Author Topic: Dvorak? (Read 10261 times)

Therac-25 · « **on:** Thu, 01 January 2009, 00:53:21 »

Should I take the plunge when I get my new keyboard?

I've always kind of admired it from a distance. Just never had the motivation to do anything about it.

xsphat · « **Reply #1 on:** Thu, 01 January 2009, 01:51:31 »

And which keyboard is that? They can all be Dvorak.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #2 on:** Thu, 01 January 2009, 02:09:00 »

I found that it was so radically different that I wasn't doing too well at it, and I use my computer way too much to bother retraining. I'm efficient enough with QWERTY that I can type faster than my thoughts, so...

As for Colemak, it was actually so SIMILAR to QWERTY that I automatically typed QWERTY from muscle memory when trying to learn it, and just screwed myself over.

cmr · « **Reply #3 on:** Thu, 01 January 2009, 05:45:54 »

i tried dvorak when my model m arrived

too weird for me, man. i am within spitting distance of 100 wpm on qwerty anyway so it's a pretty hard sell.

iMav · « **Reply #4 on:** Thu, 01 January 2009, 06:33:47 »

I know a few people that love it. I used it for the better part of a month but found that switching back and forth was more irritating than it was worth. (and, like many others here, I am very good at qwerty and don't have any adverse effects from using it)

Besides, I have yet to find a way to convert my blackberry and iphone keyboards to dvorak.

Chloe · « **Reply #5 on:** Thu, 01 January 2009, 07:26:02 »

I wanted to try Dvorak a while ago to see if I could boost my WPM, which is already fast on QWERTY. I don't know if a different layout would reduce my RSI.

I tried swapping the keys on my Cherry G84-4100 so I could see the layout but they are not all the same size. I might get some stickers for the keys, but I don't like the feel of the edges.

Chloe · « **Reply #6 on:** Thu, 01 January 2009, 07:30:03 »

I suppose I could use an OSD, but when I was learning QWERTY I had to look at the keys.

Chloe · « **Reply #7 on:** Thu, 01 January 2009, 07:34:50 »

I taught myself on a typewriter.

Chloe · « **Reply #8 on:** Thu, 01 January 2009, 07:52:36 »

I had an electric Silver-Reed 2600. If I typed too fast the bars would jam, but it felt really satisfying to type on. I felt like much more of a writer on that thing. I gave it away after I got my first PC.

FunkTrooper · « **Reply #9 on:** Thu, 01 January 2009, 10:41:33 »

Switching to Colemak is definately one of the best decisions I ever made. Now, I'm sure it wouldn't be worth it for someone who's already really good at Dvorak (or even maybe QWERTY for that matter), but for someone who wants to start to learn to touch type, I would highly recommend it. Since I never could touch type in QWERTY before, I found learning Colemak to be particularly easy. But this is not going to be the same for everyone else, I'm sure.

Therac-25 · « **Reply #10 on:** Thu, 01 January 2009, 12:46:42 »

Looks pretty not bad.

As for keycaps, I was considering sanding them off when my M10 arrives anyway, just to be cool.

Korbin · « **Reply #11 on:** Thu, 01 January 2009, 15:19:28 »

I have been using Dvorak for 6 months. Proficiency wasn't the reason I switched (because honestly, I think it's the same even though your fingers move more on QWERTY).

Comfort is the biggest reason I switched. I can type on Dvorak without rest compared to QWERTY, even though I typed on QWERTY for 15 years. Colemak is nice but not optimal for software developers because of the placement of the semi colon and brackets.

Korbin · « **Reply #12 on:** Thu, 01 January 2009, 21:53:00 »

Quote from: webwit;16917

I guess preference is quite personal here too, but I consider colemak better for programming, while Dvorak hand alternation gives a great rhythm if you type natural language (but colemak offers some great key rolls). I like that about Dvorak although it also gives me more transposition errors. Don't understand your comment about the semi colon (stretch pinkie operations under both layouts) and brackets (further away with Dvorak), but focusing on one or two characters is never a good point anyway.

