Author Topic: Why I choose Dvorak rather than Colemak？ (Read 20138 times)

Popkeymon · « **on:** Fri, 25 March 2011, 09:38:03 »

We have no doubt that Qwerty is bad. Really bad.

I use iphone and have to hunting qwerty for this post rather than typing on Dvorak as per order by holy Steve. I have googled every post on all alternative layouts. I read all inventions of Dvorak, Colemak, Maltron, Capewell, Arensito, Frogpad, BATT, Fitaly, Half Qwerty ... I bought a totally blank keyboard so that I no longer type by looking and free to choose layout by software switch.

Basically, all two handed alternative layouts move the high frequent words (i.e. AEIOUSRTHD) to the home row. They only swapping the alphabets' position in home row to keep the finger focus on the "home".

I have use the name "Bvorak" to share my view on alternative layouts on the Colemak forum. But the forum was filled with a group of Colemakolic biased so much on holifying Colemak as the ultimate layout.

Basically, I don't have problem with ZXCV short cut problem using the Dvorak. I think that keeping those key just for short cut is not justifiable. Second, Dvorak believed that hand alternation is an important factor in keyboard design, so that AOEUI are placed on left while DHTNS are on right side so that alternating of hand is incorporated by design, while Colemak is just looking for ways to move the least number of keys from qwerty and moving all high frequent alphabets to the home row and keeping the holy short cut ZXCV at the left bottom without considering hands alternation.

Basically, all alternative layouts incorporate the same group of high frequent alphabets at home. I believe that if you buy in the original concept of Dr Dvorak, that make no sense to re-invent the wheel and raving for Colemak just for moving less key from qwerty and keeping the short cut.

I have forgotten how to touch type with qwerty. I have no regret and I will keep typing on Dvorak layout for the rest of my life. I am sure I am not alone. Let's join our force to free our keyboard! Let's Jailbreak from the Qwerty Hell!

Keymonger · « **Reply #1 on:** Fri, 25 March 2011, 13:03:25 »

On Dvorak, L and S are keys the pinky uses. That alone makes Dvorak not as good as Colemak, although I sort of don't like Colemak either because it's not as comfortable as it could be. If people want to properly type though, I'd recommend Colemak over Dvorak.

Fwiffo · « **Reply #2 on:** Fri, 25 March 2011, 13:17:47 »

The L S thing on Dvorak is actually pretty damning. Even QWERTY doesn't abuse the pinky so.

Tony · « **Reply #3 on:** Sat, 26 March 2011, 05:05:42 »

Colemak is much better than Dvorak.

At 1930 Dr. Dvorak had no computer assistance like recent layout designers, so Dvorak layout contains many imbalance in finger workload.

Apart from putting too much work on the right pinky, in Dvorak the U letter is not as popular as the I letter, but U got a home key position.

What is X? · « **Reply #4 on:** Sat, 26 March 2011, 06:49:33 »

yeah...no... See, qwerty is universal. If you can touch type in qwerty, you're set for life. The only reason i would consider switching layouts is if i needed to learn how to type incredibly quickly for a really specific task (like minute taking in a court). There's no point switching layouts if you can type faster than you can think.

Keymonger · « **Reply #5 on:** Sat, 26 March 2011, 08:22:51 »

Not really about speed, Qwerty is just annoying to use. Touch-typing Qwerty is one hell of an exercise.

SuffixTreeMonkey · « **Reply #6 on:** Sat, 26 March 2011, 08:49:49 »

I have to say most layouts overuse the pinky, at least if you're a TeX typist/programmer, because you have to use a lot of right pinky keys like ){}[]= . Also, those are much harder to type than the home-row 's' (come on, qwerty typists, you don't complain about 'a' and you do about 's'?) and 'l', which is quite close to the pinky's default position.

I'm using dvorak at the moment, but my speed when programming is far worse than when typing English (I hate ) and I'm wondering how to fix that. Seeing as I've managed to forget how to touch type qwerty after a year of Dvorak, I don't want to switch layouts too often. So I'm sticking with Dvorak at the moment.

Saffa · « **Reply #7 on:** Sun, 27 March 2011, 12:18:06 »

Honestly, I don't think QWERTY is at all as bad as you make it out to be. And I say this with as much unbias as possible, as I'm typing on a Dvorak layout right now (though only at 25ish wpm). I get the appeal of Dvorak and I actually like typing on it more even though I'mfairly slow at it compared to my 90-100wpm on qwerty, I just don't find it to be a "hell."

