turned back.
My advice to them, and to the other Packers (not the Green Bay variety) out there: Tha-a-a-at's right, there's nothing to see here, move along quietly now. Just keep on using QWERTY, and MS-Windows, and gas-burning autos and all that. Buy everything you see advertised on the telly. Those of us who are using Dvorak, and Linux, and Ada, and Esperanto, why, we're all cranks and eccentrics and dreamers. We're not gaining a-a-a-a-any advantage whatsoever by our non-mainstream behaviors, no sirree. Nuh-uh, nope. Trust me--have I ever lied to you?
Why is it that the QWERTY b!tches never admit that their system stinks? It just makes logical sense to put the common characters on the home row (ASDGHJKL;:'" - what a bunch of crap designed to slow people down). The very idea of Dvorak is to minimize excessive motion, If you say it doesn't, you have not analyzed the situation. While it may not be much faster, it might slow down CTS.
I think there is easily be a better system then both, but I have other things to worry about.
of those Usenet articles by people who can't lose an argument?
I hate keyboarding, though I am much better at typing than I was a few months ago. What I really want is a completely voice driven interface that talks back to me in Majel Barret"s voice. But seriously in reading their papers on comparisons of spreadsheets and word processors their conclusions about MS superiority reflect more on corporate desires than real end user friendliness, MS office products work fine until you want to do something that isn't in one of their templates, then you have to fight tooth and nail to get things done.
They point out that there WERE many different layouts besides QWERTY, each of which claimed to be the fastest and most efficient. Each of them had significant market share and each were very close in speed contests.
Then it got to be upgrade time. (I love the fact that everyone else uses NT, because it forces our machines to be upgraded every few months. My Linux box doesn't really need to be a P-III 450, but it doesn't hoit.) After I got past my pleasant visions of the Dell reclamation department gazing aghast at the rearranged keys on my old keyboard, I started to pry off the first keycap on my new keyboard. Then it hit me--I'd been using it all morning with the keys in their current positions, and hadn't cared a whit. I had learned Dvorak by touch. So I left them as they were. The next time an admin wanted to shell up to root, I asked him if he could touch-type Dvorak. Guess what his answer was. (You're close, but there were more swear words.)
I shoulda let him think he'd forgotten his password.
I just wish that all the keys that have become commonplace in the digital age would always be in the same place. Nothing slows me down more than continuously hitting the damned caps lock key instead of the control key, and searching for either "|" or "~" (bein' a perl coder, thems useful)
The article talks about these two things as though they were hardware standards from competing vendors.
When in fact you can remap your keyboard using software, and put stickers on the keycaps. (Shuffling the keycaps around won't work all that well because on most keyboards, the keycaps from different rows have different shapes). (Some of us wouldn't need the stickers; it would not impede me at all if the key labels were sanded right off).
Moreover, choosing a keyboard layout is personal preference. If you choose a Dvorak layout, you won't suddenly be a technological outcast who is unable to use computer software. (Except that, you will be stuck to having to implement your customization in every environment, whereas if you type QWERTY, you don't need to customize anything).
Just because they support Microsoft in the trial does not mean that they are spreading 'propoganda'. The authors involvement in the QWERTY/Devork debate preceed the current anti-trust trial.
You brought up some valid points. The authors also don't address how Microsoft's ability to withhold APIs can be overcome by the market. For example, without the government anti-trust laws, what is to prevent mircosoft from withhold from sound card manufactorers their APIs for the sound system if they supply drivers for linux, BEos, etc.
However, they do bring up one point that tends to refute the arguement that Word is popular only because they control the OS. According to their data, Word and Excel dominated the Mac market, where they don't control the OS, before they dominated the Windows market.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
So, people who practice Dvorak for a couple of
months are no faster than people who practice
Qwerty for 15 years. Gee.
Me, I use Dvorak because it hurts less.
And yes, the people doing the research are massively
biased.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Oh, wait, we're talking about keyboards... uh... never mind!
The real question is if you put a thousand monkeys on a thosand computers with Dvorak keyboards, will they print out anything more intelligent than a thousand monkeys on computers with QWERTY keyboards?
(see Microsoft Admits to Secretly Paying for "Independent" Ads).
Caveat lector.
> their purpose: to demonstrate that Microsoft's cominant position is not related to inertia and most likely arises through technical superiority.