Programming languages like java, C# rely heavily -,=,. They are arguably used more than even text due to modern IDE's autocompletion.

So even though it seems like the focus is on a few characters they are the characters that are highly used by software developers that program in static languages (brackets are actually auto-completed in most IDE's as well, I mispoke).

Don't get me wrong, I would most likely still try colemak, especially after Windows and Mac add it to their regional settings.

Therac-25 · « **Reply #13 on:** Fri, 02 January 2009, 07:15:18 »

Quote from: webwit;16932

I google for 'c# source code', take the first link, get to here where I copy the fountain code, and paste here for comparison. Result:
Distance Qwerty 76.24m; Colemak 47.95m; Dvorak 56.44m.
.

To be fair on this, you would have to run a keylogger while entering that into a real IDE, and use the logged keys to measure the distance. You don't have to actually type out nearly all of the code in C# or Java these days.

Therac-25 · « **Reply #14 on:** Fri, 02 January 2009, 08:43:57 »

Quote from: webwit;16941

Yeah, I think that method is called Python
*ducks*

I actually use perl at work, so you don't need to lecture me on dynamic languages. I was just commenting on the given example -- C# and Java IDEs write alot of code for you.

I've never had any particular opportunity to learn Python, and I don't think I'd like it very much. The semantics seem kind of out of whack.

iMav · « **Reply #15 on:** Fri, 02 January 2009, 08:59:58 »

Quote from: Therac-25;16947

I actually use perl at work, so you don't need to lecture me on dynamic languages. I was just commenting on the given example -- C# and Java IDEs write alot of code for you.

I've never had any particular opportunity to learn Python, and I don't think I'd like it very much. The semantics seem kind of out of whack.

I've used both and quite like Python. However, I used Perl long before and find myself gravitating towards it when I need to whip something out ("excuse me while I whip this out")

Of course, these days I work as a Sales Engineer, so I don't do much of either. I have three kids and their middle names are "Perl", "Daemon", and "Python". Yes, my wife is a VERY good woman.

Korbin · « **Reply #16 on:** Fri, 02 January 2009, 09:36:28 »

I love dynamic languages (ruby and python) for quick scripting. But, I wouldn't want to use them for a large enterprise application.

Anyway, I'm a little confused on the "objective" of the colemak layout. I can't seem to find any info on it. For example, the objective of dvorak is to alternate hands and put the most commonly used letters in the english language on the home row.

Colemak seems to take a different approach by placing the commonly used letters on the home row, but you alternate hands much less than Dvorak. Although researchers are not quite sure what causes RSI they believe the syndrome is cause by synovial fluid not "producing fast enough between key strokes" so I was surprised to see that the percentage of same hand strokes was almost identical to QWERTY with anything that I typed in the compare tool on colemak's website (which may explain why they say colemak is easier to learn for QWERTY users).

The website also says that Colemak tries to fix the problems with Dvorak but doesn't say specifically the problems with it. Does anyone know?

Therac-25 · « **Reply #17 on:** Fri, 02 January 2009, 09:41:39 »

Quote from: Korbin;16951

I love dynamic languages (ruby and python) for quick scripting. But, I wouldn't want to use them for a large enterprise application.

Anyway, I'm a little confused on the "objective" of the colemak layout. I can't seem to find any info on it. For example, the objective of dvorak is to alternate hands and put the most commonly used letters in the english language on the home row.

Colemak seems to take a different approach by placing the commonly used letters on the home row, but you alternate hands much less than Dvorak. Although researchers are not quite sure what causes RSI they believe the syndrome is cause by synovial fluid not "producing fast enough between key strokes" so I was surprised to see that the percentage of same hand strokes was almost identical to QWERTY with anything that I typed in the compare tool on colemak's website (which may explain why they say colemak is easier to learn for QWERTY users).

The website also says that Colemak tries to fix the problems with Dvorak but doesn't say specifically the problems with it. Does anyone know?

According to their FAQ:

What's wrong with the Dvorak layout?

