dvorak TO colemak.... defeating the purpose?

[Rachael]

Ok, i acknowledge that i probably did this all wrong!

switched to Dvorak 3 years ago, which was cumbersome, but rewarding, because it felt sooo good to be off Qwerty; which as a layout started to look so weird and annoying when i wasn't using it anymore that i just told my Qwerty skills to go to hell. so they're gone pretty much.

i forget why i didn't go to Colemak. i think i just didn't look into it much because i thought it was just an option if you didn't want to relearn ALL the keys, and i was game for a clean slate.

Dvorak's been very comfortable and my speed is the same, but i haven't had to do marathon typing like i used to.... until the last few days. suddenly that notorious right-pinky L-S scrunchy mess in Dvorak is making me flippin crazy. with all the shooting pains and good fun. and i go look on the internet and everybody's all "Colemak, Colemak, Colemak fixed that, Colemak's better, etc etc."

so, did i miss my chance to reap one of Colemak's main benefits, namely that it's easy to learn if you're a Qwerty user? is it worth doing the whole relearning process again or should i just stay put? does a 3rd layout in your brain just turn into sludge? (most of my errors when learning Dvorak, were Qwerty confusion, and it still happens occasionally.)

anybody done this? my pinky hurts.

[steve.v]

I went from Qwerty, Dvorak to Norman and settled on Colemak. I was experimenting with each layout and got as fast as to 60wpm on each. I did shy away from Dvorak due to the right pinky load. I can alleviate this by modifying the layout to put less emphasis on the pinky by switching some keys around; easier than learning a whole new layout. In addition when I was typing Dvorak I used the capslock key as the delete key.

After extensive research, I went with Colemak and never looked back. I was a 120+ qwerty typer however I've yet to reach that with colemak one year in; 100wpm. To sum up my experience, my fingers reach less with Colemak; which is a very good thing for me. Typing can be a personal preference type of thing.

[Oobly]

I suggest you stick with Dvorak. Moving to Colemak is a step backwards, IMHO.

You could try switching the positions of L and F for a while and see how it feels. There are a number of digraphs which will cause successive use of the right index finger then (GL, LM, LD, BL), but I think they are all going to be used a lot less frequently than "ls" for an active Linux user and the index finger handles succesive characters MUCH better than the pinkie.

The right pinkie is overloaded in Dvorak for sure, but the alternation and general layout is great.

[hoggy]

I'd say stick to Dvorak.  Colemak might be better for some things, but the advantages over Dvorak are tiny compared to Dvorak (or Colemak) over qwerty. 

[PieterGen]

TL;DR - stick with Dvorak or switch to an ADNW-version, which is a 'better Dvorak'. 

Let's look at some options.

1. Stick with Dvorak. It is a good layout and present on lots of computers/operating systems. I don know what language(s) you type in - English, French, Finnish, Python, Java, Bash ?  If the troubling ls comes from linux commands, the easiest solution is of course to make an alias for that. So that when you type for instance hs in the terminal, this will give the command ls

2. Switch to Colemak. I would not recommend this. Colemak is said to be easier to learn, because closer to qwerty. But this is not relevant to you. Also, Colemak claims that 'rolls' are superior to 'alternation'. This is - to me - doubtful.To me, rolls are easier to learn, that is a real plus. But after a while they start to feel like clusters, that break the typing rythm. Finally, all layouts have nice words and bad words. Like the Dvorak ls. You will get some hard to type Colemak words in return.

3. Use something else. There are hundreds of layouts (see for instance http://patorjk.com/keyboard-layout-analyzer/#/config patorjk   or  http://deskthority.net/wiki/Keyboard_layouts  )  Me, I like a scientific, facts-based approach. I know of three algorithms that promise exactly that: Carpalx (http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?  written in Perl) , MTGAP (mathematicalmulticore.wordpress.com/the-keyboard-layout-project/   , written in C) and ADNW (adnw.de,  written in C++) . Since I don't understand Perl, I sticked to MTGAP and ADNW.

Let me present the contestors!

Code: [Select]

MTGAP layout (made for English)
  ypouj kdlcw
  inea, mhtsr
  qz/.: bfgvx

Some stats, by the MTGAP algorithm: Inward rolls: 10.49%, Outward rolls: 2.41%, Same hand: 34.47%
Same finger: 1.40%, Row change: 12.56%, Home jump: 0.99%   This looks good

Code: [Select]

MTGAP version for Dutch + English (Calculated by me, using MTGAP software)
  .uopy xclbv
  aienh mdrts
  :,?kq fgwjz
I use this one for a while, it is easy to learn and nice to type on. The MTGAP family I see and improved Colmakes, in the sense that they are all about (inward) rolls and low distance. Since keyboards often entail compromises, this goes at the cost of a lower alternation, more 'clusters' of letters on one hand - which can be akward, and a worse balance over fingers and hands. For instance, the index or middle may be overused, one hand may have a too high load etc. But still: very good layouts.

