Talk:Dvorak keyboard layout

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dvorak keyboard layout article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Typography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Request for {{Semi-Protected}}

This article is being repeatedly vandalized. I suggest that it be semi-protected. DannyS712 (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may request this at WP:RFPP. General Ization ^Talk 21:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Home Row Indicators on keys

On the QWERTY layout, the Home Row Indicators are on the F and J keys, and on two handed Dvorak, U and H. Where would any (maybe only one) be on a left-hand version? EmleyMoor (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved - there is no support for this move (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dvorak Simplified Keyboard → Dvorak (keyboard layout) – As the article mentions, it's is commonly referred to as just "Dvorak". The search for "dvorak keyboard layout" outnumbers "dvorak simplified keyboard" 300,000 to 100,000 (or 40,000 to 18,000 if you enclose them in quotes to get exact matches only. On all the major operating systems (I checked android, macOS and Linux, but probably windows as well) it's simply referred to as "Dvorak". Only a few results for the search "dvorak" use its name and those that do only give it once near the beginning and go on to call it simply "Dvorak" in the rest of the article. I have never heard it called the "DSK" in conversation. The article should be changed to reflect the de-facto common usage. The first sentence could give the "official" name after just "Dvorak". This would reflect the pattern applied to countries, where for example the article for "Sweden" gives "Sweden" first and then its formal name, "the Kingdom of Sweden". Akeosnhaoe (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NATURALDIS. I don't see an advantage to using the proposed title. If a change is necessary, what about using Dvorak keyboard or Dvorak layout, both of which redirect here and are mentioned in the lead of the article? PC78 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no need to inject a parenthetical disambiguation here. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 26 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Dvorak keyboard layout. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dvorak Simplified Keyboard → ? – Per previous discussion, this article would be moved to "Dvorak keyboard" or "Dvorak layout" instead of "Dvorak (keyboard layout)". According to Akeosnhaoe (talk · contribs), "The search for "dvorak keyboard layout" outnumbers "dvorak simplified keyboard" 300,000 to 100,000." So, here are the options:

Option A: Move to "Dvorak keyboard layout"
Option B: Move to "Dvorak (keyboard layout)"
Option C: Move to "Dvorak keyboard"
Option D: Move to "Dvorak layout"
Option E: Do not move

For additional comments, use Comment. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 01:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still support option B. I've used this layout for a few years and the only time I've seen the word "simplified" is on Wikipedia (and when I searched for it), it's just called "Dvorak" Akeosnhaoe (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A or B Besides the current name being uncommon, it's inaccurate. Dvorak is no simpler than QWERTY, it's just a more efficient layout. (For some things, anyway. QWERTY is more efficient re. typos that spell-check will catch.) Oppose C, D, E. "Keyboard" is inaccurate. A keyboard is a physical object or a bit of software. "Layout" is IMO insufficiently clear. It probably wouldn't be confused w Dvorak's music, but "keyboard" is used commonly in the lit and I see no reason to omit it. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A, but no prejudice against anything except E. Any of these items address my common name concern. All these terms currently redirect to this article: Dvorak keyboard layout, Dvorak keyboard, Dvorak layout. flowing dreams (talk page) 14:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A or B (with slight preference toward A) for essentially the reasons given by kwami. All else being equal, natural disambiguation is nicer than parenthetical disambiguation, but B better reflects the WP:COMMONNAME, which is just "Dvorak". Colin M (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronunciation

It was /d'vorak/ for a while then was recently changed to /d@'vorak/ and the schwa was made non optional in the respelling.

Personally I don't hear the schwa between d and v. Maybe some people really read it as davorak, I definitely have never noticed it. And I think if I do say it it's much shorter than it would be if it was spelled Davorak. Shouldn't the notation should reflect that? It did before the edit.

Is it fine now, or was it right before or is it /'dvorak/ or something else? The previous spelling made much sense to me but apparently /dv/ is not allowed in English? Akeosnhaoe (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is alternating hands a good thing while typing?

Towards the top of the article it's mentioned that increasing alteration between fingers was a goal of the Dvorak layout, which makes sense on a typewriter. But then there's a whole section on how it's good on the modern keyboard, which I haven't really found evidence for. There is an argument that while that makes sense for a typewriter going back and forth between hands is extra effort when it takes almost no effort to push down the keys. http://pvv.org/~hakonhal/main.cgi/keyboard/arensito_devel Here it literally says "Dvorak was wrong!" about this, although wrong perhaps is a bad word because Dvorak wasn't designing a layout for the modern computer.