I type fine on qwerty, don't find it terribly stressful typing for long periods of time, and it's standardized -- a fact that probably won't change at all, or at least not for a long time. It would be extremely annoying switching every computer I type on to Dvorak layout, which is why I plan on making sure I remember QWERTY, even after switching. If I find this isn't possible, I'll probably just go back to QWERTY altogether

Proword · « **Reply #8 on:** Tue, 29 March 2011, 21:20:22 »

Quote from: What is X?;318857

yeah...no... See, qwerty is universal. If you can touch type in qwerty, you're set for life. The only reason i would consider switching layouts is if i needed to learn how to type incredibly quickly for a really specific task (like minute taking in a court). There's no point switching layouts if you can type faster than you can think.

I began training as a court reporter in 1990, after teaching myself Maltron in 1986. Initially, I was forced to use the QWERTY keyboard on the old Hewlett Packard machines, which meant I'd be QWERTYing during the day, and Maltroning in the evening (I had private work typing university students' essays and theses). However, once the contractor I worked for acquired IBM clones with WordPerfect for DOS, I was then able to bring my own Maltron into the office and use that. The difference was chalk and cheese. Eventually I bought a second Maltron so I could leave it in the office and still work at home.

Once I did that, I never went anywhere near QWERTY again.

As far as court reporting goes, if you can type faster than someone is speaking, there's not much point trying to go faster.:wink:

Joe

Culinia · « **Reply #9 on:** Wed, 30 March 2011, 05:40:48 »

Quote from: What is X?;318857

yeah...no... See, qwerty is universal. If you can touch type in qwerty, you're set for life. The only reason i would consider switching layouts is if i needed to learn how to type incredibly quickly for a really specific task (like minute taking in a court). There's no point switching layouts if you can type faster than you can think.

Qwerty is universal. That's true I guess. The thing is, why should an inferior keyboard be imposed on the masses? Not only that, but imposed when most people cannot even touch type?

Therefore my proposition is if every keyboard was made in Colemak/Colemak to become the standard/universal it would make no difference to anyone. Touch typists can still type in qwerty or dvorak if they want to, the hunt-and-peckers can learn to hunt-and-peck quickly in colemak if they want to, or even learn to touch type. Simple as that. And future offspring will be more inclined to learn to touch type in the better layout. And even if they wanted to switch to dvorak or whatever, not much difference to now I would imagine.

No point switching layouts if you can type faster than you can think? I would like to add: No point switching layouts if you can type faster than you can think and are comfortable with it.

Let the battle of the layouts commence!

Fwiffo · « **Reply #10 on:** Wed, 30 March 2011, 08:41:56 »

The productivity gains from a new keyboard layout are marginal. Most people would gain more from training to type better in their current layout, and for most people, their typing speed has basically zero impact on their productivity. I work on a computer all day, and I'm never actually limited by my typing speed (about 90 WPM). Is it worth the cost to overcome the inertia of billions of keyboards and typists? People who really really need every bit of speed they can get (e.g. court reporters) either already use an alternate or specialized layout.

If were switching everyone over, why not fix the other ergonomic issues with keyboards while we're at it? Make the keyboard symmetrical so that it's equally comfortable for both hands, for instance.

Proword · « **Reply #11 on:** Wed, 30 March 2011, 09:15:23 »

There are more factors to an ergonomic keyboard than just the letter distribution. Keyboard split, grid vs staggered column, 3D versus flat, angle of the keys in relation to fingertips and so forth.

However, according to this website

http://jamesboard.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/the-most-common-words/

the 300 most common words comprise 60-65% of all written English.

Trying to get the highest frequency letters onto the home row can help with reducing the amount of travel by the hands and arms, hence reduce stress and increase speed and accuracy.

Based on the above list I worked out the following are the only words that can be typed on the home row with the different layouts:

QWERTY: a add all as ask had has (7 words)

Dvorak: a add an and as at did do does eat end had hand has he head his house I idea in Indian into is it its need no not on one out said sea see set she side so soon sound state than that the then these this those to too us use (53 words)

Colemak: a add air an and another are around as at did do does don't earth eat end had hand hard has he head hear her here his house I idea in Indian into is it it's its near need no not on one or other our out read run said sea see set she side so soon sound start state than that the their then there these this those three to too tree turn under us use (77 words)

Maltron: a add after air an and another are around as at did different do does earth eat end even far father feet find first food for found four had hand hard has have he head hear her here his house I idea if in Indian into is it its near need never next no not of off often on one or other our out read run said sea see set she side so soon sound start state than that the their then there these this those three to too tree (90 words)

These figures are fairly widely recognised, so I wanted a bigger sample. Based upon an international Scrabble word list of 172,807 words, the following figures were derived.