Not exactly. The authors state that MS-DOS and now Windows offer the best buy, not necessarily the technically superior product. The factors which go into the purchasing decision include much more than "technical superiority", no matter how defined. Windows cost 10% of what Solaris cost, and requires cheaper hardware. If you get 20% of Solaris' functionality, Windows wins for most users.
>If you go up to their page about the MS anti-trust case, they put forward some evidence
>that prices of software products in markets where Microsoft compete have dropped much faster than
>prices in markets where Microsoft does not compete. At first glance this suggests that
>Microsoft is not a monopoly, since monopolies usually exert their influence to keep prices inflated.
Not quite. What matters is not whether MS is a monopoly, but whether it is using its monopoly position to the detriment of consumers.
>However, the reasoning is fallacious:
The unit production cost of software is almost
>zero, so the economies of scale are huge. Software which sells lots of copies should sell at
>a tiny fraction of the price of specialist software.
>Microsoft exercises its monopoly position in one main market: the OS. Its income from this market
>is so huge that it can afford to loss-lead products in other markets. Thus MS may provide a
>downward pressure on products in some markets, but only by inflating prices in another market.
MS has a near-monopoly in 2 markets. OS and office suite software. The office suite market is perhaps more instructive, because MS took the monopoly away from WordPerfect and Lotus.
>The trend for MS monpoly product, its OS, is upward, not downward, despite the increase in the market.
>Becuase of the huge economies of scale, it may in the past have proven beneficial in terms of price
>to have a single provider rather than paying many copies to duplicate effort. But the cost of lack
>of competition is lack of innovation.
>The market is now so huge that software prices are essentially being driven to zero for the most
>used software. Microsoft's pricing, with the exception of internet explorer, does not reflect
this trend.
If one looks at what is bundled with the OS, and what is bundled with Office, the overall price trend is still down. MS may be abusing its monopoly position with the bundling that goes on, but the case for price increases isn't as strong as it looks on the surface.
>The only software markets in which Microsoft does not compete are either specialised, or fast
>turnover (games). In these markets the huge economies of scale are not realised, and so the
>pricing is not expected to fall in the same way.
The really important question is: Is MS's monopoly permanent? The answer appears to be no. Hardware advances are blurring the distinction between workstations/PCs and servers, and the competition in server OSs is spreading to workstations and PCs, directly opposite to the MS business plan. When Windows was the cheapest OS with lots of useful features (a GUI, etc), it was dominant.
Now, Linux is cheaper, though not necessarily as "useable" by the general public. This will lead to a situation where people who are very price-sensitive will abandon Windows, as will people who prefer the feature-set of Linux. MS marketing for server OSs already recognizes this; "ease of use" (it looks just like Windows) is a big part of the sales pitch for NT. The problem for MS is that it is used to being the cheaper, "good-enough" solution, and capturing the market from that end. Now, it's the premium price for premium feature (ease of use, application support) choice. That's a very different marketing situation to be in.
... but Rob eventually got his story straight, instead of saying that "Dvorak is faster than Dvorak".
I posted this article three weeks ago just simply asking about the opionions of the dovark keyboard. After waiting and waiting for my article to be posted. Now, it won't be. This was my first attempt to post one and my last.
"It is in the interest of pro-lassaiz-faire folk to deny network effects exist, since such effects point up a prime failing of the free market. Customers must be completely free to choose the best product. Unfortunately for them, I've heard far too much anecdotal evidence to the contrary."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the foundation of free market thinking is based on *political* freedom not the freedom from reality you seem to think is necessary. Standards, traditions, conventions, etc., all may impede what you arbitrarily define as the most efficient solution. Big deal! There is also a fixed cost associated with changing from one standard to the other. A standard must not only be better, but by a large enough extent to recoup transistion costs. In this case, being *THE* standard itself, is enough to maintain market dominance - for now. There is absolutely nothing wrong about that or in any way contradictory to free market thinking.
Face it lefty, you don't like the free market because you don't like freedom.
The Dvorak/Qwerty debate is getting rather old [0]. What's more interesting is how the authors of this article progress generalize from this single extremely particular QWERTY example onto more general economic grounds-- specifically, the Microsoft trial.
Laissez-faire economists like to say that the cost of switching to another office suite, rather than staying with Microsoft, outweighs the benefits of switching to another suite; and therefore, there is no market failure. They ignore the huge and ruinous long-term costs of staying with Microsoft.
