Talk:Dvorak keyboard layout/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Poll: which keyboard makes more sense??

Suppose there were a poll for voting for which keyboard is more logical, QWERTY or DVORAK. Approximately what percentage would vote for QWERTY?? (Assume the voters are United States citizens 16+ years of age.) 66.245.102.102 00:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the point of taking a poll to find out something that you don't know and cannot predict? See Slashdot poll and MacPolls? – Lee J Haywood 07:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio

Are those pics copyvio? They're from Mac's Keyboard Viewer. LUDRAMAN | T 11:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC) (PS Im a week into learning Dvorak it rocks but im still so slow!)

Always a good question. It's not really one that any reader/editor of this page is likely to be able to answer, though. You should raise the question by clicking through the picture itself and looking at the references and comments that were uploaded when the original picture was loaded. If you are not satisfied, put your question on the image's discussion page. You can also use the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page. Good luck with Dvorak. Rossami 14:36, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My guess is that they're mechanically produced from the keyboard data and therefore unlikely to be protectable, as an element of creativity is necessary for coprightability. Possibly the widget graphics might be copyrightable, but if that's the case, a bunch of screenshot data is also in violation. Assuming they're copyrightable, this (and the screenshots) probably fall under fair use. IANAL AlphaEtaPi 08:34, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Vi is a non-issue

Because Vi and clones thereof provide a way to map keys, I don't see the issue. You can simply add something like the following to your ~/.exrc or whatever to preserve using the right-side home keys:

map t j
map n k
map s l --216.12.106.14

If you feel the change to the article should be made, go for it. Be bold! :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:04, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that it's a non-issue. You have to:

• know that you can remap these keys
• know (or look up) how to do it
• edit the config file to remap the keys
• remap the keys you displaced (like 'n' and 's')
• repeat for every system you use

And if you forget just one system (vi is popular on shell accounts, so this isn't that uncommon), your keymappings are even *more* confusing than if you'd just used h/j/k/l in the funny positions. (I speak from experience ... ugh.)

The same force that keeps most people from switching to Dvorak, keeps people from editing their vi configuration files. Joel puts it this way:

It's true that the first time they realized you could completely remap the keyboard in Word, they changed everything around to be more to their liking, but as soon as they upgraded to Windows 95 those settings got lost, and they weren't the same at work, and eventually they just stopped reconfiguring things. I've asked a lot of my "power user" friends about this; hardly any of them do any customization other than the bare minimum necessary to make their system behave reasonably.

I do, however, fully support adding a note to the article that reconfiguring vi is possible, and how to do it. I just can't see how this makes it a non-issue; the need for such a note is evidence that it *is* an issue. --4.16.250.19

Good point. Go ahead and make the change the way you noted above. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:43, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

A recent study about the efficiency of Dvorak

I just happened to stumble upon this: http://atri.misericordia.edu/Papers/Dvorak.php . I can't find the date - maybe I'm just being daft - but this can't be more than three years old because of some of the references. Also I don't know a shit about the American academic system beyond that Ivy League is considered reliable, so I can't really say whether this College Misericordia has any authority. And sorry if this already is yesterday's news.

I am a QWERTY user who occasionally considers switching to Dvorak. My main hindrance has been the fact that I spend a lot of time typing on keyboards other than that of my home computer. I hear that mastering two keymaps is possible, though.

-- Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland

I re-learnt touch-typing on Dvorak, but not two-finger typing. Now when I look at the keyboard I immediately switch to QWERTY (which can be a problem if I glance at the keys accidentally) and immediately go back to Dvorak when I look away. The main problem is with other people, especially at work. They expect to be able to simply start typing on your keyboard but find themselves typing gibberish. It is a lot of effort to train them to hit the hot-key to switch key-maps before typing. MS Windows is particularly useless because it only switches for the current application rather than the whole system.  – Lee J Haywood 10:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the biggest problem I have with Dvorak is that other people get confused when they use my computer. --130.215.170.204 22:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Haywood about having your fingers switch "automatically", and sometimes unexpectedly, producing a small burst of gibberish. But I'd recommend going ahead with learning Dvorak. I did it on a lark about 25 years ago and have never regretted it (although I well remember an initial couple of weeks of having sore hands from consciously overriding my QWERTY reflexes). I also spend a lot of time typing on QWERTY keyboards and haven't had a problem keeping both sets of reflexes. One side benefit of spending a couple weeks focused on my typing skills is that I improved my QWERTY speed as well. The benefit of Dvorak to me, though, is not speed but comfort: I simply find it a lot less tiring.  – Shal Farley 2005-01-09

