Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Dave, Round Lake NY on September 28, 2009:

There is an alternate piano keyboard design, where the black and white keys are all the same size and shape. This makes transposing keys (musical keys) a simple matter of moving up or down a few keys (piano keys) instead of having to use completely different fingering when you change (musical) keys. It's a great idea that died rather quickly. People who already knew how to play (and play in different keys) saw no reason to start from scratch. And if they did learn the new keyboard they'd be in trouble when they sat down at a standard keyboard later.

Likewise, it doesn't matter if the Dvorak keyboard is more efficient. It's not going to be a big enough improvement for most people to invest the time learning it (and unlearning QWERTY), only to find it's a hindrance when they sit down at someone else's keyboard. Most people aren't going to see their speed doubled -- they'll maybe get 10% faster -- and that's not enough to deal with the downsides.

---

I hate it when people don't truly read my stuff before they comment: you'll note I didn't urge anyone to switch layouts, even though they certainly don't have to "unlearn" Qwerty: most of what you have to learn when you learn how to type is how to move your fingers around the keyboard -- the physical "muscle memory" of typing. That's used no matter what keyboard layout you have. And, as I said, people can certainly type on both if they wish, so there's no issue with "someone else's" keyboard even if it wasn't absurdly simple to remap it. Then you figured you'd guess at what speed increase people might get -- "maybe 10%" is a far cry from my own 100 percent speed increase, which is not unusual. But despite all that, I still didn't urge people to switch. I did lament that we still foist Qwerty on kids when there's something much better available, and much easier to learn. And that is a sad state of affairs. We can remap computer keyboards with the click of a mouse. There simply isn't an issue of "we have to" continue down that idiotic educational road because Qwerty is "standard" when Dvorak is built into virtually every computer. -rc

Posted by Mark from Ithaca, New York on September 28, 2009:

I've gotten completely out of the Dvorak habit after playing with it in the early '90s. It's just been getting harder on keyboards without removable keys! Maybe I need stickers. :-)

Not only is the Dvorak keyboard easier and faster for most humans, it's especially faster for one-handed typists. Some of my experimenting in the early '90s included creating Dvorak keyboard layout files for the Macs of the era, including right-handed and left-handed one-hand variants. I see Snow Leopard includes those as well as the basic layout! I'll have to play with it some more.

---

The one-handed Dvorak layouts (created by Dvorak from his existing data for a man who lost his arm in World War II) are also included in Windows. -rc

Posted by Jill, New Jersey on September 28, 2009:

I've heard of this keyboard before, and I find the idea fascinating. I type relatively fast on Qwerty, 55 to 60 wpm - how quickly can one learn this new setup when already very good at typing on what's basically an archaic keyboard? In theory, would I have to retrain my neural connections, or can one be cross-trained? :) I'd hope for the cross-training option, if this new keyboard were to be installed in some settings and the Qwerty setups in others...

---

You posted this before I answered Dave (first comment): the same "muscle memory" is still used, so it's doubly easy if you do decide to switch. Remember when you first learned to type, you had to type nonsense words? "FJKS" and such? That's because as you're learning the home row, there's not too many real words you can type there. But because of Dvorak's language-based design, thousands of words can be typed using only the home row. The catch: you have to use lessons that are designed by someone who really understands the Dvorak layout so that it uses real home-row words from the start. The best tutorials I know of are offered by Keytime in Seattle. I believe that with reasonable practice using their materials you'd be able to reach your current speed in about 5-6 weeks -- and then keep going up from there. And remember, Dvorak isn't only about speed, it's about comfort, too. It's a lot easier on your hands. But the speed is still nice! -rc

Posted by Nikki- Lawrence, KS on September 28, 2009:

I became curious about the Dvorak keyboard because Piers Anthony mentions it in some of his writings, and he's a favorite of mine. Ultimately, I'm too lazy to actually try it out.

About the layout though, I don't know there is a difference in drumming fingers in or out. Of course, that's one of the things I do often. Anyway, I liked the brief history of the qwerty. I remember in school asking why the letters were they way they are and was told because that's the easiest. Well, of course it's easier for those that already know it.

---

Just so! Yes, Piers is one of several writers I know who use Dvorak. "Inboard" finger drumming is definitely easier for most people. I suppose some who use their hands a lot in their work (e.g., sleight-of-hand magicians, some musicians) wouldn't really notice a difference. -rc

Posted by Luis, Mexico on September 28, 2009:

You got me curious about the Dvorak keyboard, but I have a question, I'm from Mexico and I write in spanish, in this case this layout wouldn't be as efficient for me? And for having the same efficiency there should be a keyboard with spanish words in mind?

---

Typing on Dvorak en Espanol would be more efficient than in Qwerty, since many of the benefits would apply -- the two- and three-letter combinations are very similar, for instance. The addition of accents is probably the biggest issue, but that's already an issue with Qwerty.... -rc

Posted by Mike (Edmonton, AB) on September 28, 2009:

I've often wondered about Dvorak, as the claims made are so good, and then I ran across the "Fable of the Keys". Before just quoting that, I did some more searching and found the debunking of that article (mostly by you). What didn't seem to come out of either side is any scientific studies after Dvorak's initial one and the Navy one on their typists.

Is there more data to back up the claims? Most of what I read seems to be anecdotes.