If Microsoft did not have a monopoly position that enabled it to exploit "network effects", would everyone bother upgrading to the latest version of Office every single time? The most commonly used Office application, Microsoft Word, has not changed appreciably since version 6.0.
However, since Microsoft is fond of making their file formats non-backwards-compatible (often with automatic conversions whenever someone opens a document), people using Microsoft products to exchange documents with each other are effectively coerced into switching whenever one employee, department, or client in the network upgrades to Microsoft products. No user wants to deal with this, but they must upgrade anyway; not when they feel the need for more features (which almost nobody does, for Office) but whenever Microsoft feels like releasing a new edition of its viral applications into the market.
Of course, according to the laissez-faire people, the present cost of staying with Microsoft is still lower than switching, so there is no such thing as network effects. But that's the very definition of network effects: the result of using a greedy algorithm over a network where such an algorithm is non-optimal.
This whole issue shows how dangerous it is to take advice about technical issues from people who have a vested interest in supporting a particular economic model.
~k.lee
[0] Maybe the authors are right, and maybe they aren't; I type at 100+ wpm, and unless I am going to get a huge speedup (> 200 wpm) in typing speed I am not going to bother switching one way or the other.
(remove nospam for email)
There's another rebuttal of this article here
I'm sorry, but the only real test that is difficult to attack is real world productivity, not what you can rig up under controlled settings. Ignoring all the economic issues (eg: marginal cost of retraining vs marginal benefit of DVORAK), who are the fastest typers. Granted one can argue that QWERTY has always and will always have a larger pool to draw from; however, I think the words "Put up, or shutup" work here. If DVORAK can neither produce the fastest typers, nor average the faster typers....then forget it.
To parade examples of 'free', or nominally cheaper, MS software up as evidence that MS is not a monopolist is just plain silly. A monopolist in MS's position clearly has probable reasons for 'dumping' software. eg: netscape+java can clearly marginalize MS's entire platform -- thus they kill it before it hurts them.
Futhermore, It is extremely difficult to argue that MS software has satisfied consumer demand any better since, lets say the first release of Windows95(personally, since MS-DOS). Most all of their costs are fixed and upfront, meaning prices SHOULD be going down since they can lower them (in a competitive market). But they don't have any serious competition, so they don't have to. How any rational and supposedly educated individual can look at MS's profit margins -- for the amount of time they've had them, in as many areas as they do, without dramatic and constant improvements -- and come to any conclusion other than the fact that they're essentially a monopoly, will never fail to amaze me.
(Not to mention the fact that I personally know people who've been all but steamrolled by them)
Of course we've had alternatives to the keyboard for some time. I mean Englebart came up with various chording solutions years ago. Now how much faster and more ergonomical are those solutions when compared to a keyboard. Plus you can chord with one hand and mouse with the other. Any economists want to speculate why those didn't catch on?
I found out about this layout from a friend, and about how great it was supposed to be. Did a little research, found that I could change a simple setting and rearrange my keycaps, and I'd be using Dvorak.
It was horrible at first. I had to relearn how to type, and since I spend a lot of time in chats, it was really frustrating. Didn't help that I had to use QWERTY in school, too.
I struggled through it, though, and after a month or two, I swear I was typing faster with Dvorak than I ever did with QWERTY, and it was a lot nicer on my hands as well. As an unpleasant side-effect, my QWERTY skills were nearly reduced to hunt-and-peck, but since I did/do most of my typing at home, it wasn't much of an issue.
A little while ago, though, I bought a new computer, and new keyboard to go with it. (The old keyboard's plug wouldn't fit in the new comp's jack, and it didn't have a Windoze key).
I've relearned how to type in QWERTY, at least as well as I ever did, a sort of cross between the standard method and hunt-and-peck. I'd switch back, but other family members use the computer, too, now that it's not a piece of junk, and I don't want to screw them up.
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
"C. The frequency of alternating hand sequences is maximized and the frequency of same-finger typing is minimized."
As somebody who's been playing the piano for about 15 years I find it quite hard to believe that alternating hand sequences is the optimal typing pattern - it's one of the hardest things to do quickly!
