Talk:Dvorak keyboard layout/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Shortcut Support

Apologies for the several edits in a row, it was not easy reverts to legitimate edits - nor am I very good at speaking fancy code, I pismuhnounce my worms quite a bit, in wikicode. Thanks to ADTC, we have now a new layout s/he designed on Microsoft Keyboard Creator. When you hit a shortcut ("modifier") key, it reverts to QWERTY. That's handy for shortcuts. Now, cut, copy and paste remain for me as "Ctrl + X/C/V", not "Ctrl + B/I/full stop". Thanks dude. I think this is a relevant tool, so I have added it.

About the program: it needs installed on Windows (I can say it works on my XP), and the program pops up as any usual installed keyboard, as "United States-Dvorak with Qwerty-based Modifier Key support" (apologies for the name change, I just think "Dvorak with QWERTY shortcut support" is a little more succinct). martianlostinspace 17:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm a he! When I design something new, I always give a sort of... more relevant name. "Shortcut" is not relevant enough to the modifier keys, as is "Modifier Key". And my best guess is, if anyone in Microsoft designed this keyboard layout, s/he would have named it something more similar to "Modifier Key". Anyway it doesn't matter. As long as it works, it's fine. Technically, Ctrl, Alt, Shift and Windows keys are called "Modifier Keys". I'm too advanced, so I didn't really think about naming it in layman's terms. Lol! Thanks a lot for the add to the main page. Oh by the way, is it working for the Alt key for you? I think it doesn't. What about "Ctrl-Alt" combination? And what about Windows key (the key with the Windows logo on it)? I guess a more proper name would have been "Dvorak with Qwerty-based Ctrl Key Support". What do you suggest? I can change the name and upload a new layout installation file. --ADTC 12:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Change the name if you (he (lol)) like. More importantly, on MS Word, the Ctrl key won't work with "b" (for toggling bold).martianlostinspace 18:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Perhaps we should call it beta.martianlostinspace 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you have changed the keyboard layout to this custom one while you are in Microsoft Word? Did you try for italic (Ctrl-I) and others? This is because Windows remembers the selected keyboard layout for each program seperately. You need to first make MS Word the active window (so that you can type in it), then change the keyboard layout. If Ctrl-B still doesn't work, it's probably a bug in MS Word. I don't see any point in calling this layout beta, since it's created by using Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator. It's a keyboard layout, not an application or software. And you haven't told me if it works for Alt key, Windows logo key and "Ctrl+Alt" combination... --ADTC 15:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it works for the keys you mentioned, because I rarely use them for shortcuts. As for Word, I'll give it another shot.martianlostinspace 17:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the new intro page.martianlostinspace 20:58, 19 November2006 (UTC)

OK, now I have 2 versions of the same program, but lost the original file. Using a new one ain't workin'. Any way I can stick with one?martianlostinspace 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And neither are working. Any normal way to uninstall keyboards? 21:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by martianlostinspace (talk • contribs)

I haven't uploaded the new version yet, so the "2 versions" you have are the same. Simply run the setup. There is another way to remove the layout, but it's through the registry (Start > Run > regedit > OK). Go under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM (i.e. HKLM\SYSTEM) and then search for the exact name of the layout, as you find in the keyboard layout list. Whenever you find it under "HKLM\SYSTEM\ControlSetABC\Control\Keyboard Layouts" (where ABC is any number) or under "HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Keyboard Layouts", delete the key that contains the layout name. Note that the key is the folder in the left pane which would be a hexadecimal number like 0001083b or a0020409 for example. WARNING: Editing the registry incorrectly may render your system unusable. If you're unsure about what you are doing, don't do it. Just let the keyboard layout remain installed.