---

I've been calling for a good study for many years, but the patent on the Dvorak layout expired decades ago, so there is no financial incentive to do rigorous studies in the private sector. Someone once left money in their will to a university to do a study, but the university spent the money on something else instead. The only study I know of has been by Keytime, but as far as I know they haven't actually published their data, and I don't know how rigorous their methods have been. -rc

Posted by Decibel! Austin, TX on September 29, 2009:

I switched to Dvorak years ago, with dreams of vastly improved typing speed. What I've actually found is that my typing speed is about the same as with qwerty (somewhere around 50-60WPM). This really puzzled me, but after I started thinking about it (while typing) I realized that for me, my head is the roadblock. I can certainly think of things faster than 50WPM, but I just can't get the fingers to move any faster. I suspect this is because I do computer work all day; most programming languages are far, far less wordy than English, so I'm used to putting a significant amount of thought into everything that I type.

That said, I'm completely convinced that Dvorak has saved me from RSI. That alone makes the switch completely worthwhile.

Posted by Alex, Massachusetts on September 29, 2009:

I spent some time playing with Dvorak's layout, but it ended up just not being worth it to me. About half my work day is spent using other people's computers (I'm a support tech at a university), so I'd have to get everyone in the department to change to see a big change.

That said, my peak typing speed with Qwerty was over 100 wpm, and I currently run about 70-90, depending on what I'm doing and how much typing I've done recently. If I were see the same kind of improvement with Dvorak that a lot of people seem to, I'm not sure my brain would keep up with my fingers... the advantages in comfort, though, are what keep me considering it.

Posted by Tony, Japan on September 29, 2009:

I read your Dvorak page a long time ago, but reading this again made me realise something that would be a really strong incentive for me to learn to use this layout:
Japanese would be extremely suited to the Dvorak layout; since in the japanese "KANA" alphabet, 45 of the 46 characters use a vowel (aiueo), or a vowel and a consonant (one of kszjtdnhbpmyrw), so that alone would lead to a speed increase. The left hand would hardly have to move!

Although I do not see it catching on here any time soon: Even though keyboards here have since the DOS era featured both QWERTY and the Japanese KANA characters assigned one to a key, almost everybody I know still uses the QWERTY layout to input the KANA, with two strokes per KANA even though the KANA layout would reduce keystrokes by 50% (A single "TA" instead of "T" and "A").

As an aside, it's probably just me (is it?) but, "Drum your fingers on the table: it's easier to go from your pinky in than from your pointing finger out, right?"

I seriously cannot do this! My ring finger simply will not comply. Index to Pinkie is about five times faster and much more natural. The result of too much two finger typing perhaps? Despite twenty years as a software engineer I have never had any formal typing training. But I do think my fingers' "muscle memory" have learned the patterns involved in typing those Japanese KANA.

I now make more mistakes when typing English than when typing Japanese. (And most of the mistakes in Japanese are from typing too fast, so that left and right hand keystrokes get out of order.)

Thanks again for a thought-provoking post.

---

See if you can find the work of Hisao Yamada of the University of Tokyo, who did a lot of work on efficient keyboarding for Kana. He was quite fascinated with Dvorak's methodologies, and wrote several papers on the subject. He's probably long retired by now -- I used to correspond with him years ago. -rc

Posted by AllanW, Rancho Cucamonga on September 29, 2009:

I don't remember where I first encountered this idea, but I've seen quite a bit of evidence that it's true: In most situations where standards exist, the rules that are used are the first ones that are "good enough" according to widespread acceptance.

The best example of this is, of course, Qwerty vs. Dvorak. Qwerty was "good enough" that people could be productive with it. Dvorak probably is superior, but the chicken-and-egg dilemma is at least part of the problem: almost everyone knows how to use Qwerty, therefore that's the default (and sometimes the only) choice to use, therefore that's what's taught, therefore that's the default, and so on.

Another example is the situation we have with major airports throughout the United States. The first jets had their entry doors 15 feet above the ground, and at first someone had to roll a giant stepladder up to the plane to allow passengers to get on and off. It didn't take long before the biggest airports started building terminals that load and unload passengers from the second- or third-story. Today, it would be easy to build a jumbo jet with the door much closer to the ground, and in emergency situations where the plane has to be emptied quickly, this would be MUCH safer. But if any airline owned a jet like that, it would be inconvenient to use at major airports -- so the high-door "standard" remains.

Anybody remember when the United States switched to Metric? I was in school at the time, and I had to sit through class after class, learning how many millimeters are in a meter, how many milligrams are in a gram, how many milliliters are in a liter, and so on. (The very fact that all three questions have the same answer, is what makes metric superior.) That was what, 30 years ago? Today you can buy a 2-liter bottle of soda, and my car's speedometer has both Metric and English markings, but I don't think anything else in my life has changed at all... it seems that inches/feet/miles, ounces/pounds, ounces/cups/gallons are all "good enough".

Beta versus VHS is an exception, but there's a good reason for that. Beta did come out slightly before VHS, and it was (very slightly) superior. If you had Beta equipment and VHS equipment of similar quality, and you recorded a program on both and then played them both back, they would look identical to most people. But if you played them both back 50 times, the VHS recording would start showing wear before the Beta format did. So Beta was superior, but Sony charged royalties -- making it more expensive. So it wasn't "good enough" after all, and VHS won the format war.