Take for example typing the four keys on each hand in their natural resting position. You can probably type "asdf;lkj" about 4 times a second, but you'd be hard pressed to type "a;sldkfj" more than 1.5 times a second. This is why in all your early piano lessons you put those finger numbers over all the notes - you find the optimum pattern that flows easily (and usually sequentially) across fingers in the same hand.
Most articles of this type also assume a standard "touch typing" style. Touch typing may be the optimal pattern if your hands are to stay in the same position, but who says you have to keep your hands stationary? I tend to type with my hands drifting about the keyboard slightly depending on the sequence to be typed.
After trying Dvorak for a few months, I decided there was no way I could match the 150wpm that I currently manage with QWERTY. QWERTY suffers less from the alternating hands syndrome than Dvorak, and as such I'll be sticking with QWERTY. The one thing I can say for Dvorak is that it does put less strain on the hands overall.
> According to their data, Word and Excel dominated the Mac market, where they don't control the OS, before they dominated the Windows market.
When I read that I immediately wondered about the competition in the two markets. The Mac market has always been smaller (less competition), AFAIK, so it's easier to capture a large portion of it. You have to beat one or two products, not a dozen.
In which case making a direct comparison doesn't work, and the data doesn't support their argument.
That said, I recall Word being pretty good compared to other word processors, back in the day. I suspect control of the o/s had more to do with how Word remained on top, rather than how it got there -- it certainly seems like crap today (bloated and unreliable), and even life-long windows users seem unhappy with it.
aufait said: "Just because they support Microsoft in the trial does not mean that they are spreading 'propoganda'"
Actually, that's exactly the definition of 'spreading propoganda.' Both their Dvorak and Microsoft arguments start with a clear agenda and continue with various proof to support their idea.
The difference between science and politics is that in science, you are suposed to start with a hypothesis and test this (impartially) to achieve a result. The point is to reach an accurate understanding.
In politics, you start with a position and try to pursuade others to agree with your idea. The point is to propogandize a belief you hold to be accurate.
Their article is politics, and only pretends to be science. Additionally, this group is receiving money to be Microsoft's lapdancer. So it's not only unscientificly prejusticed, it's whore-ably biased.
I've been contemplating the switch to Dvorak for a long time now, but what's always kept me from doing so was the fact that part of my job is working on a wide variety of client's PCs, and I'm not sure if it is possible (or even desirable) to be well versed in both Qwerty and Dvorak. It seems like using Dvorak at home all the time and Qwerty everywhere else would be pretty tough, if not confusing. I could just make the switch, but I'm worried that I might get out of practice with Qwerty. The prospect of regressing to hunt-and-peck on the most popular keyboard layout doesn't exactly entice me. Can any of you guys type well in both? What's the learning curve - how long does it take?
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Actually, that's exactly the definition of 'spreading propoganda.'
According to your definition of propoganda, anyone who supports Microsoft is spreading Microsoft propoganda. That is a circular arguement. ESR has occassionally agreed with Microsoft. Somehow, I don't picture him as a Microsoft lackey.
The authors of the article were making the same arguements about the Dvorak keyboard back in 1990. That was before the browser war started.
The difference between science and politics is that in science, you are suposed to start with a hypothesis and test this (impartially) to achieve a result.
Tests were done, with varying problems with the protocol, and the results were mixed. Sometimes QWERTY 'won' and others 'Dvorak' won. That would suggest that both are very close.
The point is to reach an accurate understanding.
Exactly! And as it stands now. There has not been a repeatable experiment which weakens the Dvorak is superier arguement.
Additionally, this group is receiving money to be Microsoft's lapdancer. So it's not only unscientificly prejusticed, it's whore-ably biased.
First, the article was written in 1990 before Microsoft gave money to the Institute. So, how could they be Microsoft whores.
Second, even if they were whoring for Microsoft, it doesn't mean that the arguements are incorrect. It is a reason to examine the arguements more closely. It is not a reason to reject them.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
This article doesn't answer these questions, though:
Those are the questions I really wanted answered. I have read all this info before, and I still decided to go with DSK.
My speed hasn't increased, and neither has my error rate (still 40-50 WPM, 95% error). But my rate improves (in QWERTY or DSK) if I practice with a typing program (I have an old Mavis Beacon with DSK support).
Fun Notes
Ciao!
The Doctor What (KF6VNC)
This became something of a problem because there were some students who were going around switching the key caps to the Dvorak configuration so they could learn faster.