QWERTY - 198 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.

DVORAK - 3126 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.

COLEMAK - 5963 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.

MALTRON - 7639 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.

The actual word lists were too big to publish here, but can be seen at this link:

http://proword-keyboardlayoutefficiency.blogspot.com/2011/02/most-efficient-keyboard-layout.html

These lists are alphabetical and not frequency sorted.

Joe

mattlach · « **Reply #12 on:** Wed, 30 March 2011, 09:23:34 »

The only thing that stops me from switching to an alternative (better) keyboard layout than QWERTY is that I will still need to type on QWERTY keyboards. I am concerned that having to switch back and forth is going to mess me up more than just sticking with a known inefficient design.

Well, that, and if I switched my keyboard around on my computer at home, my Fiancé would likely want to kill me

Proword · « **Reply #13 on:** Wed, 30 March 2011, 10:14:23 »

Quote from: Fwiffo;321323

Is it worth the cost to overcome the inertia of billions of keyboards and typists? People who really really need every bit of speed they can get (e.g. court reporters) either already use an alternate or specialized layout.

With court reporting, it's not just a matter of sheer keying speed. In both pen shorthand and mechanical shorthand, there are "short forms" where a single penstroke or key chord can reproduce a lengthy string of text. The difficulty with this is that there needs to be a "re-translation" from the shorthand into the expanded text. This has a couple of ramifications. Firstly, to learn shorthand, either pen or machine, is a very lengthy and expensive process, usually a minimum of a couple of years. This is because the shorthand may have to be translated at a later time, possibly even after the original scribe is no longer around, and hence must be practised thoroughly, since it must be exactly the same for everyone. This still applies to pen shorthand (where used - very rarely) (If I were given my Pitmans practice notes from 1979, I wouldn't be able to read a single thing.) and until recently it also applied to machine shorthand (Stenotype), which is called "scoping". This has been reduced somewhat now by the use of computer assisted typing (CAT) which does some of the scoping in real time. This scoping/ proofreading can involve the employment of another person, increasing cost. (The time taken to do this does not seem to be factored into calculating a "typing speed".)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenotype

The Wiki article gives examples of the output and "code" of a Steno machine.

Next, the specialised machines are very expensive, since they are only produced in small numbers, far more expensive than even the dearest "alternative" keyboard.

However, modern software in the field of word processing has the facility to produce its own form of "shorthand" to a greater or lesser extent, depending on which software is used. The gift here is that the abbreviation expands immediately, (only) whenever the operator wishes it.. In one instance, it can be demonstrated that there is a Ki:Ko (Keystrokes in to keystrokes out ratio) which can be as high as 40:100 ie for every 40 keys stroked, 100 characters can be placed on screen. And this is entirely dependent upon the software, not the keyboard layout, since the layout can be factored into the creation of the abbreviations.

An example of how layout can affect abbreviations: When I was using QWERTY I would consistently (ie 80%+) key the word "the" as "t-e-h [backspace] [backspace] h-e". So I created a shortform of Ctrl T printing "the". However when I changed over to Maltron, I no longer made that error, but to this day I still use Ctrl T for "the". Which actually proved advantageous, because I was able to use this in words like "them", "they", "there", "their", "other", "mother", "father" etc etc.

When I work on specialised subjects such as medical reports, I've calculated that sometimes I've "typed" at 2-4000 wpm, ie I've taken 10-12 seconds of speech and reproduced it onscreen with about 4-10 keystrokes, a Ki:Ko of hundreds.

For those of a curious mind, this link describes (in detail) how to do keyboard shorthand.

http://proword-transcription.blogspot.com/

Joe

What is X? · « **Reply #14 on:** Thu, 31 March 2011, 01:33:39 »

Quote from: Culinia;321264

Qwerty is universal. That's true I guess. The thing is, why should an inferior keyboard be imposed on the masses? Not only that, but imposed when most people cannot even touch type?