Oh by the way you can try out the Alt key and Windows key like this: Alt-F gives File menu, and Windows-R gives the Run dialog.--ADTC 04:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And your {{unsigned|martianlostinspace]] was incorrect, and was causing all the text and sections below it to be hidden. The correct syntax is {{unsigned|martianlostinspace}}. Please take note.--ADTC 08:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is strange. All keyboards re-set (thanks), but in MS Word:

I highlight something. Ctrl B deletes it. Ctrl I copies, but Ctrl F gives the find window. B should have been Bold. Besides that, Windows/ Alt keys work (according to your tests). So, yes, it would appear to be a bug in word, but what use is it if it doesn't do the most basic functions in what everyone uses (word)? Perhaps this could be rectified by it being recognised as Dvorak and not qwerty.martianlostinspace 18:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And yes, in word, it was still the activated kbd. You can obviously tell this from the lang bar. Is that what you mean by custom?martianlostinspace 18:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you perfectly 100% sure? Because if you have more than one keyboard under the same language, you must also change the Keyboard layout while you are in Word (the keyboard icon in your language bar). If it still doesn't work, it's bug in Word. And it cannot be rectified by making the layout Dvorak internally as you said (this is equivalent to the standard Dvorak layout, so we are getting back to square one!). Try to verify the Word's Ctrl-B problem in your friend's computer. Thanks for the feedback on Alt Key (I hope you understood that when I said Windows-R, I meant Windows + QWERTY's R, and not Windows + Dvorak's R!!)

Hey this way of arranging our dialog is cool, and better than the standard way of arranging dialogs in Wikipedia Talk pages. Don't you think we should popularize it? The way is, first person does not indent his question or any of his answers at all. The second person to start, always indents all his answers one step. The third person indents all his answers three steps and so on. This is cleaner than standard method where they indent every answer one step more than the previous answer.--ADTC 13:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am 100[... truncated]% sure - the keyboard was definitely changed in Word (it's a bit of a bummer, Windows doesn't change iit for all programs. You would not consider trying it be recognized as Dvorak?

And yes, it would be good if everyone got on like this, but that needs consensus. Do you proprose an official policy?martianlostinspace 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being a pain in your a** :D. As for trying it to be recognized as Dvorak, I know for sure there is no point because I would be getting back to the standard Dvorak keyboard which is obviously not what I want. (The Ctrl key will follow Dvorak layout in all applications.) As for proposing an official policy, I have suggested about this style in the Talk page about Talk pages, that is here.--ADTC 23:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not a pain in the backside, I think that'll be me when you see this question! I just thought it might be worth trying, but if you don't think so, then fair enough (it's your keyboard, isn't it?). I don't understand your logic about ending up back where you started - does being recognized as Drk really mean a step backwards - any more than being recognized QTY is?

I've still to test on another computer. Watch this????????????????????????????????????????????? (Space, just in case you're wondering).

Well done on proposing the policy. Now lets see how long the consensus takes.martianlostinspace 17:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "recognized as Dvorak", but if you really mean what I thought you mean, then it's logically not possible. Period!

Ok I'll explain to you why. Imagine you have two juice dispensing machines, one labelled "Lemon" and the other "Apple". Now suppose QWERTY means you arrange the machines like this: "Lemon, Apple". And Dvorak means you arrange the machines are arranged like this: "Apple, Lemon." Naturally the standard is to have apple juice in the Apple machine, and lemon juice in Lemon machine. Now what I did to make the custom layout is to arrange the machines in the order of Qwerty (that is "Lemon, Apple") but fill them with juices in the order of Dvorak. That is I filled apple juice in Lemon machine and lemon juice in Apple machine. Now if I do what I think you're asking me to do, I would be arranging the machines like this: "Apple, Lemon", and also filling them up in the order of Dvorak, apple juice in Apple machine.

And Dvorak means you arrange the machines are arranged like this: "Apple, Lemon."

Aren't we back to the Dvorak standard? Lame illustration I know, but I hope you get the point. --ADTC 09:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I mean. If a piece of software recognizes the keyboard hardwired as something. Look at this quote from your introduction page, as a limitation:

The keyboard layout is internally Qwerty, so if any program "hard-reads" the layout, it will recognize the layout as Qwerty. One such program is Stamina Typing Tutor. You can switch Stamina's virtual keyboard to Dvorak layout by pressing F1 key.