I learned to type in dvorak in the 7th grade after learning about the efficiency of the system. While some people doubt that you can type faster, that isn't the point. with Dvorak my fingers don't move as far so i am less likely to have my hands cramp up on me. As for the matter of switching between languages, yes it can be a bother. When I type in dvorak I don't look at the keys and I can go like 60 WPM natuarally. When I look at the keyboard I automatically switch to Qwerty, but I still make mistakes when I am trying to type in Qwerty. I don't know if it would help to practice more or not, but i find that I can switch keyboards easily enough in the control panel. I recently developed my own personalized dvorak keyboard for typing in the spanish language. ¡This allows me to pút án áccéñt on áný léttér I choose without comprimising my typing speed!¿¡? If anyone is intreseted in me posting this custom keyboard file on wikipedia, put a note on my talk page.--Ewok Slayer 22:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

single-handed dvorak

"The single-handed typing appeared in two James Bond movies: Tomorrow Never Dies by an information age tycoon, and GoldenEye by a Russian computer cracker." ok, was this just a sighting of a character using one hand to type or did the movies actually show the single-handed dvorak layouts?

i think it's just single handed typing. Though, the Russian hacker case might have potential to freeze frame and check. The info tycoon case might be some single-handed input system, though it's been a while i watched them. Xah Lee 22:13, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

correctness of single handed dvorak layout

I'm pretty sure that the images for left and right-handed dvorak layouts are completely wrong. This webpage shows the correct layouts: http://www.pcguide.com/ref/kb/layout/alphaSingle-c.html. This can be confirmed by switching the layout on your computer.

folks, the single handed dvorak layout images i put there seems wrong. At least, several sites shows a different layout for both left and right hand. The image i obtained is from DvorakInternational.org/com around 2001. I don't know what's the deal now. Xah Lee 19:00, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

aside from which one being THE standard layout for a moment... i did some comparison, and noticed the one in wiki are actually not that different. The difference is that one has the number pad in 3 columns, while the Microsoft one has 2. Apparently, the one with 3 columns is more convient. (and the whole alpha group are closer to return) So, i think it is a improved version in some way. Xah Lee 00:52, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Origin of Idea

In Jared Diamonds article The Curse of QWERTY he says that Dvoraks brother in law got the idea from a seminar by the Gilbreths on efficiency in repetitive movementa, I think this is worth noting but no sure where to place it in the article?

nevermind, i guess you made a typo using qwerty. ✈ James C. 20:15, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Foreign language layouts

I'm surprised, but the foreign language section has gotten out of hand. This is the English Wikipedia, after all. People coming here are most likely looking for information on the English layout of the Dvorak keyboard. Mentioning a few differences to the layout to support foreign languages is fine and helpful, but going into the minute details doesn't help anyone. If someone is looking for that much detail on foreign language layouts, they should consult the other language Wikipedias.

That being said, I just reverted the last edit by Orzetto. I had just moved all the foreign language Dvorak layout links to the extern links section where they belong, and Orzetto went in and added more right in the article, where they are highly discouraged. All extern links, except cites, belong in the extern links section. Also, s/he went into even more detail about the specifics of the foreign language keyboards—information which should go in the foreign language 'pedias.

I'm not opposed to adding more extern links to other foreign-language layouts (as long as the sites themselves are in English), but don't add more information on the specifics that doesn't help anyone. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Dvorak user category / user box

FYI, I created a Wikipedian category and user box for those Dvorak typists out there.

See: Category:Dvorak keyboard users and template:User dvrk

I am not claiming it looks great, but it works, and is a start. — Eoghanacht ^talk 21:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, telepathy. I suddenly had the thought a minute ago that it would be good to make a template for that and lo and behold, you've made it. Mithridates 12:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks :) *replaces his old manually-done Dvorak box* --Pentasyllabic 03:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This user contributes using a Dvorak Keyboard.

....Mine is cooler.....Template:User_dvrk2....--Ewok Slayer --(U | T | C) 20:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI: There is a move to delete the Dvorak user category. If you have an opinion on the matter, you may voice it at: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Dvorak keyboard users — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Liebowitz and Margolis's article

In academic circles their version of the QWERTY story is generally accepted since no one has successfully attacked it.