Next, two ADNW versions: the official ADNW (optimized for English + German) and an ADNW version I calculated for English only, using the ADNW software.  ADNW focuses on alternation and prevention of adjacent finger use. Rolls are bad in this view, especially between pinky and ring. Just like Dvorak thought.

Code: [Select]

ADNW (optimized for English/German)
  ku"./ vgcljf
  hieao dtrnsx
  y?,qb pwmzß


Code: [Select]

ADNW_ENGLISH (optimized for 100% English, calculated by me using the ADNW software)
  kyu." zlmdpv
  rieao hnstcw
  xß?,/ jqfgb
Are custom layouts worth the trouble? The answer is Yes. I ran an English text through these two layouts, using the the same ADNW algorithm to calculate performance. For comparison, Dvorak and Qwerty are also included. As a side note: I try to be careful with scores, since algorithms is not neutral, but based on lots of assumptions. As a result, the Carpalx algorithm rates the Carpalx layout as the best layout. And the MTGAP algorithm rates the MTGAP layouts as the best ones. For this reason, I did not rate Colemak with the ADNW criteria. However, I think it is reasonable to use a 'Dvorak inspired algorithm' to evaluate Dvorak-like layouts, so I did rate the 2 ADNW variants an Dvorak. Plus, for fun, Qwerty).

So here we go. How does typing English prose go on the following layouts? Interpretation of numbers:  Lower is better: *   Higher is better: #

Code: [Select]

THE BEST
ADNW_ENGLISH     291.491 Total score(*)       179.388 Base score(*)        lefthand righthand
                   0.882 SameFinger(*)          7.423 Shift-SameFinger(*)    top  6.1 13.1
  kyu.ö zlmdpv    65.718 Alternation(*)        28.070 Shift-Alternation(*)   mid 39.5 31.4
  rieao hnstcw     1.016 In--/outwards(#)       6.177 IndirSameFinger     bottom  3.3  6.5
  xßü,ä jqfgb      8.665 Neighbouring(*)        9.226 Shift-Neighbouring(*)  sum 49.0 51.0
                  8.8  8.7 14.2 17.3 --.- --.- 15.8 11.0 14.3  9.9            Sh  2.0  0.8

VERY GOOD
ADNW             337.581 Total score(*)       189.071 Base score(*)        lefthand righthand
                   2.052 SameFinger(*)         17.995 Shift-SameFinger(*)    top  4.5 12.0
  kuü.ä vgcljf    70.173 Alternation(*)        25.534 Shift-Alternation(*)   mid 38.3 31.8
  hieao dtrnsx     2.043 In--/outwards(#)       7.458 IndirSameFinger     bottom  6.1  7.3
  yö,qb pwmzß      7.827 Neighbouring(*)       16.064 Shift-Neighbouring(*)  sum 48.9 51.1
                  8.9  9.6 12.9 17.6 --.- --.- 18.9 11.4 10.8 10.0            Sh  1.7  1.0


Code: [Select]

GOOD
Dvorak           348.893 Total score(*)       186.358 Base score(*)        lefthand righthand
                   2.662 SameFinger(*)         13.058 Shift-SameFinger(*)    top     6.0 16.8
  ß,.py fgcrlö    70.517 Alternation(*)        33.563 Shift-Alternation(*)   mid    36.1 30.5
  aoeiu dhtnsü     1.617 In--/outwards(#)       6.624 IndirSameFinger        bottom  3.0  7.6
  äqjkx bmwvz     11.139 Neighbouring(*)       20.861 Shift-Neighbouring(*)  sum    45.1 54.9
                  9.7  8.3 13.0 14.1 --.- --.- 16.5 13.3 13.7 11.4            Sh     1.8  0.9

VERY BAD
Qwerty           640.636 Total score(*)       346.732 Base score(*)        lefthand righthand
                   6.804 SameFinger(*)          6.299 Shift-SameFinger(*)    top 28.0 20.2
  qwert yuiopü    52.755 Alternation(*)        41.474 Shift-Alternation(*)   mid 22.1  9.5
  asdfg hjkläö     1.080 In--/outwards(#)      11.226 IndirSameFinger     bottom  6.8 13.3
  zxcvb nm,.ß     21.628 Neighbouring(*)       12.586 Shift-Neighbouring(*)  sum 56.9 43.1
                  9.1  8.4 18.5 20.9 --.- --.- 18.4  8.9 12.1  3.6            Sh  1.1  1.7
ADNW_ENGLISH scores better than Dvorak but also than ADNW, which is logical. I made ADNW_ENGLISH for English only, so when tested with English only text, it will of course score better than ADNW. Used with German or mixed text, ADNW will score better.