That is, during testing, I was obviously using your keyboard. Suppose Word is somehow "hard-reading" (to use your words) my keyboard (as QWERTY), then perhaps somehow the short-cuts are wobbling - explaining the peculiarities I experienced during testing. But if it was "hard-reading" as Dvorak, then perhaps shortcuts wouldn't wobble.martianlostinspace 16:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that is strange. None of the format buttons work - for bold, underline or italics. Ctrl + B deletes, but Ctrl + N gets me a new page. Alt + [letter] does acquire the relevant menu.martianlostinspace 16:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstood the whole statement. What I said is:

The keyboard layout is internally Qwerty, ...

but what you understood is

The keyboard (hardware) is Qwerty.

I did not refer to the actual keyboard you are using. I was just refering to the layout. The juice dispensing machines and the juices in them both consistute the layout. The actual keyboard (hardware) is the shopkeeper selling you the juices!

By "hard-reading" what I meant is that the software will look at the actual mapping of the layout, rather than what comes out when you press a particular key. The actual mapping of my custom layout is based on Qwerty. When the Ctrl key is held down, it (as far as I experienced) refers the actual mapping (thus making Ctrl-B bold). But if a particular program (MS Word in you computer) looks at the output of the layout instead of the actual layout mapping it's going to see it as Dvorak. I hope this clears things up. Maybe you should try the Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator to understand what I mean. In it you'll find that each key position has a name and also an output data. If the Qwerty-S position has the name "VKEY_S" but it has an output data 'O' then it's going to output O even when it's internally supposed to be 'S' according to the name. --ADTC 05:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. Not only am I a pain in the a**, I'm confused as well. Give me a bit of time and I'll come back to you on this. I need to un-dizzy my head from getting lost in definitions. You see I pis-m'nounce my worms... (you need to be British to understand that one!)martianlostinspace 16:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Right, I think I am mainly getting dizzy from definitions. Perhaps if we re-invented the wheel I wouldn’t be so dizzy anymore. Lets get this clear:

Real Keyboard: the object that my fingers are touch typing as I type this. It is labelled as QWERTY, and the fact it comes out as Dvorak is nothing to do with this “real keyboard”. That is a matter of software within that box to my left (ie. the computer). Am I correct to say that this is hardware?

In-practice keyboard: I am using your Dvorak with modifier support, right now. But, to all intents and purposes, it is more Dvorak than QWERTY. That is why when I press “d” it comes out “e”. It only turns into QWERTY when I hold down a modifier key.

Computer Understood Keyboard: in other words, suppose a MS Word were to ask itself right now: “Is he/she/it using Dvorak or QWERTY?”, from what I understand you have said before, it would answer “QWERTY”, even though it is in practice Dvorak (but actually neither, the Dk Modifier Support).

Now, applying these definitions to my tests of your keyboard: the real keyboard is QWERTY. It is in practice Dvorak. It is computer understood as QWERTY.

Now, where am I wrong (if anywhere)? martianlostinspace 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Put it another way. There are two ways of getting to the keyboard we now have. Either you modify Dvorak, or you modify QWERTY. Is this what you mean by internally Dvorak?martianlostinspace 22:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion continues in Shortcut Support in non-archived Talk page. Please reply at Talk:Dvorak Simplified Keyboard#Shortcut Support

Article Creation and Improvement Drive

Please include your discussions about improving DSK to Featured Article status under this subheading. Thank you for your contributions in advance. --ADTC 08:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Shortcuts

I can personally attest the difficulties in using the Dvorak layout regarding keyboard shortcuts. I would also like to point out, however, that on the Macintosh (OS X at least) it automatically reverts to QWERTY when the modifier keys are pressed. IMO it's this level of attention to user friendiness that makes Apple far ahead of the competitors.