* The main problem with Dvorak is that it's too difficult and frustrating to learn for existing QWERTY typists because it's so different from QWERTY. Colemak has been designed to be easy to learn.
* Placing 'L' on the QWERTY 'P' position causes excessive strain on the right pinky. Colemak doesn't place frequent letters where the pinkies stretch.
* 'F' is on the QWERTY 'Y' position which is a difficult stretch on normal keyboards.
* 'I' is very frequent but isn't on the home position.
* 'R' is very frequent but isn't on the home row.
* It is significantly lopsided so that the right hand does too much work.
* It's not comfortable to use Ctrl-Z/X/C/V shortcuts with the left hand while holding the mouse with the right hand. Colemak conserves those shortcuts in their QWERTY positions.
* Even though the design principles are sound, the implementation isn't optimal because it was designed without the aid of computers.
* 'L' and 'S' form a frequent same-finger digraph on the right pinky. Same-finger for the pinky is very rare in Colemak. In particular, Unix commands such as 'ls -l' are very uncomfortable to type.
* Some punctuation (in particular the curly/square brackets) is less comfortable to type on Dvorak. This affects mainly programmers and advanced Unix users.

Therac-25 · « **Reply #18 on:** Fri, 02 January 2009, 10:28:10 »

It's gonna wreak havoc with playing crawl though...

Therac-25 · « **Reply #19 on:** Fri, 02 January 2009, 19:22:38 »

Quote from: webwit;16967

It doesn't make a difference. If I rip out all those brackets of the same piece of code the result is:
Qwerty 69.47m; Colemak 41.50m; Dvorak 49.21m

It's not the brackets, it's the text that IDEs get rid of.

As an example, in Monodevelop, if I type this:

googleSearch.setQuery( query );

The actual keystrokes I can get by with are:

go.s( q );

It's not something you can realistically measure just by running the source code through a filter -- an individual would have to use a keylogger on their coding session, as how often you use IDE shortcuts is extremely personal.

FunkTrooper · « **Reply #20 on:** Fri, 02 January 2009, 20:05:45 »

you don't have to stick to the default places for punctuation for any layout. The creator of Colemak, Shai Coleman, stated that he left the punctuation the same as QWERTY so as to not have to specify where the punctuation keys would go, knowing that these would vary internationally anyway. For example, I made a UK version of Colemak which I used on my UK keyboards until I got my US layout Model M. So you could easily make a version of Colemak with more Dvorak-like punctuation placement if you wanted.

Quote from: Korbin;16928

Don't get me wrong, I would most likely still try colemak, especially after Windows and Mac add it to their regional settings.

This is, unfortunately, *never* going to happen with Windows. See this blog post for more info: http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archive/2008/06/22/8639024.aspx

Therac-25 · « **Reply #21 on:** Fri, 02 January 2009, 21:10:10 »

Quote from: webwit;16970

Qwerty 0.310m; Colemak 0.261m; Dvorak 0.295m

But seriously. If you try hard there will be cases when Dvorak wins. Whenever I measure, about 1 out of 20 times I input some text, natural language or code. Depends on your language too.

It's not surprising colemak wins. It had the advantage of mass computer text analysis, so it's just mathematics and statistics in the end. It's logical they tried to improve it in the modern age, with logical results.

I was never claiming that it wouldn't win, I was simply raising a methodological objection :-)

Unless you actually are writing Python, the process of typing in code is getting farther and farther from what typing in prose looks like.

Etinin · « **Reply #22 on:** Sat, 03 January 2009, 00:43:38 »

I learned to use Dvorak some months ago and it was a good way of learning to touch type as I would always got impatient with QWERTY and start using hunt and peck again. I took a look at several options available but didn't like Colemak because of its lack of notability, few advantages VS Dvorak and, most importantly, lack of a Caps lock key. I am currently using stickers and I'll physically change the layout of my keys once my new Unicomp keyboard arrives.

xsphat · « **Reply #23 on:** Sat, 03 January 2009, 01:50:36 »

Man, all this talk of languages in thread makes me wonder what language you were speaking! I mean, damn. I'm nothing without my OSX, and I know not one line of code.