Seastead this.
The real reason so many people use Microsoft, stick with Microsoft, and wouldn't ever think of using anything but Microsoft, is that they don't know any better.
..."
/. readers do. And, certainly, the masses aren't familiar with having to keep a server running constantly.
Sample conversation I've had online recently:
A: "I don't use Windows, but
B: "So you have a Mac?"
A: "No, Pentium Pro."
B: "But I thought you said you don't use Windows?"
People have this idea that Microsoft is a fantastic, innovative company headed by a brilliant visionary. They don't know that Gates hasn't personally coded since 1983, that Microsoft *purchased* DOS 1.0, that Microsoft's products aren't actually innovative, and that there *are* other, sometimes better products out there.
Faced with this ignorance, I try the stability argument. Problem is, people are trained to be used to crashing, and most people don't spend as many hours on their computer as we
In conclusion, Microsoft's success with Windows and Office isn't a result of market failure; rather, it's a result of ignorance on the part of consumers.
On a side note, massive government intervention won't solve this ignorance. In the best case, Microsoft's employees will be the only ones harmed. In the worst case, not only will Microsofties suffer, but those people and organisations that rely upon Microsoft will suffer, as well.
The Myth of the Keys is extremely biased, has no true evidence and makes no sense in certain places.
Here's the "truth": http://www.ccsi.com/~mbrooks/dvora k/dissent.html
As far as Dvorak being faster than QWERTY. A friend of mine was typing 55-65wpm using QWERTY a year ago. Eight months ago he switched to Dvorak. His current speed is 60-70wpm (which is not much faster), but he says that his hands feel a lot better with Dvorak than with QWERTY.
QWERTY was designed to slow down. Dvorak was designed to speed up and simplify typing. Both keyboard layouts have achieved their goals.
I am currently a QWERTY user, but I'm switching to Dvorak as soon as I have a week or so of no important typing to do.
From the above URL, as an argument for Dvorak, one can form about 12 times more English words using just the homerow on a Dvorak keyboard compared to a QWERTY keyboard. Think about it: **12** times more words without having to move your arms off the home row.
I can't believe that the world is still using a keyboard that was designed with *salesmen* in mind (that is, the top row of the QWERTY keyboard contains all the letters necessary for typewriter salesmen to type "typewriter", saving them trouble of hunting and pecking back in the day).
I strongly suggest you use Dvorak. Its only flaw is that its really not as widespread as QWERTY.
7. Where can I buy MS Word for 50 dollars? I don't agree with their pricing data at all..
That article was totally pointless.
Pretty much all work in anthropology before 1950 was completely bogus - but that does not mean what anthropologists do now is bogus. Likewise, ignorant claims about dvorak superiority do not mean anything about the -truth-.
Just tell me which string contains the more common characters in the english language:
"aoeuhtns" or "asdfjk;l".
The end.
A W S ----------- QABO : BALA
Jeez, I come this discussion a day late, and after almost 200 comments, nobody has yet mentioned the Maltron keyboard. Read all about it at:
http://www.teleprint.com/keyboard/history.html
Lillian G. Malt was apparently as obsessed with improving the plight of the typist as was August Dvorak. Her first paper at the above site, dated 1977, points out that Dvorak's attempt to maximize "contralateral keying" (going from one hand to another on successive letters), while faster on mechanical typewriters, is not the optimal strategy on computer keyboards. She did extensive error analysis for two-letter combinations, taking into account their frequency of occurrence.
"The Maltron letter layout has three important objectives. First, to place the most frequently used characters on the home keys, that is, on the keys directly under the fingers and thumbs to minimize finger travel and stretchover the keyboard. Second, to arrange all letters so that known keying errors and language confusions would be avoided. With such an arrangement it was expected that the most frequent error patterns observed on both Sholes (Querty) and Dvorak (simplified) would be aided. Third, where possible, after allowing for the two objectives already stated, to allow for lateral keying, both adjacent and spaced".
Malt adjusted her key layout so that the fewest errors occurred with the most frequent letters. For example, on the Querty layout, most errors involved "E"; on Dvorak's layout, "O" and "I"; and on Malt's, "C". She considered substitutions, omissions, transpositions, insertions, and other types of errors.