Has Liebowitz and Margolis's article been at least published in a peer-reviewed journal ? Taw 18:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"Badly designed software"

I am going to remove the sentence about badly designed software from the second paragraph in section Resistance to change:

In addition to the time required for a QWERTY typist to learn the Dvorak layout and become efficient when using it, keyboard shortcuts and applications requiring key position layout will be different in the Dvorak layout. Badly designed software assumes a keyboard layout without the ability to remap the keys. For example, the Unix text editor vi use the keys H, J, K, and L to cause movement to the left, down, up, and to the right, respectively. With a QWERTY layout, these keys are all together under the right hand home row, but with Dvorak they are no longer neatly together.

As is stands now the paragraph appears to claim that HJKL cannot remapped under vi, which is wrong (see Vi is a non-issue above). — Tobias Bergemann 09:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it annoying that my text explaining that J and K stay together keeps being removed. I don't know why anyone would bother remapping, given how easy it is to move around – e.g. with J/K and H/space – but we have to accept that everyone works differently. I think that the best thing to do is mention that some applications assume a QWERTY layout but get rid of the examples, and keep them out in future rather than continually re-writing this section. Thanks.   — Lee J Haywood 20:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Quitting Dvorak?: A 6-month personal testimony typed on Dvorak

I was first introduced to the Dvorak arrangement through a Reader's Digest side article in the Book "Stories Behind Everyday Things" in the mid to late 1980's, soon after learning to type on a QWERTY Keyboard. Soon after, I got a little practice on an early version of "Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing" (later versions do not train Dvorak typing--I think I read that ver.5.0 was the dividing point), and vowed to myself that when the time was right, I would convert. After twenty years of typing, I made the change on 4/1/05. Now, fully five months later, I am still not fully back up to my former speed of roughly 65-70 WPM, and constantly re-evaluate this decision.

There are times when it does flow, but not as sweetly as the tutorials would have me to believe. For the first few months, I took to heart the testimony of an MIT student and tried to type Dvorak at work and QWERTY at home. This led to headaches and reduced efficiency, so in that MIT never accepted me, I opted to go at it much simpler: use Dvorak exclusively. This has its limitations in a QWERTY world. From time to time I have to help those on QWERTY keyboards. This becomes needlessly arduous. I hear those around me patter away wildly on their QWERTY keyboards and wonder why my superior keyboarding skills now sound so dull, whichever keyboard.

I increasingly find comfort in the words meant as a warning, "If you must, you can go back to QWERTY within a fairly short time (possibly days, probably hours, maybe seconds), but you will curse every keystroke you have to type in QWERTY, once you've tried Dvorak!" [1] Curse every word? Have I not come as close with Dvorak, despite my own interest in it?

Consider the keyboard layouts;

QWERTY (Sholes) Layout

q w e r t y u i o p

a s d f g h j k l ; <<--(Home Row)

z x c v b n m , . /

Dvorak Layout

' , . p y f g c r l

a o e u i d h t n s <<--(Home Row)

; q j k x b m w v z

Dvorak's placement of I, F, and Y , to be more popular letters than U, G, and P, suffer from curious exiles from more favorable locales. Additionally, Y is also sometimes considered a vowel, which Dvorak pretended to favor. I looked at one man's computer simulations & analyses, and like some of the improvements, but wonder what chance a third keyboard would have in an already decided format war. That would be like introducing BetaMax as a clear choice in the DVD - VHS war. Or maybe it would have been like introducing DVD to the VHS - BetaMax war. Well, that was pretty much what happened with the laser disc, and it failed, too. Thus, about the same time I went exclusively Dvorak, I sucked up my objections, went "full speed" into Dvorak, and actually never got past my objections after all. Under this microscope, the letters I, F, and Y; U, G, and P come out on various forms, few of them pleasant, but let's just say Dvorak's superiority is "IFFY".

Through my readings about Dvorak, I have learned that it was not true that QWERTY was purposely jumbled to slow down typists, but was rearranged rather to separate two-letter combinations to opposite hands to eliminate carriage jams on manual typewriters. It is also true that the word TYPEWRITER is on the top row of QWERTY, Grollier Encyclopedia claims this was a demonstration help for traveling salesmen. Now, with touch-typing, carriage jams are a thing of the past, but Dvorak was designed with a same intention, to separate two letter combinations to separate hands to better enable a steady typing rhythm (Note: Dvorak was also designed to put the most common characters in the best places--grubbmeister 20:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)).