I don't have any trouble using keyboard shortcuts with Dvorak any moreso than in qwerty. mnemonic 05:47, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

So you're saying that Mac OS is user-friendly because it suddenly reverts the keyboard layout you set up without any warning? Hmmm. — flamingspinach | (talk) 06:29, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Mac OS X has two Dvorak layouts, one which reverts to QWERTY when meta keys are pressed, and one that does not. Windows has no such option by default (maybe someone has made a layout for download?).

I've created a new keyboard layout called "United States-Dvorak with Qwerty-based Modifier Key support". It can be downloaded from here: http://send2adtc.googlepages.com/DvQwMod.zip

Limitations: I think the Alt key still follows the Dvorak layout, though Ctrl key follows Qwerty layout. If you find that this limitation is wrong, please feel free to delete this statement.

Also, if I'm not wrong, Stamina Typing Tutor doesn't recognise that you're using Dvorak layout when you are using this custom layout. It only recognises so when you use the standard Dvorak layout that comes pre-installed with Windows. You need to manually set Stamina to Dvorak if you use this custom layout.

This works only on NT based systems, I suppose. I have tried on Windows XP only. The setup file is an MSI file, that is a Windows Installer Package. --ADTC 16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you prounounce Dvorak? August_Dvorak's article says /dvOr{k/, is that similar to duh-vor-ack? The article should probably say.

BTW, I'm typing this (very slowly) in Dvorak right now. w00t!

The first syllable is pronounced like "door" with a v after the d. The "dvor" is one syllable. The second syllable is pronounced "ack".

I copied the pronunciation from Wiktionary, but it looks wrong, so I'm going to get somebody else to help.  :) Foofy 21:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

i wish there were just more user awareness

I think there would be many willing to switch if they just knew what the heck Dvorak is, and the support behind it. mnemonic

Agreed. The stumbling block I see is the perceived wisdom NOT to acquire physical dvorak layout keyboards. I see the 'don't get a physical keyboard' mantra as being counter-productive.

It's my belief that if more people could be encouraged to give the Dvorak layout a try using a keyboard with the dvorak layout, then the existence of the keyboard itself, actually on desks, actually in plain view, would become a conversation piece, encouraging awareness.

Many (most?) people these days are 'hunt-and-peckers', not touch-typists.

Children especially, in the main, do not learn to type by touch-typing! We are doing our youngsters no favours at all by not placing a dvorak keyboard in front of them at the earliest possible age. Pendant 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Is typing digraphs with adjacent fingers difficult?

Maybe it was true when typewriters were all-mechanical, and typist had to hit the keys violently. But now, with near-zero force applied to the keys, it's much easier to type with adjacent fingers, and with adjacent keys, than with distant keys. At least for me. And, at least for me, its much easier to type when I don't alternate hands frequently. It's possibly due to nerves' length that fingers of one hand are easier to synchronize. Grzes 10:00, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have you tried Dvorak? It is immensely easier. --130.215.170.204 22:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

On Dvorak, English digraphs are more frequently on adjacent keys. Furthermore, they almost always direct inward. Look at the home row. S-->N-->T-->H. So words like isn't, snot, this, that, the, and ant take no time to type.

I think Dvorak is better. I am typing this on Dvorak.

NPOV inconsistency?

"Dvorak conducted several studies in the late 1940s which showed that QWERTY typists could be retrained to the Dvorak keyboard, reached their original speed within 2-3 months and gained up to an additional 30% as they gained further proficiency (as measured in words per minute). Subsequent researchers have been unable to repeat his results, usually showing that there was little difference in efficiency between QWERTY and Dvorak layouts. The methodologies of the various studies remain points of intense controversy."

Accoding to this paragraph, which appears late in the article, the Dvorak layout is not clearly, obviously, and demonstrably better and faster than the QWERTY layout. There is, in fact, only one study that indicates this, and there are (according to this paragraph) several which indicate approximately equal efficiency.

Is this accurate? If so, why is it listed under "Resistance to change" (which seems to imply that the researches are only saying this because they are resisting change)? It seems to me that "Even though many feel that the principles on which the Dvorak keyboard is based make it superior to the older QWERTY" is also a bit too strong. (It doesn't say who the "many" are. Are they the Dvorak users? How many are they, that is, 100,000 compared to how many QWERTY users? According to the paragraph I quoted above, most researchers have not been able to corroborate this claim.)