Regardless, the point is that the alternating hands section literally says "alternating hands is a desirable trait", which is not neutral, since the only source in that section, while agreeing with it, is just some random magazine article from 1997 which doesn't have any evidence other than intuitive arguments, which to be honest, are more convincing the other way. After all, the most popular alternative keyboard layouts designed for actual computers rather than typewriters, like Coleman and Workman, don't try to alternate hands. According to WP:NPOV, only "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources" should be stated as facts, not this, which has to be an opinion or seriously contested assertion.

1ottsco (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a paragraph saying that it has been claimed to be true, but not necessarily that it is true. Is this satisfactory?
It is claimed that words involving both hands can be typed faster than words involving only one hand, and with more hand alternation there is, the faster it can be typed. This improvement comes from splitting the workload more evenly between the two hands.

JapanYoshi 08:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Consider revising section 'Research on efficiency'

Hello,

I'm not particularly interested in making this point so I apologize if it is not perfectly clear or very well argued. I am not a Wikipedia contributor (with a very small number of exceptions), although I am a heavy user and have therefore donated to Wikipedia on a few occasions.

My criticism is this: The University of Chicago, and likely its law school by extension, are known to be more of the persuasion that markets don't have as many problems as those in mainstream economics would have you believe. This is itself an ongoing debate, so I won't try to convince anyone which school of economics is 'more correct.' But I will say that, as I was reading the article, the way the following section read (to me) was that there were possibly conflicts of interest on the part of the journal article authors. From what I understand, academics from the Chicago School are more likely to believe that 'market failure' is itself a flawed concept or rare occurrence, since as I pointed out, they are very big proponents of markets. Additionally, I rarely see (maybe I'm not looking closely enough, I'll grant you) Wikipedia articles source academic journals with impact factors as low as the Journal of Law and Economics's impact factor (0.29 in 2017), but I am sure Wikipedia does not have any threshold for impact factor that a journal article must meet to be considered an ok source. You might also consider the journal's founder, Aaron Director's connection to the Chicago School, or the fact that the Chicago School is much closer to the Austrian School than it is to mainstream economics, and at least some Austrian School adherents have argued that there is no such thing as "market failure." Moreover, Reason magazine, the other source cited by the paragraph in question, is indeed an Austrian School, libertarian monthly. All this meant that I came away from this article without my curiosity satiated at all: I just very casually wanted to know whether Dvorak has any benefits over Qwerty (for the record, in case Dvorak vs. Qwerty is a much more inflammatory subject than I am aware of, I use Qwerty and have no plans to ever try Dvorak), and left feeling like the article is not one of the best Wikipedia has to offer. Thanks for considering (not sure how any of this works), and I'm sorry to say I won't be back because I am only so interested in finding out how Dvorak and Qwerty compare, and also it is my experience with discussions of schools of economics that I should expect my criticism to engender some strong emotions. I am truly sorry if I offend or upset anyone. Below is the paragraph I am referring to.

"In the 1990s, economists Stan Liebowitz and Stephen E. Margolis wrote articles in the Journal of Law and Economics[34] and Reason magazine[13] where they rejected Dvorak proponents' claims that the dominance of the QWERTY is due to market failure brought on by QWERTY's early adoption, writing, "[T]he evidence in the standard history of Qwerty versus Dvorak is flawed and incomplete. [..] The most dramatic claims are traceable to Dvorak himself; and the best-documented experiments, as well as recent ergonomic studies, suggest little or no advantage for the Dvorak keyboard."[34][38]"

Canconier (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Bias

The entirety of this page is written not from a unbiased perspective but from the perspective that Dorvak is the superior keyboard format and reads very poorly and not to Wikipedias standard in my opinion as a result. 69.140.19.116 (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort and injury prevention?

I note that there is no section regarding comfort and injury prevention.

I do not know of any research on this, or I would just edit the article accordingly.

I converted to Dvorak in the 1980s. At the time, I was writing for 8+ hours a day, and at the end of the day, my hands and lower arms ached!

Part of the reason why I converted was because I was concerned about repetitive stress injury. A lot of people I worked with wore wrist braces, and were basically handicapped, and no longer able to grasp heavy objects!

My personal experience is that, after converting to Dvorak, all discomfort of typing went away, and I have not developed RSI, although I still type for 8+ hours a day.

If anyone has good references on this topic, I'll be glad to write a section on it. Jan Steinman (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]