But I type more than most people I know and have always used qwerty. I know it was designed to slow down typists. I know dvorak is better, and I have a feeling colemak is the best of the bunch. I tried dvorak for a month, hated it. Haven't bothered with colemak.

Quite frankly, I like qwerty. I type fast as I can think in it and my arms don't hurt so why go through the hastle?

Just my view.

DMuk · « **Reply #24 on:** Sat, 03 January 2009, 09:02:02 »

You can get pretty carried away when you start messing with keyboard layouts. I use Colemak on a UK layout board with the ? / and | \ keys remapped to AltGr. Now I have all the punctuation/symbols more easily accessible:

Code: [Select]

! ? + = *  ` ~ < >
- _ ( ) @  # [ ] { } ^  << home row
| \ / & %  $ £

furthermore I also have the CapsLock key as a modifier giving navigation on the right side of the 'board (arrow keys, home, end, pgup, pgdn etc). It may sound complicated but the brain can learn stuff pretty quickly I've found.

Korbin · « **Reply #25 on:** Sat, 03 January 2009, 09:13:41 »

Quote from: FunkTrooper;16969

you don't have to stick to the default places for punctuation for any layout. The creator of Colemak, Shai Coleman, stated that he left the punctuation the same as QWERTY so as to not have to specify where the punctuation keys would go, knowing that these would vary internationally anyway. For example, I made a UK version of Colemak which I used on my UK keyboards until I got my US layout Model M. So you could easily make a version of Colemak with more Dvorak-like punctuation placement if you wanted.

This is, unfortunately, *never* going to happen with Windows. See this blog post for more info: http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archive/2008/06/22/8639024.aspx

That reasoning really doesn't make sense. You can't even buy a Dvorak keyboard as far as know.

Korbin · « **Reply #26 on:** Sat, 03 January 2009, 09:36:13 »

Quote from: webwit;16987

Ah you didn't like Colemak because what would the neighbors think, because you like 15% more hand travel which you claim is irrelevant, yet you picked dvorak over qwerty, and most importantly, because the latest version actually does not remap Caps Lock by default and you LIKE TO SHOUT. Lol... dvorak people. Gotta love them. These are the classic signs you already knew dvorak before becoming aware of colemak. If you can chose, no one picks an inferior layout with more travel because the one with less travel isn't an advantage or something. That's like saying the slow car in a race game is the best choice because the better ones have few advantages.

Anyway this discussion is getting silly and I'm starting to sound like a colemak fanboy which I'm not and I can't be bothered what others use. I just picked the layout with the least travel. There is not more to it. If you want to use crap like qwerty or suboptimal like dvorak and argue your way into justifying those choices to shape your own truth, please do so and use whatever makes you happy. How angelsaksian of you. Wish you'd stop giving advice about it to others though, but ah well..

Bro, using generalize comments and borderline insulting people is not the way to make your point. Assuming that people that use Dvorak have never heard of Colemak is nothing more than an assumption. Dvorak still has the advantage of going into the regional settings and changing the layout on Mac and Windows with no software installs. The "justification" for using any layout is all a matter choice. Period. Nothing more.

Yes all of the alternative layouts do provide better efficiency (the 5% difference between dvorak and colemak is out right silly to argue over) over QWERTY. But none of the alternative layouts can make people like them. Using your car reference, some people like to keep that gas guzzling mustang because THEY LIKE THE CAR.

You like colemak, ok.... we get that. But don't knock peoples preferences for a key layout they choose. ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE TRIED COLEMAK BEFORE. Read through the comments that people have left, no one has given "advice" on using dvorak. Every post simply stated why they like the key layout of their choice, because personally, I don't think anyone cares what layout other people use.

iMav · « **Reply #27 on:** Sat, 03 January 2009, 09:36:38 »

Quote from: webwit;16986

Don't. A lot of people past a certain age cannot learn new stuff like this. See: the failure of dvorak. Most of them don't join discussions about that material to shine their bright light on it too :] That would be just ignorant.