Anyway, ADNW_ENGLISH and ADNW compared to the original Dvorak show:
- a clearly improved overall improvement (total score)
- lower same finger use
- the same alternation
- better balance of hands (51/49 for DvorMax and ADNW against 55/45 for Dvorak)
- lower neighbouring keys - in contrast to Colemak, Dvorak wants to avoid direct rolls, like (colemak) AR or (EI). So, by Dvorak rules, lower neighbouring keys is good.

Qwerty scores bad with a high same finger, bad balance (57/43), bad total score, low alternation and uneven finger use.

CONCLUSIONS:
If you like the Dvorak typing rythm:
- stick with Dvorak (maybe make an alias for ls),
- or switch to stock ADNW
- or calculate an ADNW version tailor made for your use

If you prefer rolls over alternation:
- switch to MTGAP
- or calculate an MTGAP version tailor made for your use

If you prefer rolls over alternation AND find resemblance to QWERTY important:
- switch to Colemak or one of its variants, such as Workman, Norman etc.

As always, Your Mileage May Differ 

[Oobly]

I use a variant of ADNW which I optimised for my own ergonomic keyboard and yes, it is IMHO the best layout to use (actually it's more of an optimisation system). However, I don't think it's necessary to unlearn Dvorak and learn a whole new layout, just for a couple of percentage points of optimisation.

I strongly suggest first trying to switch the 'F' and 'L' keys and see if it improves your situation. This is a relatively small change to get used to, but could solve the issues you have with the layout. It's worth trying before making the commitment to learn a whole new layout. Another good (possibly better?) option for switching is 'B'. Take a little time to consider each option before making the switch and trying it out for a while. One of them will feel  a little more comfortable. Swapping letter on a loayout affects a whole lot of things, but those 2 should have the least impact on the effectiveness of the layout.

If it doesn't help, THEN investigate the best ADNW layout option.

IMHO, ALL the layout optimisers get their weighting wrong on the various key positions. The ring and middle finger upper row are easier to reach and less effort even than home row and index finger bottom row are easier than top row. The entire physical layout of standard boards is severely flawed, but it's what people are used to, so it's going to be hard to get a new design popular.

[mstechfreak]

I also had a willigness to switch from QWERTY to DVORAK and from DVORAK to COLEMAK. However, this far the most convenient choice has been switching to DVORAK. I really feel extremely comfortable with it. Anyway, I guess it wouldn't have been possible without some typing tutors. I used Typing Study http://www.typingstudy.com . Hope it will be useful for some of you too.

[batfink]

In my opinion Colemak is marginally superior to Dvorak - but not enough to warrant switching if you are already a good Dvorak typist.

If I was in your shoes I would stick with Dvorak. But if I was starting from Qwerty, I would definitely choose Colemak over Dvorak, no contest! Some people seem to have the mistaken idea that because Dvorak is harder to learn it must be therefore be better. I would say both are good layouts, but if you are starting from Qwerty you might as well give yourself an easier time learning.

[PieterGen]

IMHO, ALL the layout optimisers get their weighting wrong on the various key positions. The ring and middle finger upper row are easier to reach and less effort even than home row and index finger bottom row are easier than top row.

True, the standard settings are usually wrong. I agree with your views on this. But both in the ADNW and the MTGAP optimizer, you can make custom settings for these.  The strange thing is however that when I made layouts with ADNW/ using custom settings,  I found the resulting layouts not really better.

The entire physical layout of standard boards is severely flawed, but it's what people are used to, so it's going to be hard to get a new design popular.

I guess we all agree on that :-) 

[Grim Fandango]

I have always been interested in making the switch to either of these. But the problem I have is that I am so often required to do things on different computers that are not my own, that it remains easiest to just use qwerty.

How easy is it for people to switch between qwerty and dvorak for example? Judging by the way typing almost entirely relies on muscle memory ( I do not even know where the keys are, and yet I am typing them) I fear that it will not be really all that easy to constantly switch (for me, I would have to switch back and forth almost every day).

[davkol]

I have always been interested in making the switch to either of these. But the problem I have is that I am so often required to do things on different computers that are not my own, that it remains easiest to just use qwerty.

Don't you have to swap between US QWERTY and the national layout on some computers anyway? DSK is an ANSI standard included in all major OS'.

How easy is it for people to switch between qwerty and dvorak for example? Judging by the way typing almost entirely relies on muscle memory ( I do not even know where the keys are, and yet I am typing them) I fear that it will not be really all that easy to constantly switch (for me, I would have to switch back and forth almost every day).

It takes effort to master more layouts, but it's most definitely possible to maintain more muscle memories, just like dancers or martial artists sometimes do it. I'd argue it's better to pick a combination of not-too-similar layouts though, to limit confusing them.

[Grim Fandango]

Thanks for the responses Davkol.