Therefore my proposition is if every keyboard was made in Colemak/Colemak to become the standard/universal it would make no difference to anyone. Touch typists can still type in qwerty or dvorak if they want to, the hunt-and-peckers can learn to hunt-and-peck quickly in colemak if they want to, or even learn to touch type. Simple as that. And future offspring will be more inclined to learn to touch type in the better layout. And even if they wanted to switch to dvorak or whatever, not much difference to now I would imagine.

No point switching layouts if you can type faster than you can think? I would like to add: No point switching layouts if you can type faster than you can think and are comfortable with it.

Let the battle of the layouts commence!

It doesn't matter why, but qwerty is the standard. Your ridiculous suggestion that all new keyboards be made colemak so that touch typists still type qwerty and hunt and peckers just hunt and peck is ridiculous. The touch typists would have to switch layouts back to qwerty.

Culinia · « **Reply #15 on:** Sat, 02 April 2011, 19:30:52 »

Quote from: What is X?;321824

It doesn't matter why, but qwerty is the standard. Your ridiculous suggestion that all new keyboards be made colemak so that touch typists still type qwerty and hunt and peckers just hunt and peck is ridiculous. The touch typists would have to switch layouts back to qwerty.

I am fully conscious that qwerty is de facto 'standard.' But the thing I am examining here is, why should it be?

You say it 'doesn't matter why' - how do you come to this conclusion? It is clear that qwerty suffers from lots of row jumping and places more common letters in awkward positions making typing uncomfortable. However, I don't speak for the majority of touch typists so if you are comfortable with qwerty then, by all means keep typing. I do not have a problem with that.

What I suggested earlier was if all keyboards (at least in the English-speaking world) were made in colemak, then it would not affect most people. The only people it would effect would be people that cannot touch type and rely on seeing the letters on the keyboards. This however, won't be a problem since the letters would just be rearranged differently and they will be able to continue. Also it would not be a problem for qwerty touch typists -- since obviously they can type by touch and not sight.

I understand what you mean -- if you mean -- since your statement is not really clear. That qwerty touch typists will have to change the layout back to qwerty if, for example they go on other computers. Well what I would say to that is 1) you can use portable keyboard layout (the same thing that I have on my USB stick but to change it to colemak obviously) or 2) learn colemak and why not, since in my world it would be the standard.

I hope you can see my logic from the conclusions I bring.

Will · « **Reply #16 on:** Sat, 02 April 2011, 20:05:39 »

Everyone knows the best layout is the Data Hand layout.

Proword · « **Reply #17 on:** Sat, 02 April 2011, 20:31:09 »

Quote from: What is X?;321824

It doesn't matter why, but qwerty is the standard. Your ridiculous suggestion that all new keyboards be made colemak so that touch typists still type qwerty and hunt and peckers just hunt and peck is ridiculous. The touch typists would have to switch layouts back to qwerty.

The "why" DOES matter, and it matters a lot. Today it's purely a matter of choice. There are alternatives available. Today one is able to purchase a keyboard (of ANY type) as a "stand alone" device. Fifty years ago that was not possible. You had to purchase the entire system (ie typewriter) rather than just the layout.

From the early '90s I was able to take my Maltron to my workplace, both when I was a court reporter and when, for a while, I worked as a "Temp" secretary/WPO. I had no objections from employers, other than some initial curiosity. Eventually I began to take my own computer in as well.

From an industrial relations/occupational health/ legal point of view in many jurisdictions (including where I live) if an employee observes a possible danger in the workplace and requests the rectification of this problem but the employer fails to do so, then that employer is open to the possibility of legal action. This "danger" could include inappropriate equipment such as a QWERTY keyboard, which has a wide recognition as being both inefficient and dangerous (otherwise this site would probably not exist). If, on the other hand, the employer offers the employee a choice of an alternative and the employee declines, and the employee suffers a relevant injury, then the liability of the employer is greatly diminished.

But good business practice also comes into play. If management of a business in a competitive field finds an advantage of some sort over his/her competitor(s) then failure by the competitors to take up the advantage (if possible) puts them "behind the 8 ball" and they suffer monetarily. In a personal example, I started working for a contractor who was woefully inefficient in their work practices (in relation to their use of software), and despite my pointing out to the management the unnecessary work they were causing their employees (and consequent loss of productivity), and how they could find themselves losing clients to competitors who were taking advantage of more modern workplace practices, there was steadfast refusal to change. Although this firm had been in existence for some 20+ years, within a few years they had to start laying off staff, due to lack of new clients and loss of existing ones. Eventually the whole thing folded.