I realize that this is, of course, a controversial question; I don't want to decide on an answer, just to more toward an NPOV presentation of the facts.[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Without checking the article, it looks like that paragraph is parrotting what the Reason article stated. That article has been proved to be full of fallacies and just plain lies. Dvorak is easier and simpler to use for 99% of people (once they get used to the layout). I won't delete the paragraph since I don't know the source, but all the literature I've come across (except for the said article) states that the Dvorak layout is easier than QWERTY. I know several people who use it: all swear by it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:16, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Of COURSE the people who use it all swear by it -- otherwise, they wouldn't use it, since it's non-standard.71.32.109.22 16:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps the paragraph should be deleted. If it's unsubstantiated and quite possibly false, it could easily be misleading to people relying on the article for informational content. Most people won't read the history page to realize the information is dubious. I will admit to having a bias. My WPM went from 30 to 60 after learning Dvorak, but that was partly from training myself to type without looking at the keyboard (since it was still labeled for QWERTY). AlphaEtaPi 05:36, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Okay, I deleted it. If you want to restore, please discuss here first. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:30, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I do want to restore the paragraph. The existance of the studies on both sides of the debate are verified (and, in fact, are cited in some of the links at the bottom of the page). The arguments and counter-arguments about the appropriateness of the methodologies used and/or the motivations for the studies are also well documented and verifiable. I believe the text of that paragraph presented the dispute in a reasonably fair and NPOV manner. The article is poorer without a discussion of the dispute. Frecklefoot's assertion that "Dvorak is easier and simpler to use for 99% of people" is not supported by any academic study that I know of. (By the way, I think he's right. I just don't think anyone's proven it yet.)

I have no opinion on the original question of whether the paragraph's inclusion under the heading "Resistance to change" created an appearance of bias. Rossami 17:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed it because I suspected it came from the Reason article, the validity of which has be hotly disputed and I've read several articles that disprove many of the article's claims. The authors' methodology was also questioned. The authors of that article clearly had a bias when they wrote the article: they wanted to discredit the Dvorak layout. The fact that Reason even published such drivel is sad.

Those articles (I think there are actually two) were by the same authors and share the same bias. They are the only source of any controversy that I know of. Two feeb's bias does not a controversy make (IMHO). No one but these two authors have disputed the superority of the Dvorak layout. I don't want to add weight to their argument by including their disproven assertions in an article. The article is better without such conspiracy theory, IMHO. Even the US government agrees it is superior, but change is just hard.

I would agree to adding it back in with a disclaimer, stating that numerous people have disputed the authors claims and pointed out falsehoods in their article. If one can be added in a NPOV manner, go for it. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:38, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Inboard stroke flow?

I'm somewhat confused by this passage:

Stroking should generally move from the edges of the board to the center (as an example, rap your fingers on a table and see which is easier: going from pinkie finger to index or index to pinkie). This motion on a keyboard is called inboard stroke flow.

It implies to me that it's easier to rap your fingers from pinkie to index, but I tend to "jam up" when I do that, and going from the index to the pinkie flows more naturally. I'm also only able to do that on my right hand; I "jam up" either way when I do it on my left. Am I just a freak of nature, or is that passage wrong? Gus 02:25, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

I don't know if you're a freak, but I also find it easier to go from index to pinkie. Maybe the people he tested were freaks? I don't jam up, however, like you report. Perhaps someone should investigate this. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I find it MUCH easier to go from pinkie to index. Grinick Sept 11, 2005

Are you moving your hand? Try keeping it still, with your fingertips about half centimeter above the table. I find pinky-to-index is extremely easy, while index-to-pinky feels very unnatural and is somewhat slower. Mussavcom Nov 05, 2005

Keeping my hand absolutely still, with only the fingers moving, I find it far easier (and faster) to do index-to-pinkie. [[]] Dec. 8, 2005