Switching from US ANSI to any "Dutch" or "US international" layout is pretty easy. They are mostly the same other than the shape and size of a few keys and a few symbols.

As for Dvorak, I still worry about the muscle memory thing. For now, I will stick with Qwerty. But at least I will try Dvorak to at least get a feel for it. That way I can try to understand what the benefit is and whether it will be worth it for me.

[nomaded]

For a long time I was able to retain my ability to touch type both Qwerty and Dvorak, mostly because I was typing Dvorak on a keyboard with a different physical layout (Fingerworks Touchstream). But eventually, I ended up also typing Dvorak on a standard staggered layout because it felt much more comfortable to me.

As a sysadmin, I still find myself needing to type on other computers that are set to Qwerty, but it's not very often. I do type slower with Qwerty now, and it's not fully touchtyping, since I do need to glance at the keyboard from time to time. But the majority of my typing is with Dvorak, and I'm happier this way.

As for Colemak vs Dvorak, Colemak wasn't really an option as a layout that could be easily selected when I made the switch, unlike now. And since I was able to touchtype Qwerty already, the only "tutor" I used was http://gigliwood.com/abcd/lessons/ to help my brain memorize the layout and get my muscle memory going.

[knightjp]

Ok, i acknowledge that i probably did this all wrong!

switched to Dvorak 3 years ago, which was cumbersome, but rewarding, because it felt sooo good to be off Qwerty; which as a layout started to look so weird and annoying when i wasn't using it anymore that i just told my Qwerty skills to go to hell. so they're gone pretty much.

i forget why i didn't go to Colemak. i think i just didn't look into it much because i thought it was just an option if you didn't want to relearn ALL the keys, and i was game for a clean slate.

Dvorak's been very comfortable and my speed is the same, but i haven't had to do marathon typing like i used to.... until the last few days. suddenly that notorious right-pinky L-S scrunchy mess in Dvorak is making me flippin crazy. with all the shooting pains and good fun. and i go look on the internet and everybody's all "Colemak, Colemak, Colemak fixed that, Colemak's better, etc etc."

so, did i miss my chance to reap one of Colemak's main benefits, namely that it's easy to learn if you're a Qwerty user? is it worth doing the whole relearning process again or should i just stay put? does a 3rd layout in your brain just turn into sludge? (most of my errors when learning Dvorak, were Qwerty confusion, and it still happens occasionally.)

anybody done this? my pinky hurts.

I do have one question. Does your pinky ache because of using Dvorak or does it ache because of something else?

There was a point when I was trying to choose in between Dvorak & Colemak.
https://julxrp.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/colemak-vs-dvorak/
https://julxrp.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/your-keyboard-you-ill-stick-with-colemak/

After learning Dvorak, I decided to see to go with Colemak. My opinion on Colemak is that it is no better than Dvorak. In my experience, Dvorak is far more comfortable. I think that it is the hand alteration. For me the hand alteration of Dvorak was more comfortable. With the positioning of the hand rolls, on Colemak, my hands were feeling a bit cramped after typing for long periods of time.

This is one of the reasons that I spoke of in my article - https://julxrp.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/good-bye-colemak-its-been-fun/

Colemak's main advantage over Dvorak is the keyboard shortcuts. That is it. There is nothing else about Colemak that is better. If you think that pinky ache would reduce with Colemak, I am not so certain about that issue. Maybe it will. There are those who complained of right pinky ache when using Dvorak and was gone after they switched. Going from Dvorak to Colemak was not an easy switch for me and I was not able to be completely proficient in it; even after about 2 years of usage.

[batfink]

Colemak's main advantage over Dvorak is the keyboard shortcuts. That is it. There is nothing else about Colemak that is better.

I think a lot of people would dispute that. For a start, if you look at letter frequencies, pinky usage is reduced in Colemak. Maybe not massively, and not enough for Dvorak users to care, but it's there nonetheless. And if you are going to use your pinkies, at least don't force them to move too often from the home row. Yes, I am looking at you, Dvorak L.

Then there's the fact that it's easier to learn Colemak, as fewer keys are moved. Again, to some, changing everything might be OK (Although Dvorak does keep A and M unchanged, so if you *really* want everything to change, Dvorak doesn't quite do the job for you!)  But anyway, for *most* people, making the change less onerous *is* going to be a significant advantage.

Some might prefer Dvorak's alternation over Colemak's rolls, but I suspect this whole difference is overblown. I bet Colemak would still has quite a lot of alternation if you measured. And anyway, the focus should be on *comfortable key combinations* rather than worrying unduly about whether particular key patterns are "rolls" or not. The rolls for ST and NE in Colemak are nice, but AR and OI less so. If there is any evidence that Dvorak has overall more comfortable key combinations I'd be very surprised but willing to hear it.