I think anyone can learn a new layout if they set their mind to it.

BTW, I am glad that this thread was created. Admittedly, I was fairly ignorant of the Colemak layout and am thankful to have a better understanding of it now.

xsphat · « **Reply #28 on:** Sat, 03 January 2009, 09:50:05 »

Quote from: iMav;16996

I think anyone can learn a new layout if they set their mind to it.

BTW, I am glad that this thread was created. Admittedly, I was fairly ignorant of the Colemak layout and am thankful to have a better understanding of it now.

Are you going to try colemak or are you too old and ignorant like me?

iMav · « **Reply #29 on:** Sat, 03 January 2009, 12:11:04 »

Quote from: xsphat;16997

Are you going to try colemak or are you too old and ignorant like me?

I wish I was only as "old" as you.

(but at least I'm not as old as bigpook!)

bigpook · « **Reply #30 on:** Sat, 03 January 2009, 12:22:17 »

Quote from: iMav;17010

I wish I was only as "old" as you. (but at least I'm not as old as bigpook!)

Please, : ) I think that honor goes to greywolf. : )
Though he hasn't posted here in awhile...

Does that make me the old man of geekhack?

Never thought I would see the day : )

lowpoly · « **Reply #31 on:** Sat, 03 January 2009, 14:05:41 »

Quote from: Korbin;16993

You can't even buy a Dvorak keyboard as far as know.

Here and here are some.

andb · « **Reply #32 on:** Sat, 03 January 2009, 19:08:35 »

Quote from: Korbin;16993

That reasoning really doesn't make sense. You can't even buy a Dvorak keyboard as far as know.

There definitely are hardware DVORAK and switchable QWERTY / DVORAK layout keyboards. However, in just about any situation I think its better to configure your computer instead of using a hardware based solution, perhaps the dvorak wired board is good if you often have to use other computers.

Someone asked what the goal of Colemak was. I think the elevator pitch would be "to make an efficient typing layout in order to improve typing speed and reduce repetitive stress, which would still be easy to switch back to QWERTY occasionally as needed". For example, this is why the cut / copy / paste shortcuts remain in the same location, as these are the most common shortcuts and are very automatic.

Therac-25 · « **Reply #33 on:** Sat, 03 January 2009, 21:39:31 »

Quote from: andb;17020

Someone asked what the goal of Colemak was. I think the elevator pitch would be "to make an efficient typing layout in order to improve typing speed and reduce repetitive stress, which would still be easy to switch back to QWERTY occasionally as needed". For example, this is why the cut / copy / paste shortcuts remain in the same location, as these are the most common shortcuts and are very automatic.

Ironically, the two OSes on which I actually use those shortcuts alot (Emacs uses none, and most of the software I still use under Linux can be made to follow Emacs key conventions, whether it likes it or not) don't support Colemak natively.

I'm starting to not see the point. I don't want to have to wrestle with every computer I use in order to get this working "just right", only to have some other program start ignoring keymap settings.

andb · « **Reply #34 on:** Sun, 04 January 2009, 15:59:50 »

Quote from: Therac-25;17024

I'm starting to not see the point. I don't want to have to wrestle with every computer I use in order to get this working "just right", only to have some other program start ignoring keymap settings.

I completely understand that its a PIA and we are growing more and more towards wanting things to just work, right out of the box. The problem is just one of momentum. For example, in the US, the English measurement system has so much momentum that its almost impossible to force a change to a clearly superior format, metric. "I know it, it works, why change?" can be said of both keyboard layouts and measuring systems.

Another interesting comparison is railroad track gauge. Had railroads been made with a bit more foresight, they could have made the rails twice as wide, for example, and imagine what a luxurious intercity system of transport it would then be. Sometimes it doesn't make sense to switch even to a superior format, the cost would just be too high, as in the rail example.

It's up to you to decide if the cost is too high to switch. I personally try to make significant changes constantly to make keep my mind nimble and to avoid developing limiting belief systems. Just that by itself justified my use of Colemak (though I still use qwerty a lot and might try dvorak next year).