The Maltron layout:
Q P Y C B V M U Z L
A N I S F D T H O R
, ? J G ' _ W K - X
Beyond the matter of key layout, her physical design puts the keys in a concave arrangement to nearly equalize finger travel, and separates the halves of the keyboard to keep the arms and hands in line.
Finally, since the Querty vs. Dvorak comparison here was brought up to support a bogus economic argument on behalf of M$, let me throw some economic jargon back at the propagandists: They cite only data on typing speed. Repetetive stress injury to them is an "externality" to be ignored, just as their ilk urged us to ignore air pollution from cars and trucks. In the larger M$ picture, frequent crashes, non-interoperability, and restrictive contracts are "externalities". If we ignore them (and only commies and liberals would fail to ignore them), then M$'s market dominance seems more reasonable and the "free market" seems to be operating quite nicely, thank you, with no need to change the status quo.
Similarly, in their treatment of software prices, our M$ toadies cite the lowering of prices as proof that the "free market" operates. J.K.Galbraith pointed out that already in the early fifties, his colleague Joseph Schumpeter (no liberal) was noting that corporations often failed to maximize profits. Why? To achieve deeper market penetration. The corporation that can afford to keep selling below cost can eventually destroy its competitors. Joe Sixpack might not realize this, but the ECONOMIST who pushes these lassaiz-faire oversimplications is not ignorant-- he is dishonest.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. -Albert Einstein
I think I type faster in Dvorak, if for no other reason than I make fewer typos. I know it is more comfortable than QWERTY. Since I haven't kept up practicing QWERTY, I have to hunt'n'peck when I use a QWERTY layout.
Some wanker from ISU haurranging on the University of Chicago. Coming from ISU class of '94, and my sister having attended UofC I can honestly say that ISU is a FAR CRY from ANYTHING WHATSOEVER that UofC has to offer.
The standard Russian "jcuken" keyboard layout for Cyrillic letters has some Dvorak-like characteristics.
The most common letters are index-finger keys in the center of the keyboard (all three rows), and middle-finger keys are the next most common.
It would be interesting if there was any comparative data on RSI frequency or typing speeds in Russia, or historical data on design considerations.
You can still buy Maltrons, details at http://www.maltron.com - not cheap but they are incredibly comfortable to use, once you adapt, and will work with PCs and Macs and maybe other systems.
Maltrons can use either the Qwerty or Maltron layout - the main benefit IMO comes from sculpting the keyboard so your hands rest in two separate wells with keys right at your finger tips. I have two Maltrons, one at home and one at work - both used in Qwerty mode.
Richard
Out of concern of developing speech problems, from years of much talking, I learned French last year. I got up to about 40 wpm on it, where I pretty much peaked. Considering that I spoke between 100-120wpm in ENGLISH, that's not much of an improvment.
I don't mean to say that it's not possible to speak as fast on in French as it is on in ENGLISH. But I found there to be little advantage to the French and, to be honest, I found it awkward. This is likely related to the fact that I've been using the standard local vocabulary for 14 years. Still, with all the time that I spent on French, I'd like to think that I have found some improvement.
The idea that the most-accessed words are simple is a cool idea, but it slowed me down. I speak with all of my voice, but I don't always hit the words with the correct inflection. As a result, French makes me use, say, my lower octaves for the ENGLISH-equlivalent CH,K,J and F. Theoretically, this would be faster if I could use all five vowels with equal agility. But, because I can't speak perfectly, I found that it was slower to use French.
There are other examples, but they're pretty much the same deal. Essentially, I'm used to ENGLISH, and I've let my speech become less-than-perfect to adapt to it. Would I be better in French if I'd started on it? Probably. But for most of us, ENGLISH should do nicely.
(Sidenote: English is one of the suckiest languages to learn, just ask anyone that knows 3 or more languages and english is not their primary)
I missed this discussion so its not worthwhile to defend dvorak in all the individual comments, so Im just posting to say Ive been using dvorak since about april a year and a while ago. I am typing on qwerty at the moment on someone elses computer without much trouble. At home I have a nice IBM keyboard and its dvorak and its absolutely beautiful to type on. On my 486 its got a cheap 10 $ keyboard and the keycaps are still qwerty, so that really screws me up. Having a dvorak and qwerty side by side is really hard, but I think my mind is trained so that when I use a certain computer (like my main computer at home) I automatically type dvorak. When I try to type dvorak on a stange and unknown computer its really hard too. All in all it would make life so much simpler if everyone ran dvorak and we didnt have to suffer because some people are too lazy to learn. Sound familiar? Now just picture that with keyboards. Its not all that hard to learn, just pull out your old copy of Mavis Beacon. Its well worth it. -- Scott Mountenay
Not exactly. The authors assert that "network effects" are a good thing in the software universe, because the consumer *does* get the "best buy" (because of "network effects" (etc)). They similarly assert that monopolies are now a Good Thing because of the result of network effects, which in my mind misses the point. While this somewhat circular logic does have some merit, it ignores the real underlying issues.