Then there's the weird thing with Dvorak's U and I being the wrong way round. At least Colemak has only has the most frequent letters on its home keys.

It's not meant to be a Dvorak bash, as, after all, we should be uniting in the face of Qwerty dominance. Colemak is not perfect, as no layout is perfect. But I pretty sure that *for a new switcher*, Colemak is the obvious choice, and claiming it doesn't have any advantages over Dvorak (except shortcuts) seems to me to be denying the obvious.

[davkol]

I think a lot of people would dispute that. For a start, if you look at letter frequencies, pinky usage is reduced in Colemak. Maybe not massively, and not enough for Dvorak users to care, but it's there nonetheless. And if you are going to use your pinkies, at least don't force them to move too often from the home row. Yes, I am looking at you, Dvorak L.

DSK 'l' is easily reached by twisting the whole hand a bit. If you look at videos of expert typists, they don't keep their hands completely static.

That said, straight rows on standard keyboards suck.

Then there's the fact that it's easier to learn Colemak, as fewer keys are moved.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Some might prefer Dvorak's alternation over Colemak's rolls, but I suspect this whole difference is overblown. I bet Colemak would still has quite a lot of alternation if you measured.

The difference in _frequency_ of hand alternation is fundamental. That's a different metric from hand _balance_.

Arguments for sequences of keystrokes with adjacent fingers come mostly from Maltron design.

Then there's the weird thing with Dvorak's U and I being the wrong way round. At least Colemak has only has the most frequent letters on its home keys.

The U/I positions appear weird indeed, but I suspect it's related to _digram_ analysis, and it goes back to the stationary hand posture.

after all, we should be uniting in the face of Qwerty dominance.

QWERTY is actually great for hotkey schemes, that were designed for, well, QWERTY. Meanwhile, plenty of typing has been automated and can be avoided further.

Colemak is not perfect, as no layout is perfect. But I pretty sure that *for a new switcher*, Colemak is the obvious choice, and claiming it doesn't have any advantages over Dvorak (except shortcuts) seems to me to be denying the obvious.

Well, Colemak does bring Maltron's typing "rhythm" to standard keyboard hardware, which is nice (unless you prefer a high-alternation layout). In addition, it fills a relatively obscure niche with Tarmak.

However, it has significantly less support than DSK or other-language high-alternation layouts (that are national standards) and majority of its selling points aren't evidence-based.

[Joey Quinn]

Imo dvorak > colemak but I've used dvorak for about 2 years and only used colemak for maybe a month.

Colemak is probably easier to learn but in the end both will take at least a week to warm up to. I personally chose dvorak because colemak was similar enough to qwerty that some of my bad typing habits transferred over while dvorak provided a clean slate.

after all, we should be uniting in the face of Qwerty dominance.

QWERTY is actually great for hotkey schemes, that were designed for, well, QWERTY. Meanwhile, plenty of typing has been automated and can be avoided further.

I like how most shortcuts moved with dvorak, I wouldn't say they're easier to hit than on qwerty but I think they're on par.

[batfink]

Then there's the fact that it's easier to learn Colemak, as fewer keys are moved.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Dvorak, with every letter changed (except A and M), and with all the punctuation symbols changed, is not going to be harder to learn? Colemak also keeps A and M unchanged by the way. This means that that means Dvorak's change-set is a Proper Superset of Colemak's change-set. Even if you think Dvorak is superior to Colemak overall, and perhaps even worth the time to learn the extra changes, I don't see how you can reasonably say Colemak being easier to learn is "an opinion, not a fact."  Well, unless, as some people do, you think are there are no such thing as facts, only opinions.

Some might prefer Dvorak's alternation over Colemak's rolls, but I suspect this whole difference is overblown. I bet Colemak would still has quite a lot of alternation if you measured.

The difference in _frequency_ of hand alternation is fundamental. That's a different metric from hand _balance_.

Yes, I understand that, but how is "alternation" defined? I'd like to understand where Dvorak advocates are coming from here. Is it simply the proportion of bigrams that are Left-Right pairs rather than Left-Left or Right-Right. Or is is that the sequences of keys on the same hand should not be above some limit? I'm not disputing that Dvorak might be better than Colemak in this area, I'm just trying to have some way of quantifying what we are talking about.

However, it has significantly less support than DSK

Dvorak has the (slight) advantage of being an ANSI standard, but these days it's pretty easy to change layouts to whatever you want, if you so desire. Whether that be Colemak, Dvorak, or some layout of your own invention. So I think this not much of a big deal any more.

and majority of its selling points aren't evidence-based.