About wrestling, I'm fortunate enough to control all the computers that I regularly use, and they are all Linux. And those that I don't control, I can just stick to the status quo and for a short time use qwerty.

lam47 · « **Reply #35 on:** Sun, 04 January 2009, 17:26:03 »

Quote from: andb;17043

And snip

Just wanted to say I liked your post a lot, and your open mindedness towards change and progress, very sexy (not in a gay way)

Therac-25 · « **Reply #36 on:** Sun, 04 January 2009, 19:29:01 »

Quote from: andb;17043

I completely understand that its a PIA and we are growing more and more towards wanting things to just work, right out of the box. The problem is just one of momentum. For example, in the US, the English measurement system has so much momentum that its almost impossible to force a change to a clearly superior format, metric. "I know it, it works, why change?" can be said of both keyboard layouts and measuring systems.

Well, that's because metric is only "clearly superior" to some people. Human minds tend to think logarithmically, not linearly -- there have been experiments[1] where children in first grade are asked to draw a number line (where is this number on the line, etc) and they get it "wrong". "Wrong" from the point of view of a linear number line, but roughly correct on a logarithmic one. Once they get old enough, then they learn to do what they're told.

If you look at the imperial system, it has an extra measurement unit in between the one for short distances (inches) and the one for longer ones (yards). Metric doesn't have that, so it places a higher cognitive load on people when measuring most things at the human scale in terms of size.

We like small numbers, and for things that most people measure on a regular basis, they're going to be using inches, feet and yards. It's also easier to split up inches, because the gradations are based on halving. "1/2 inch" and "1/4" inch are almost units in and of themselves.

Claiming "metric is superior" because it makes conversion easier is a canard. The Imperial units are easier for actual human minds to use for most things they need to use it for.

Quote from: andb;17043

Another interesting comparison is railroad track gauge. Had railroads been made with a bit more foresight, they could have made the rails twice as wide, for example, and imagine what a luxurious intercity system of transport it would then be. Sometimes it doesn't make sense to switch even to a superior format, the cost would just be too high, as in the rail example.

Economic systems forbid foresight when the immediate costs are fatal. No one could have proposed a doublewide railroad gauge back that far in the past and survived. To think they could have is fantasy. Just like evolution can't have foresight, economic actors can't have foresight when the costs of that foresight make competition now untenable.

Quote from: andb;17043

It's up to you to decide if the cost is too high to switch. I personally try to make significant changes constantly to make keep my mind nimble and to avoid developing limiting belief systems. Just that by itself justified my use of Colemak (though I still use qwerty a lot and might try dvorak next year).

It has nothing to do with "belief systems". It's about coming up with a transparent human computer interface. I don't want to keep switching interfaces, I want one that's as close to invisible as possible. If I constantly have to mess around with it, or I constantly feel the temptation to adjust it, I'm never going to not think about it -- and not thinking about my layout is the goal.

[1] Here, a few paragraphs into Variability of Strategies and Representations. A related APA article

bhtooefr · « **Reply #37 on:** Sun, 04 January 2009, 20:55:46 »

Except technically the metric system does have a unit in between centimeters and meters.

Decimeters.

Therac-25 · « **Reply #38 on:** Sun, 04 January 2009, 21:07:12 »

Quote from: bhtooefr;17067

Except technically the metric system does have a unit in between centimeters and meters.

Decimeters.

"Technically".

Living in Canada -- where everything is mandated to be in metric (Imperial units are permitted, but metric is mandated) -- I have never seen that term used outside of Wikipedia and the grade school classroom where I was introduced to the units.

In practice, the units of length that are used in common items go: mm, cm, m, km. Hectare (100m x 100m -- one square hectometre) is the closest we get to seeing any other unit of length used.

andb · « **Reply #39 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 05:27:35 »

Excellent rebuttal.

Quote from: Therac-25;17058

Well, that's because metric is only "clearly superior" to some people. Human minds tend to think logarithmically, not linearly...