So to maintain that QWERTY is the standard is not true today. It's just a matter of choice, although, as has been pointed out previously in view of the availability of different means of input (speech recognition, eye movement control, possible "brainwave" control) it may become an academic point.

QWERTY may be widespread, but then so is the common cold, and neither is desirable.

Joe

What is X? · « **Reply #18 on:** Sat, 02 April 2011, 23:11:42 »

Quote from: Culinia;323537

I am fully conscious that qwerty is de facto 'standard.' But the thing I am examining here is, why should it be?

You say it 'doesn't matter why' - how do you come to this conclusion? It is clear that qwerty suffers from lots of row jumping and places more common letters in awkward positions making typing uncomfortable. However, I don't speak for the majority of touch typists so if you are comfortable with qwerty then, by all means keep typing. I do not have a problem with that.

What I suggested earlier was if all keyboards (at least in the English-speaking world) were made in colemak, then it would not affect most people. The only people it would effect would be people that cannot touch type and rely on seeing the letters on the keyboards. This however, won't be a problem since the letters would just be rearranged differently and they will be able to continue. Also it would not be a problem for qwerty touch typists -- since obviously they can type by touch and not sight.

I understand what you mean -- if you mean -- since your statement is not really clear. That qwerty touch typists will have to change the layout back to qwerty if, for example they go on other computers. Well what I would say to that is 1) you can use portable keyboard layout (the same thing that I have on my USB stick but to change it to colemak obviously) or 2) learn colemak and why not, since in my world it would be the standard.

I hope you can see my logic from the conclusions I bring.

You still don't understand the flaw. If the letters are rearranged in a colemak layout, then yes, hunt-and-peckers will still be able to see where the letters are. But the QWERTY touch typists will be typing different letters! If a QWERTY touch typist tried to type "as" on a colemak layout, the result would be "ar". So no, changing every new keyboard to colemak would not work. It is inherently flawed.

Quote from: Proword;323550

The "why" DOES matter, and it matters a lot. Today it's purely a matter of choice. There are alternatives available. Today one is able to purchase a keyboard (of ANY type) as a "stand alone" device. Fifty years ago that was not possible. You had to purchase the entire system (ie typewriter) rather than just the layout.

From the early '90s I was able to take my Maltron to my workplace, both when I was a court reporter and when, for a while, I worked as a "Temp" secretary/WPO. I had no objections from employers, other than some initial curiosity. Eventually I began to take my own computer in as well.

From an industrial relations/occupational health/ legal point of view in many jurisdictions (including where I live) if an employee observes a possible danger in the workplace and requests the rectification of this problem but the employer fails to do so, then that employer is open to the possibility of legal action. This "danger" could include inappropriate equipment such as a QWERTY keyboard, which has a wide recognition as being both inefficient and dangerous (otherwise this site would probably not exist). If, on the other hand, the employer offers the employee a choice of an alternative and the employee declines, and the employee suffers a relevant injury, then the liability of the employer is greatly diminished.

But good business practice also comes into play. If management of a business in a competitive field finds an advantage of some sort over his/her competitor(s) then failure by the competitors to take up the advantage (if possible) puts them "behind the 8 ball" and they suffer monetarily. In a personal example, I started working for a contractor who was woefully inefficient in their work practices (in relation to their use of software), and despite my pointing out to the management the unnecessary work they were causing their employees (and consequent loss of productivity), and how they could find themselves losing clients to competitors who were taking advantage of more modern workplace practices, there was steadfast refusal to change. Although this firm had been in existence for some 20+ years, within a few years they had to start laying off staff, due to lack of new clients and loss of existing ones. Eventually the whole thing folded.

So to maintain that QWERTY is the standard is not true today. It's just a matter of choice, although, as has been pointed out previously in view of the availability of different means of input (speech recognition, eye movement control, possible "brainwave" control) it may become an academic point.

QWERTY may be widespread, but then so is the common cold, and neither is desirable.

Joe

I'm not saying people don't have a choice with QWERTY, though that is the case with most work computers and mobile devices. My point is, it IS the standard. It is ubiquitous. No amount of ideological reasoning is going to change that. Yes, people can choose to type a different layout at home if they wish, but that doesn't change the reality of ubiquity.

xwhatsit · « **Reply #19 on:** Sun, 03 April 2011, 04:20:14 »

As a programmer, this home-row carry-on is rather pointless to me. Whether Colemak, Dvorak, QWERTY or Maltron, 90% of what I type wouldn't be home-row anyway. And where would the holy H, J, K, L quartet go? What of vim, I say!