There is a lack of good quality research on keyboard layouts in general, I grant you. But I think there is a temptation because of that, for people to just dismiss any claim anyone makes with the "no evidence" argument. Of course, I'm not saying such claims should be automatically believed either. In the absence of absolute evidence either way on something, it is nevertheless possible to look at the claim being made and pragmatically assess how likely it is, or how reasonable the arguments are.  There are a lot of times in life when things can't be proved absolutely but you nevertheless accept them if there are sound reasons for doing so. In the case of Colemak, the arguments in its favour of it are generally reasonable and persuasive.

[davkol]

Then there's the fact that it's easier to learn Colemak, as fewer keys are moved.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Dvorak, with every letter changed (except A and M), and with all the punctuation symbols changed, is not going to be harder to learn? Colemak also keeps A and M unchanged by the way. This means that that means Dvorak's change-set is a Proper Superset of Colemak's change-set. Even if you think Dvorak is superior to Colemak overall, and perhaps even worth the time to learn the extra changes, I don't see how you can reasonably say Colemak being easier to learn is "an opinion, not a fact."  Well, unless, as some people do, you think are there are no such thing as facts, only opinions.

You're committing a fallacy here.
The problem is the absence of evidence, that is typical for Colemak. No, loudly voiced opinions of Shai and several other enthusiastic advocates are NOT evidence.

If you're learning to touch type on a new layout, you're building a muscle memory for a new range of motions. Stress on the _motion_ part. When touch typing, each keystroke is affected by several preceding and following keystrokes (Gentner, 198something). Layout design typically takes typing di-/trigrams into account. Those motions are fundamentally different between Colemak (or DSK) and QWERTY, and have to be learned from scratch regardless.
Memorizing the symbol-key mapping is only a minor initial part of the learning process, and many proficient touch typists don't actually know these mappings consciously (Snyder, 2014).
Thus, if there's some difference (which hasn't been tested), it's very likely negligible, due to potential significance only in the earliest stages of the learning process.

As I've mentioned, the relative similarity enables nearly continuous transition in steps via new methods like Tarmak (an official one was introduced last year? I think). That's certainly interesting, but undocumented except for anecdotes.
Notably, such a transition _modifies_ the existing muscle memory instead of building a new one from scratch. That's great in some cases, but arguably problematic, if keeping the old muscle memory is desirable.
A related argument is that similarity leads to confusion, which isn't anything new; it can be observed in various fields, such as learning languages or martial arts.

Some might prefer Dvorak's alternation over Colemak's rolls, but I suspect this whole difference is overblown. I bet Colemak would still has quite a lot of alternation if you measured.

The difference in _frequency_ of hand alternation is fundamental. That's a different metric from hand _balance_.

Yes, I understand that, but how is "alternation" defined? I'd like to understand where Dvorak advocates are coming from here. Is it simply the proportion of bigrams that are Left-Right pairs rather than Left-Left or Right-Right. Or is is that the sequences of keys on the same hand should not be above some limit? I'm not disputing that Dvorak might be better than Colemak in this area, I'm just trying to have some way of quantifying what we are talking about.

Alternation frequency. How often hands are changed. Or, if you want to put it differently, how long are sequences of keystrokes typed by one hand.

If you look at novels from Project Gutenberg, that are distributed with CarpalX, you might get the following numbers:
On DSK, hands change after one keystroke in ~62 % cases; on Colemak, it's ~54 %. (On Maltron THOR, it's only under 52 %.)
On DSK, only ~3 % of one-handed keystroke sequences are longer than 3 keystrokes; on Colemak, it's over ~8 %. (On Maltron THOR, it's almost 11 %.)

However, it has significantly less support than DSK

Dvorak has the (slight) advantage of being an ANSI standard, but these days it's pretty easy to change layouts to whatever you want, if you so desire. Whether that be Colemak, Dvorak, or some layout of your own invention. So I think this not much of a big deal any more.

It's absolutely much easier than in the mechanical-typewriter era, and if you have full/partial control of your setup, you can do incredible things.

However, there are apparently locked-down environments or environments, that are as generic as possible (e.g., shared offices or kiosks), where the difference is quite a big deal.

and majority of its selling points aren't evidence-based.

There is a lack of good quality research on keyboard layouts in general, I grant you. But I think there is a temptation because of that, for people to just dismiss any claim anyone makes with the "no evidence" argument. Of course, I'm not saying such claims should be automatically believed either. In the absence of absolute evidence either way on something, it is nevertheless possible to look at the claim being made and pragmatically assess how likely it is, or how reasonable the arguments are.  There are a lot of times in life when things can't be proved absolutely but you nevertheless accept them if there are sound reasons for doing so. In the case of Colemak, the arguments in its favour of it are generally reasonable and persuasive.

(1) Anecdotal evidence lacks predictive power. It's as simple as that.
(2) The amount of testing around DSK-like layouts is overwhelming compared to almost everything after them and especially hobbyist layouts, such as Colemak or variations on the same theme.