Interesting point, one I hadn't thought of. I've often thought that most people cant really deal with numbers above 10 except in a very abstract way, so shifting units to allow that use of a small number of objects to track would make sense. With training though, I think the metric system has benefits too great to be ignored. Perhaps the issue is the lack of use of the intermediate units.

Quote from: Therac-25;17058

If you look at the imperial system, it has an extra measurement unit in between the one for short distances (inches) and the one for longer ones (yards). Metric doesn't have that, so it places a higher cognitive load on people when measuring most things at the human scale in terms of size.

Did you know that in the Czech Republic, you order drinks by deciliters? So you either order a 5 or a 7 deciliter carafe of wine? Sliced meat and cheese in the deli is ordered in decigrams, so if I want enough ham for 4 sandwiches, I might ask for 6 dekas (in the local terms) of ham. Are there other cultures with good examples of lay use of additional metric prefixes?

Quote from: Therac-25;17058

We like small numbers, and for things that most people measure on a regular basis, they're going to be using inches, feet and yards. It's also easier to split up inches, because the gradations are based on halving. "1/2 inch" and "1/4" inch are almost units in and of themselves.

Though if we split something into 7/32", is that still easily comprehensible? For me 5.5mm is much easier to handle (the size of the wrench I need to get to open my IBM M!). Imperial's real drawback comes when its time to convert units. If I want to cook apple pie for 100 people, how many bushels of apples do I need? How much is a bushel anyway? Liquid measure is even better, with teaspoons - tablespoons - ounces - cups - pints - quarts - gallons giving me headaches

I love cooking, and scaling recipes is a great example of the failure of imperial to convert well.

Quote from: Therac-25;17058

Claiming "metric is superior" because it makes conversion easier is a canard. The Imperial units are easier for actual human minds to use for most things they need to use it for.

Yes, the tool does work for simple use cases. But when the person goes to take on an advanced role in society, such as engineering or logistics, he's faced with a crippling world view, imo. I sometimes do contract work for various scientific institutes, where use of the imperial system is simply unimaginable.

Quote from: Therac-25;17058

It has nothing to do with "belief systems".

I think you have misread my intent, I was discussing a practice that I have personally put into place to help me make sure that I do not limit my own belief systems. I personally like change simply for the sake of change. My goal of constant change is to make sure I don't ever get cemented into believing that there is a "right way" to do anything. Whether it be personal relationships or coding style or keyboard layout, its never good to think that you know exactly what something is or the best way to do it. Alfred Korzybski said and Gregory Bateson often repeated that the map is not the territory. Thats the point I'm trying to reinforce in my mind when changing how I do various things in my life.

I'm glad you put the time into your response and shared your ideas in support of the Imperial system. I can agree with you that for the average individual engaged in typical activities the imperial system will meet their needs.

Perhaps a good final comparison is between Newtonian physics and Relativity. Which is the better tool? The metric system is obviously far more applicable to every day events then Relativity, but in defense of the Imperial system, like Newtonian physics it works for most of us, most of the time. However, when you get beyond the needs of a single mind doing simple tasks, you clearly can see the superiority of the metric system, which is evidenced by the shift of the American auto industry towards metric, for example.

Now, how about we just all shift to counting in base 8? Shame humans have those useless pinkies or we'd already be there...

andb · « **Reply #40 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 05:42:40 »

I think its worth noting that I'm American and used the Imperial system exclusively for a bit over 20 years. When I moved to Europe I quickly adapted to metric and for years I think and calculate with metric. The only exception is PSI as opposed to bar, as I don't have to use this much and still sometimes default to the Imperial measure when thinking about pressure.

So I think I have a good basis to compare both systems. I'm also interested in the opinions of metric users who have moved to the States and had to adapt to imperial, though this is seriously off the topic of the Dvorak keyboard layout

Amazing where threads can go...

lam47 · « **Reply #41 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 06:22:03 »

I cant handle bar and all our pumps here are in PSI.
What's a bit odd is when I think of sizes I think in imperial but when I work I work in metric as it is just more straight forward and precise.