I personally find it MUCH easier to do pinky-to-index. Whenever I try to go fast with index-to-pinky, I keep hitting my middle and ring fingers at the same time by accident... How odd, do you think this is something that varies between people? It could be like handedness... I'm right-handed and left-eyed and inboard-stroked XD ... -JC 23:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Count me amongst the pinky-to-index crowd. When I go the other way my index hits, then the next three. pinky-to-index just feels natural. That said, I doubt it affects typing very much.. Oreo man 21:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with index-pinky. I jam up on the reverse.--//Mac Lover ^Talk_C 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pinkie to index for me, much easier. Don't forget that a keyboard for general use has to be designed around the average person, most find it easier outer to inner, I'm not saying it's perfect; I wouldn't mind a couple of keys being swapped ( . (full stop) and , (comma) ) but that's probably due to my own typing/writing style. -- Lee Carré 05:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat related, seems that different people really do have different preferences how to move their fingers. I've talked to a number of pianists--some find scales easier up, some down. Some prefer trilling with the middle-ring finger, some prefer ring-pinky finger. So you may be in a minority, but "freak" is probably a little strong. Different people just have different hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.106.136 (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

One hand layout tutorials

Does anybody know of any left handed Dvorak tutorials? I already know standard dvorak (only layout I ever learned) and I want to experiment with the left handed layout so I can use the mouse and type at the same time, or eat a sandwich and type simultaneously.

I also wonder if there are any one handed Dvorak tutorials. While there are many Dvorak tutorials available, I have never seen on that included a full set of lessons for one handed keyboarding. 66.94.95.194 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

how optimized is dvorak anyway

Shouldn't i be on the home key, since it is a lot more frequent than u?

Yes. 141.213.129.40 22:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. We can't know for sure without some actual hard data about letter frequency. One could probably find statistics like that online, but I don't care enough to do so. ✈ James C. 23:49, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

This Dvorak vs QWERTY tool will tell you the most frequent letters. For any reasonably large body of text, i is at least two times more frequent than u. I often find myself resting the index on i rather than u for this very reason. I was considering swithching them myself but using Dvorak in a QWERTY world is hard enough, it would be an awful idea to use a custom Dvorak.

I found that swapping I and U resulted in the total distance being reduced from approx. 38.89 m to approx. 36 m when processing a text with 2824 keystrokes in a Java applet similar to the page above. Otherwise the numbers remained the same. I think that if one's goal is to find the optimal layout, though, there's little reason to stop at DVORAK, even for its popularity, since QWERTY's already the undisputed leader in that department. Of course, the more people use a better layout the better, but it'd be kind of a waste to have convinced the world to switch and then find out we settled for the second best. Rōnin 01:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Did your test take into account the fact that going from right to left with the right hand and left to right with the left hand is easier based on the shape of the hand? Mithridates 04:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know. I'm not really an expert on ergonomics... But I couldn't find any proper studies done by anyone qualified. Rōnin 04:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What's that got to do with it? You're switching keys on the same finger, not between fingers. 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There's also the issue of letter sequences; for example if the sequence UI is more common than IU, then having them in the standard Dvorak layout is better, because there is a high cost if the sequence goes in the direction of index finger to little finger; little finger to index finger is much easier and more comfortable (try it, "drum" your fingers on the desk each way)

Keep in mind that Dvorak designed his keyboard using the English of his era, and modern English may be different (as this example probably shows)

The fact that the Dvorak layout is vastly better is a good start, as most people here know, QWERTY was designed to be slow, and is just awkward as hell

I don't claim to be an authority on these things, this is just what I've read, remember that Dvorak did vast amounts of research before, and while designing his layout, and I'm sure there are many many factors affecting key placement.

It may also depend on your writing style, for example I would find it easier if the , (comma) and . (full stop) keys were swapped (so the comma key was on the inside), but then i often use commas in my writing for flow etc. as i tend to write longer paragraphs (as you can see here); where as someone who writes shorter sentences would probably appreciate the full stop key on the inside -- Lee Carré 15:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)