Not a lot of benefit to switch to another layout for me, at least. And there's plenty of drawbacks of switching layouts as we all know.

I thought most of the Dvorak bollocks, was just that -- bollocks? Weren't all his studies showing the superiority of his layout done by himself in order to get big government contracts?

Culinia · « **Reply #20 on:** Sun, 03 April 2011, 06:08:18 »

Quote from: What is X?;323581

You still don't understand the flaw. If the letters are rearranged in a colemak layout, then yes, hunt-and-peckers will still be able to see where the letters are. But the QWERTY touch typists will be typing different letters! If a QWERTY touch typist tried to type "as" on a colemak layout, the result would be "ar". So no, changing every new keyboard to colemak would not work. It is inherently flawed.

I'm not saying people don't have a choice with QWERTY, though that is the case with most work computers and mobile devices. My point is, it IS the standard. It is ubiquitous. No amount of ideological reasoning is going to change that. Yes, people can choose to type a different layout at home if they wish, but that doesn't change the reality of ubiquity.

Going by the first statement you don't understand that the keyboard layout is determined by software at OS level rather than hardware i.e. not "what the keyboard says" therefore I shall disregard the first statement since whatever is imprinted on the keyboard does not matter and should not matter for touch typists -- just look at the okatu (?) blank layouts for example.

I understand what you mean by the second point. But if humans have the power of reason that they so often proclaim then I think it should change.

You say 'but that doesn't change the reality of ubiquity'
Well let me draw an analogy: blood letting was the most accepted form of treatment for many hundreds of years...but with science and technology this has obviously changed, with good reason. I know that is a bad analogy. But you understand my main point - Just because it is the "norm" at the time, then it is not there to stay there indefinitely.

I think with the computerization in education, what I mean is that people especially the new generations will be typing coursework on the computer. So I think it is important to have the layout debate, or, at the very least the knowledge that there are other computer keyboard layouts to choose from. However, I do not know how education departments work worldwide, but in my country at least touch typing is not on the curricula so it would be a first step to do that. Since, touch typing qwerty is better than not touch typing at all. My argument lies some place here, if they were to teach kids to touch type then why should it be an inferior layout?

Therefore I think what I would like to conclude is that the monopolization of qwerty debate should be open for debate and not rely on the markets to produce everything the same.

I know that, for example perhaps with new technology then speech-to-text or some other invention would perhaps take over keyboards, but we'll leave that to another debate shall we?

xwhatsit, fair enough. So then there would be no point in switching right now. But in my ideal world when colemak becomes the standard. Then programs would have the shortcuts or whatever to cater for the layout. AS you can tell I am not a programmer so I am not really sure what you mean about the vim HJKL but I would imagine that newer versions would simply be remapped to HNEI so it would not make a difference.

I would to say then, more investigations would need to be carried out if such a switch would take place, thus undermining my whole argument about the colemak thing. That's reasonable, after all I have a vested interest in the colemak layout since I have spent time and effort learning it. So what we can gain from this is a need for a proper debate and investigations into the keyboard situation and perhaps coming up with a different keyboard layout altogether. And why not since it is an integral part of our modern lifestyle?

What is X? · « **Reply #21 on:** Mon, 04 April 2011, 01:56:35 »

Quote from: Culinia;323657

Going by the first statement you don't understand that the keyboard layout is determined by software at OS level rather than hardware i.e. not "what the keyboard says" therefore I shall disregard the first statement since whatever is imprinted on the keyboard does not matter and should not matter for touch typists -- just look at the okatu (?) blank layouts for example.

I understand what you mean by the second point. But if humans have the power of reason that they so often proclaim then I think it should change.

You say 'but that doesn't change the reality of ubiquity'
Well let me draw an analogy: blood letting was the most accepted form of treatment for many hundreds of years...but with science and technology this has obviously changed, with good reason. I know that is a bad analogy. But you understand my main point - Just because it is the "norm" at the time, then it is not there to stay there indefinitely.