Therac-25 · « **Reply #42 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 09:41:46 »

Quote from: andb;17109

I think its worth noting that I'm American and used the Imperial system exclusively for a bit over 20 years. When I moved to Europe I quickly adapted to metric and for years I think and calculate with metric. The only exception is PSI as opposed to bar, as I don't have to use this much and still sometimes default to the Imperial measure when thinking about pressure.

So I think I have a good basis to compare both systems. I'm also interested in the opinions of metric users who have moved to the States and had to adapt to imperial, though this is seriously off the topic of the Dvorak keyboard layout

Amazing where threads can go...

That's the thing, is I'm in Canada, where both systems are in common usage -- in theory, people will use the system best suited to the task at hand. Metric is mandated for everything, but the imperial system is very common.

British units are widely used for small lengths -- random example, when I go to Home Depot to buy some kind of thing like rope, cat-5 cable or wood, it's almost always sold in feet and inches. The cashiers might have to enter the measurements into the registers in cm or m, but they measure it in feet, and the prices are displayed both in $/ft and $/m. But once you get to a big enough, or small enough measurement -- km or anything smaller than a mm -- the British system just can't deal with it elegantly.

Pounds are widely preferred over kg for some things -- even though all deli meats are priced in units of $/100g, it's still common practice to order lbs (~454g) or 1/2 lbs, etc. Body weight is virtually always discussed in lbs. Anything that is done professionally, though, is usually done in kg, mostly because it's what's mandated by the industry. For pressure, we still use PSI over kPa, simply because the numbers are smaller (45 PSI =~ 310 kPa). All tires are labelled with both.

Volume is almost exclusively metric, however. Even though the smaller sizes are still based on imperial units -- i.e. a 355mL can of pop -- they're almost never talked about in ounces or anything. British cooking units though -- cups, tsp, tbls, etc -- are still widely deployed. Everything is labeled in mL, but no one uses metric below 2L or so of volume when cooking.

With the exception of lbs being used for things like body weight, almost all of the places we use the British units here make the numbers smaller or easier to manipulate for a human brain (i.e. halving, instead of dividing by 10). 10 only has two prime factors -- 5 and 2. Numbers like 12, 24, 36 etc. that the British system uses have more prime factors -- 12 = 2x2x3 -- so they can be divided up in more ways more easily by a real person.

Therac-25 · « **Reply #43 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 10:57:15 »

What the hell, xkcd...

itlnstln · « **Reply #44 on:** Wed, 07 January 2009, 07:09:49 »

I would love to try another layout, but I use more computers than just my own, so switching from layout to layout would just confuse and frustrate the Hell out of me. That, I haven't really mastered QWERTY yet (after 20-something years).

bhtooefr · « **Reply #45 on:** Wed, 07 January 2009, 14:15:50 »

If you haven't mastered QWERTY yet, that's the time to learn something else.

And that's the huge difference between switchaholics not wanting to learn alternate layouts, and the general public not liking better keyboards. After a week with a couple different high quality keyboards, they may well see the light.

After a month fighting to learn Dvorak or Colemak, a switchaholic might not see the difference, and might have trouble typing on other computers. While a switchaholic might not LIKE typing on a mushy rubber dome, the pre- and post-switchaholic typing speeds on that board probably won't be all that different.

itlnstln · « **Reply #46 on:** Wed, 07 January 2009, 14:23:16 »

Quote

If you haven't mastered QWERTY yet, that's the time to learn something else.

I know where each and every key is at, but I have never been able to break out of the habit of looking at the keys, not thinking, and just typing. Every once in awhile when I am blowing-and-going, I realize that I am just typing, and trip myself up. It's not that I don't know QWERTY, it's all in my head. The problem is, if I can't get over that on a layout I have been using for such a long time, I will defintely have a hard time learning something else.

Therac-25 · « **Reply #47 on:** Wed, 07 January 2009, 14:53:32 »

After just spending a few hours getting stuff to compile by editing makefiles in vi, I don't think I'm going to move on right now. Too many things make layout assumptions for it to be an overall win.

News:

Author Topic: Dvorak? (Read 10261 times)