[batfink]

You're committing a fallacy here.
The problem is the absence of evidence, that is typical for Colemak. No, loudly voiced opinions of Shai and several other enthusiastic advocates are NOT evidence.

If you're learning to touch type on a new layout, you're building a muscle memory for a new range of motions. Stress on the _motion_ part. When touch typing, each keystroke is affected by several preceding and following keystrokes (Gentner, 198something). Layout design typically takes typing di-/trigrams into account. Those motions are fundamentally different between Colemak (or DSK) and QWERTY, and have to be learned from scratch regardless.

Your argument seems to be then, that the number of changes is irrelevant, because as soon as you change your layout, that means you have to relearn everything.
Do you think that the Minimak 4-key-change and Colemak are equally easy to learn?
What about the Minimak 8-key-change vs Colemak?
Is there some point after X number of changes, where you suddenly say, "right any changes after this point require no extra work to learn"?

Yes, of course I recognise the need to relearn bigrams etc. But what about bigrams in Colemak like HA, CH, MA, WA, WH, CA. None of those change in Colemak but they do in Dvorak. On the other hand there is only one bigram that Dvorak leaves unchanged (MA/AM) and Colemak leaves that unchanged also. And that's without even considering the muscle memory for relearning required for punctuation symbols, which again, Colemak adopters need not relearn.

Dvorak may have it's own features and advantages, but trying to claim that it's not going to be harder to learn than Colemak (from Qwerty) is preposterous. You position on this point defies reason.

A related argument is that similarity leads to confusion, which isn't anything new; it can be observed in various fields, such as learning languages or martial arts.

I think this might be a fair point for those who wanted to learn Colemak while still retaining their Qwerty skills. But for those wanting to drop Qwerty, I don't see why it would arise. I imagine such a confusion, if it exists, might also be experienced by Dvorak users, but I accept at least this is an open question.

Yes, I understand that, but how is "alternation" defined? I'd like to understand where Dvorak advocates are coming from here. Is it simply the proportion of bigrams that are Left-Right pairs rather than Left-Left or Right-Right. Or is is that the sequences of keys on the same hand should not be above some limit? I'm not disputing that Dvorak might be better than Colemak in this area, I'm just trying to have some way of quantifying what we are talking about.

Alternation frequency. How often hands are changed. Or, if you want to put it differently, how long are sequences of keystrokes typed by one hand.

If you look at novels from Project Gutenberg, that are distributed with CarpalX, you might get the following numbers:
On DSK, hands change after one keystroke in ~62 % cases; on Colemak, it's ~54 %. (On Maltron THOR, it's only under 52 %.)
On DSK, only ~3 % of one-handed keystroke sequences are longer than 3 keystrokes; on Colemak, it's over ~8 %. (On Maltron THOR, it's almost 11 %.)

Ah OK, that's actually quite interesting. The difference doesn't seem that great though, considering it's something Dvorak users seem to bring up so much. Still, at least it's nice to see the figures behind it, and for those who are huge alternation-fans, at least there is a justification, even if to me it seems rather weak.

There is a lack of good quality research on keyboard layouts in general, I grant you. But I think there is a temptation because of that, for people to just dismiss any claim anyone makes with the "no evidence" argument. Of course, I'm not saying such claims should be automatically believed either. In the absence of absolute evidence either way on something, it is nevertheless possible to look at the claim being made and pragmatically assess how likely it is, or how reasonable the arguments are.  There are a lot of times in life when things can't be proved absolutely but you nevertheless accept them if there are sound reasons for doing so. In the case of Colemak, the arguments in its favour of it are generally reasonable and persuasive.

(1) Anecdotal evidence lacks predictive power. It's as simple as that.

It's possible that a meteorite will hit my house tomorrow. I can't prove it won't. However, I have lived a long time in my house and a meteorite has never hit it, so anecdotally, perhaps I might assume it won't happen tomorrow either. But as you say, anecdotal evidence lacks predictive power, so there is no reason to predict it won't happen tomorrow just because it hasn't happened yet. Can't fault the logic there. But here is the crux: should I spend my life worrying that my house is going to be hit by a meteorite? According to you, yes. But according to me, no.

[davkol]

Do you think that the Minimak 4-key-change and Colemak are equally easy to learn?
What about the Minimak 8-key-change vs Colemak?

I haven't analyzed Minimak. Maybe I will eventually, but not now.

Yes, of course I recognise the need to relearn bigrams etc. But what about bigrams in Colemak like HA, CH, MA, WA, WH, CA. None of those change in Colemak but they do in Dvorak. On the other hand there is only one bigram that Dvorak leaves unchanged (MA/AM) and Colemak leaves that unchanged also.

Those are _relatively_ less common bigrams. I don't think they're particularly significant. Perhaps they do matter, but I really doubt it—looking at the corpus analysis and neighboring bigrams.