Today as I mulled my decision, amid the sounds of rat-tat-tat from other typists as well as being told I would be a victim of downsizing in the next few months, my own future outlook with graduate school acceptance and QWERTY keyboards in computer labs and libraries, I raised the objection, "but it has been quantifiably proven that your fingers travel farther on a QWERTY keyboard than on a Dvorak." I remember an MSN News Video where office workers need more exercise and they showed a fellow shaking a leg while seated, saying that even fidgetting has measured effects in burning calories.......I don't how much extra exercise it might afford an office worker to move their fingers farther on QWERTY Even all ten combined, these are smaller body parts than a leg, more prone to arthritis, etc. Can we get more exercise on a QWERTY keyboard? Perhaps I'll find out relatively soon, if not today.. --grubbmeister 22:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried Dvorak for about a year-and-a-half. I was determined to make it work for me. Unfortunately, I not only couldn't type faster than I did with Qwerty, I wasn't able to equal my Qwerty speed. Maybe I was training too hard, or maybe it had to do with having been a fairly good typist already - Qwerty may have been too ingrained. (I've heard that someone people can use both, but I thought that would be too confusing, and figured I might end up being so-so at both instead of excelling at one.) Because I switched over completely to Dvorak, I found it hard to use other computers, which can't be avoided. I was reduced to the hunt-and-peck system I see so many people using. So I switched back. I don't know whether there is any evidence that Dvorak really is better, but it didn't work for me. I'm still not likely to win any typing contests, but then that was never my goal anyway. I do use one of those ergonomic split keyboards, and that really seems to help. Typing on the standard straight keyboard really kills my hands after a while. I was able to significantly improve my speed, while maintaining an average 98% accuracy, using the split keyboard. 67.71.140.254 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Integrating Dvorak with Qwerty: An 8-month personal testimony

Well, it is now 12/1/2005, an "avid" Dvorak user 8 mos., still soon to be a victim of downsizing, as far as I can forsee, but let's face it, the slow pace at work was one reason I opted "start a training period" and take the leap to the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard.

One problem I was facing with the above frustration come from the fact that a 100% break had not been made from QWERTY. In the meantime, I have

• effectively swallowed my objections to a few Dvorak assignments,
• achieved a breakaway period to use Dvorak 100% exclusively,
• picked up intuitive flow on the Dvorak, and now I am
• successfully integrating QWERTY back into my life, while
• keeping relatively the same performance on Dvorak.

At each switch, it has initially required much conscious attention to keymaps and finger placement, but finally I am getting to a point where I can type on either keyboard without thinking about it (and where it comes out better if I don't think about it').

Like the above-mentioned testimony of an MIT student, I am now acquiring speed on both keyboards, though the 8 months of torture that I have endured to get to this degree of flexibility are not easily or lightly recommended to anyone. I started out at Qwerty 65-70 wpm, I would imagine I am now at about 45-50 wpm average on both (untested).

I think these are the reasons most enthusiasts recommend making the break completely, but that is not very possible in a world filled with so many QWERTY keyboards. Perhaps Dvorak's best chance for survival & ulimate dominance is a teaching program designed to help users learn both keyboards with minimal frustration and maximum benefit. Just as exercise machines alternate intensity levels for a better workout, one could theorize that an alternating program like the MIT student's (or one similar) would be the solution for a world trained almost exclusively on the Qwerty keyboard. Just as the superior mobility of various cordless phones are making payphones and other landline phones increasingly obsolete (even though landlines were far more numerous than the first mobile phones to come out), in the same way Dvorak could win out, if properly marketed, trained, and promoted. It's a utopian scenario, but one that could work.--grubbmeister 20:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if Dvorak is better, most people can achieve very good speeds using Qwerty. I would rather have a high speed on one, than to have so-so speeds of 45-50 wpm on both. With a split keyboard, the hand strain of the Qwerty system is removed (at least this has been my own experience), and I have achieved an average speed of 120 wpm, with 98% accuracy, this way. I tried Dvorak, but I couldn't equal my speed on Qwerty before switching, plus there's the fact that so few people use Dvorak. I don't see any real point in switching. 67.71.140.254 21:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

October 14 comments

You should change the section about touch typing Dvorak and looking at Qwerty. My friends who type Dvorak and I all touch-type both layouts. It is not any harder to learn to touch type both Qwerty and Dvorak than it is to learn to drive in another country where the streets go different directions. All you have to do is "switch mindset" and begin typing the other layout. The stuff I hear about it being impossible to touch-type two layouts is nonsense. It's not even hard-- you can learn up to 50 WPM in a few days.

Also, I should point out that I originally learned Dvorak in hopes it would make my computer usage more efficient. I am a professional software developer with a large .com that shares its name with a river which you have probably purchased products from :) and I had hoped Dvorak would be more useful.