I think with the computerization in education, what I mean is that people especially the new generations will be typing coursework on the computer. So I think it is important to have the layout debate, or, at the very least the knowledge that there are other computer keyboard layouts to choose from. However, I do not know how education departments work worldwide, but in my country at least touch typing is not on the curricula so it would be a first step to do that. Since, touch typing qwerty is better than not touch typing at all. My argument lies some place here, if they were to teach kids to touch type then why should it be an inferior layout?

Therefore I think what I would like to conclude is that the monopolization of qwerty debate should be open for debate and not rely on the markets to produce everything the same.

I know that, for example perhaps with new technology then speech-to-text or some other invention would perhaps take over keyboards, but we'll leave that to another debate shall we?

xwhatsit, fair enough. So then there would be no point in switching right now. But in my ideal world when colemak becomes the standard. Then programs would have the shortcuts or whatever to cater for the layout. AS you can tell I am not a programmer so I am not really sure what you mean about the vim HJKL but I would imagine that newer versions would simply be remapped to HNEI so it would not make a difference.

I would to say then, more investigations would need to be carried out if such a switch would take place, thus undermining my whole argument about the colemak thing. That's reasonable, after all I have a vested interest in the colemak layout since I have spent time and effort learning it. So what we can gain from this is a need for a proper debate and investigations into the keyboard situation and perhaps coming up with a different keyboard layout altogether. And why not since it is an integral part of our modern lifestyle?

I know that layouts are determined by the OS, since I've tried Dvorak and I've remapped many keys on my terminal model m. My point is that QWERTY touch typists would have to perform one of those layout switching hotkeys (ctrl alt 1 or something) every time they want to type on another layout. Also, i know that people who can touch type get thrown off confidence wise when the layout is different.

Proword · « **Reply #22 on:** Mon, 04 April 2011, 08:13:57 »

Quote from: What is X?;323581

people can choose to type a different layout at home if they wish, but that doesn't change the reality of ubiquity.

And people choose to purchase their own keyboard (whether QWERTY or alternative) so that they can type at home or at work with equal facility.

I think the ubiquity of QWERTY is simply a matter of ignorance. People don't know that other layouts exist, in much the same way that people think that MS Word is the ONLY word processing package. Hence many people publish documents in *.doc format, which is NOT a standard, not knowing that ASCII text was created (and named) specifically as a standard (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) so that ANY computer could read text from any other computer. Despite the dangers of using MS Word (macro viruses etc), issues of backward compatibility and its general clumsiness, people seem to think that everyone should have it. (I've often had clients ask for jobs to be published in *.doc format, but when they can't open the document (because THEY haven't installed their own later version properly), they expect ME to pay money to buy the latest "standard" version.)

Standards tend to get ignored because of mental laziness or ignorance, and replaced by pseudo (sub)standards.

Joe

wideyes · « **Reply #23 on:** Mon, 04 April 2011, 14:07:24 »

I would like to see at least one significant shift by the computer industry to a standard layout other than QWERTY before the keyboard becomes obsolete. QWERTY was developed for stupid reasons and is obviously outdated. Any change from one global standard to another will be painful and challenging, but now would be an excellent time to do it - the advent of typing on mobile devices has changed people's approach to typing anyway, and the shift could be made in software more easily. A company like Apple would be able to sell a new format - it has sex appeal, legions of zealots ready to fall on the next sword for Steve Jobs, and a history of doggedly pushing extreme changes on its consumer base. So Apple does it, then it's sexy, ergonomic and hip, it changes on all iphones and ipads, then Dell does it, then Microsoft... etc. If we could run some numbers, do some testing, put a little more R&D into an ideal layout, then implement a change, I really don't think it would be the end of all that is good, decent and familiar.

And of course, you could argue that we could keep researching layouts and trying to change them over time ad nauseum... but I'd settle for one change that was rooted in some solid ergonomic considerations. Just one.

Proword · « **Reply #24 on:** Tue, 05 April 2011, 09:10:07 »

Quote from: wideyes;324430

I'd settle for one change that was rooted in some solid ergonomic considerations. Just one.

http://www.maltron.com/keyboard-info/academic-papers.html

Joe

Proword · « **Reply #25 on:** Tue, 19 April 2011, 11:46:11 »

Quote from: mattlach;321350

The only thing that stops me from switching to an alternative (better) keyboard layout than QWERTY is that I will still need to type on QWERTY keyboards. I am concerned that having to switch back and forth is going to mess me up more than just sticking with a known inefficient design.