As you might expect from laissez-faire promoters, they only focus on the monetary issues (all the while applying inapplicable manufacturing metaphors to the software arena), when the real problem is stifling/usurping innovation. It may be true, as they say, that the network effects don't guarantee an irrevocable monopoly, but it certainly does give M*ft enormous leverage to maintain their dominance in the software industry in general. They also seem to ignore the cross-segment leverage (e.g. OS => office suite; "network effects" between market segments that don't benefit consumers at all) that is the core of the DOJ case. They further ignore that, as Teraflop says in his post, since the economies of scale in software "manufacturing" are enormous (h/w companies pay M*ft for the right to "make" [bundle] the OS), the consumer really isn't getting a good deal financially either, and M*ft is artifically inflating prices even now.
The "browser debate" is, in my mind, a perfect example of this: while they started in a severely disadvantageous position (i.e. totally ignorant of the 'net), they managed to gain dominance in the "browser market" by loss-leading, and by redefining the rules ("browsers are part of the operating system!") based on their existing dominant market segment. What have we, the consumers, lost in this power play? Well, the problem is that we'll never know. But if you consider that the existing market (either consumers or ISPs) could easily have borne a $15 browser, times 20 million users or more, a lot of funding could have gone to Netscape (or Opera, or whomever) to do R&D in the browser arena.
Other examples abound. The fact that the Macintosh didn't explode in 1984 was undoubtedly due to the inertia caused by an installed user base of millions of DOS-based IBM PCs in the corporate world. It took so long for that "network effect" to start being overcome that M*ft dallied until 1990 to "innovate" a competetive product. That's the most stunning one to me; if you agree that GUIs have valuable properties (which I do), then explain why the "beneficial" monopoly didn't get this great feature out to their customers for the better part of a decade.
In any case, the key is what RMS and the FSF say: that the fundamental benefit in the software arena isn't dollar cost, it is opportunity (innovation) cost. That's where the consumer is getting screwed by M*ft's predatory practices.
Anyway, now that Solaris will be "free", I predict that it will further show that price isn't a factor at all, and that network effects in the OS arena are so strong that a no-cost, industrial-strength, x86-compatible platform can't compete with M*ft's clearly inferior product.
--
--
This is why I don't post much.
Does anyone have a link to a dvorak keyboard retailer? I would love to try one of these puppies out. I've never in my life seen an advertisement for a dvorak keyboard. damn shame...
ul|tma -At least we all use linux-
The Fable of the Keys compares Dvorak and qwerty only along the axis of typing speed. I am more interested in whether Dvorak can help me avoid RSI.
As one who switched to Dvorak roughly 20 months ago, I can assure you that the investment I made to learn it was no mistake.
If your goal is to be able to type faster, then switching may not be a great idea; I don't type any faster now than I did on QWERTY. But how important is speed, anyway? If I can type 100 wpm, but can only think at around 80 wpm, then the only time the extra speed would do me any good is when I'm typing up a written document. Since I'm a sysadmin, not a secretary, that's not a problem I'm often faced with. I suspect that the circumstances of many Slashdot readers are similar.
Speed wasn't my motive for switching, though. Last spring, I left the US to study abroad. I left behind my natural keyboard, taking with me a laptop (complete with a suitably cramped laptop keyboard). After a few months of typing QWERTY on that beast, the pain was intense. So when a discussion popped up here on Slashdot last spring recommending Dvorak as an alternative, I gave it a shot. The pain went away, and with luck I've gained a few more years of CTS-free typing.
If the question is whether retraining existing QWERTY typists to use Dvorak is economically advantageous, I don't have an answer. But I'm not an economist, and economic arguments don't interest me anyway. I'm an individual with first-hand experience of the *personal* benefits of switching.