In reality, it is not useful because so many applications use shortcut keys based on their positions in Qwerty. For example, practically every application in Windows uses the convention of {c-z, c-x, c-c, c-v} for {undo, cut, copy, paste} (respectively) (where c-x indicates control+`x'). Thus, using the Dvorak language to program is impossible unless the editor lets you rebind these commands. Most do not :(

As a result, I find myself rarely using Dvorak. 18:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)~

When I first considered learning the keyboard I was a bit concerned about that but I have my keyboard set up so that I can switch not only between languages with three keys but also between Qwerty and Dvorak with two. It only takes me an instant..see, if you could see you would know that I just switched to Qwerty right now and it only took two seconds...and back to Dvorak. You're right about the analogy compared to driving though, it's also the same as using two languages. No problem when you're good at both. I still use Qwerty when typing in Korean and English because the alt key switches back to English right away but the keyboard used there is Qwerty, and hitting the alt key is easiest. Mithridates 12:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think your statements apply to everybody. I was a 100+ WPM typist under QWERTY who switched to Dvorak nearly 4 years ago. I'm about an 80 WPM typist under Dvorak. I could not touch-type QWERTY any longer if you paid me. It's a muscle-memory issue. I have no doubt some people could switch back and forth at will, but I suspect a lot of people would be similar.

It's funny, I never noticed that the Z, X, C and V keys were side-by-side on the QWERTY keyboard until reading this article. I've never had a problem using the same shortcuts on the Dvorak.

I'm not sure which is more "efficient", and I think there are people who switch to Dvorak out of misguided desires to type faster or improve productivity or something. I just know that the persistent pain in my wrists and fingers I lived with for a decade is no longer an issue since switching to Dvorak, and that's good enough for me. - Dharmabum420 07:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much point in switching from Qwerty. I did switch, and used Dvorak for about a year and a half, but I think that unless your aim is to set world records, you can still achieve very high speeds using Qwerty - and using a split keyboard (at least for me this is true) eliminates any strain on the hands. I can type an average of 120 wpm, and while that is nowhere near setting any records (I guess the record is still Blackburn's 212), that's still pretty good. When I used Dvorak, I switched over completely, so I don't know if I could handle switching back and forth between the two. I could still try, but I don't see the point. 67.71.140.254 20:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

So why not make this into a featured article? I worked on the Ido article for a long time, submitted it and it was accepted to appear on the front page Christmas last month, and this article is another subject that I think deserves to be shown the light of day. I see there are almost 30 users on the Dvorak keyboard user category and some of them might be interested in helping out. An article on the main page gets viewed by around a million people during the course of the day, and that could only help increase awareness. Mithridates 07:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

IPA and Keyboards

How about a keyboard that bridges with International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)? That way there won't be a million keyboards for each language. There will be one alphabet for all languages/pinyin. That way one huge switch revolution will result, so the whole world can relearn typing together! 70.111.224.85 19:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Something like going back in time, "un-building The Tower of Keybel"! lol --ADTC 21:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Such a keyboard would be extremely large. Just to give an example, Danish has a ton of different vowels. Such a keyboard would have to include all sounds / variations / tones from all languages and that will be virtually impossible. Valentinian ^(talk) 11:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That also wouldn't work for eastern languages, where there are many inflections (such as in Chinese), which would clutter up the keyboard for us who don't speak Chinese or whatever other language. —Mets501^talk 13:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Proper Studies

I have added some paragraphs to the section relating to 'benefits'. My point is that none of the studies done so far (as I can see) involve 'scientific' testing against defined criteria using reasonably large groups operating in a controlled environment. Frankly I can't see anyone bothering. Dvorak seems to exist happily enough as 'something known to the few' (or to those that 'care to look'). Perhaps the rest deserve Qwerty, until such time as speech recognition becomes cheap enough for the masses. In that case I tend to agree, make it a featured article so that folks who pay attention can be aware and make the choice. But the days when it was still worthwhile to argue 'against' Qwerty seem (or ought to be)long past. Tban.

Why was the Benefits section completely removed? Yes, I agree that more than 75% of it is junk, but still... Somebody please write a new Benefits section from scratch. Thanks! --ADTC 21:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

suspect link

The link on Barbara Blackburn's name redirects the reader to the "Typewriter" page, rather than a page about Ms. Blackburn.

Look at the history of the Barbara Blackburn article. There was a vote for deletion and a merge of content with the Typewriter article. If there were significant biographical content about Ms Blackburn then it would justify a separate page, but at the moment it seems to be fine to me. reetep 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)