Well, that, and if I switched my keyboard around on my computer at home, my Fiancé would likely want to kill me

Whilst I can't guarantee your fiance won't still want to kill you, this paper

http://www.maltron.com/media/lillian_kditee_008.pdf

indicates that changing from one layout (QWERTY) to another (Maltron) is not a difficult task. (The previous pages make interesting reading as well - okay, some of them are quite boring !!!!

)

This is in accordance with my own experience. Even though I changed from QWERTY to Maltron (using the Malt layout) in 1986, I can still touch-type with QWERTY, but nowhere near as quickly as I could in 1986, simply because I don't use it any more. It really just rusted away.

Learning Maltron is a very easy thing, and because the keyboards feel so totally different (ie flat QWERTY vs 3 dimensional Maltron) there's very little chance of confusing the two.

Joe

sordna · « **Reply #26 on:** Thu, 21 April 2011, 16:20:13 »

I have a similar experience with the Kinesis contoured keyboard, I switched to a Kinesis in 2004 and taught myself dvorak at the same time. However I kept using QWERTY in regular flat keyboards. Now, it's very hard for me to type QWERTY on the Kinesis contoured (my brain "automatically" operates in dvorak mode on this keyboard), but on flat keyboards, phones, etc I use QWERTY without any problem! So in my experience, switching back and forth from one layout to another is greatly facilitated if you have particular keyboard shapes associated with each layout!

Zet · « **Reply #27 on:** Thu, 26 May 2011, 23:25:19 »

Reading all of this made me realize the lack of dedicated Spanish speaker geeks around... I would definitively would try an improved layout for spanish, the other bad thing is, that the 105 key layout for Spanish is not so easy to access to, if you consider getting for example a filco, the US 104 key version are sold EVERYWHERE, and you can get a nice board for around 130$, and then, if you want a 105 key, non Spanish (UK 105 key layout ie), the only choice is to rush for one into keyboard co and pay around 200$ probably plus shipping, since the store will not be where you live. So the mere fact of all this complications just make me want to write on english only. Anyways, the good thing for me, is that the 90% of the writing I do on my work is on English, the only times I actually write on Spanish is when I chat with rl friends on the night.

I was really thinking about switching to dvorak but a devorak spanish version... its not worth it, since words are different then I don't know if the good for English would overcome the bads for Spanish. I still have doubts as where to place the 'ñ' key and how to set the ´ key for áéíóú which is different than having to use alt gr+a,e,i,o,u since you have to -hold down- alt gr, and on the Spanish layout theres a ´ key that you press first and then the letter after will get the ´ added automatically.

Right now I'm having big doubts, "Cambiar el layout o no cambiar el layout, he ahí el dilema"

sordna · « **Reply #28 on:** Thu, 26 May 2011, 23:31:16 »

Why don't you paste some spanish text here, to see which layout fits best:
http://patorjk.com/keyboard-layout-analyzer/

BaconKnight · « **Reply #29 on:** Thu, 26 May 2011, 23:56:08 »

I'm currently learning Colemak and choose it over Dvorak because I'm left handed and found Dvorak favored the right hand too much for my tastes. Sure, the vowels are on the left for Dvorak but everything else is special characters and the least used letters in the alphabet. Not saying one is better than the other, just I found Colemak better for my southpaw nature.

Zet · « **Reply #30 on:** Fri, 27 May 2011, 18:48:56 »

Quote from: sordna;351928

Why don't you paste some spanish text here, to see which layout fits best:
http://patorjk.com/keyboard-layout-analyzer/

I'll try it and let you guys know, I had no idea that this existed, since I'm very new to this layouts analysis. Thanks sordna

Zet · « **Reply #31 on:** Fri, 27 May 2011, 22:56:35 »

the page you gave me is amazing, I can't thank you enouth. I just wonder if this is working 100% properly for Spanish, due the accents (áéíóú) and the ñ letter...

sordna · « **Reply #32 on:** Fri, 27 May 2011, 23:06:53 »

Try to input only accents, to see if they are recognized or not.

Zet · « **Reply #33 on:** Sun, 29 May 2011, 22:07:14 »

Quote from: sordna;352294

Try to input only accents, to see if they are recognized or not.

nope, they don't

It was too good to be truth for me, as a Spanish speaker, but for all the writing I do on my job on english, I think this will help me pick my layout finally,

again, thanks mate, this tool is really something.

News:

Author Topic: Why I choose Dvorak rather than Colemak？ (Read 20138 times)