And that's without even considering the muscle memory for relearning required for punctuation symbols, which again, Colemak adopters need not relearn.

Really depends on the corpus. This is very different, if you're writing a novel, or if you're, say, coding.

That said, my perspective on this topic is also highly influenced by the fact, that I live in a country, that uses a national layout based on QWERTY, but with very different placement of special symbols.

Dvorak may have it's own features and advantages, but trying to claim that it's not going to be harder to learn than Colemak (from Qwerty) is preposterous. You position on this point defies reason.

lol

Again, the difference between DSK and Colemak is that thousands of students were taught to type on DSK (with obvious comparison to QWERTY), whereas data for Colemak doesn't exist.

I think this might be a fair point for those who wanted to learn Colemak while still retaining their Qwerty skills. But for those wanting to drop Qwerty, I don't see why it would arise. I imagine such a confusion, if it exists, might also be experienced by Dvorak users, but I accept at least this is an open question.

I have no idea how many people actually (don't) want to drop QWERTY entirely.

If you look at novels from Project Gutenberg, that are distributed with CarpalX, you might get the following numbers:
On DSK, hands change after one keystroke in ~62 % cases; on Colemak, it's ~54 %. (On Maltron THOR, it's only under 52 %.)
On DSK, only ~3 % of one-handed keystroke sequences are longer than 3 keystrokes; on Colemak, it's over ~8 %. (On Maltron THOR, it's almost 11 %.)

Ah OK, that's actually quite interesting. The difference doesn't seem that great though, considering it's something Dvorak users seem to bring up so much. Still, at least it's nice to see the figures behind it, and for those who are huge alternation-fans, at least there is a justification, even if to me it seems rather weak.

Let's put it differently: what if I told you, that a "rolling" layout has thrice as many long one-handed keystroke sequences?

Alternatively, hand-alternation frequency is demonstrated in the examples by Parkinson and at the Colemak website. Note how Coleman talks about a significant increase in same-finger ratio on DSK... well, it's ~10 % for QWERTY,  ~7.5 % for DSK and ~7 % for Colemak.

It's possible that a meteorite will hit my house tomorrow. I can't prove it won't. However, I have lived a long time in my house and a meteorite has never hit it, so anecdotally, perhaps I might assume it won't happen tomorrow either. But as you say, anecdotal evidence lacks predictive power, so there is no reason to predict it won't happen tomorrow just because it hasn't happened yet. Can't fault the logic there. But here is the crux: should I spend my life worrying that my house is going to be hit by a meteorite? According to you, yes. But according to me, no.

...

[steve.v]

Ok, i acknowledge that i probably did this all wrong!

switched to Dvorak 3 years ago, which was cumbersome, but rewarding, because it felt sooo good to be off Qwerty; which as a layout started to look so weird and annoying when i wasn't using it anymore that i just told my Qwerty skills to go to hell. so they're gone pretty much.

i forget why i didn't go to Colemak. i think i just didn't look into it much because i thought it was just an option if you didn't want to relearn ALL the keys, and i was game for a clean slate.

Dvorak's been very comfortable and my speed is the same, but i haven't had to do marathon typing like i used to.... until the last few days. suddenly that notorious right-pinky L-S scrunchy mess in Dvorak is making me flippin crazy. with all the shooting pains and good fun. and i go look on the internet and everybody's all "Colemak, Colemak, Colemak fixed that, Colemak's better, etc etc."

so, did i miss my chance to reap one of Colemak's main benefits, namely that it's easy to learn if you're a Qwerty user? is it worth doing the whole relearning process again or should i just stay put? does a 3rd layout in your brain just turn into sludge? (most of my errors when learning Dvorak, were Qwerty confusion, and it still happens occasionally.)

anybody done this? my pinky hurts.

I did the same thing.
Spent 4 months on Dvorak; sore pinky
Was curious about other layouts.
Found Colemak; happy ever since.
I think it's more of a personal preference thing.
However if your pinky hurts, yea switch.
Also check out norman layout.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[droshi]

I also went from qwerty to dvorak for a long time.

A couple years ago I switched to colemak, and have been very happy. Switching layouts isn't as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be IMO, but it does require some up front effort.

I can't speak to the "easy to learn because it's like qwerty," but in some ways, too similar a layout would confuse me more than a vastly different one.

Overall, I feel the switch has only been an upgrade. I've no idea about the roll vs alternating, both layouts were generally much better than qwerty, but when I tried out colemak I noticed that dvorak did make my pinky hurt more than I realized when trying to reach the L key I believe. Colemak seems to have less for the pinky fingers to do.

The other advantage that I always missed from Dvorak was the positions of copy/paste function (zxcv keys). After learning colemak I did discover Auto-Hotkey, so if that's an option I'd definitely remap any shortcuts so they are the same, but on Dvorak when I learned, I had to just get used to those functions being all over the place.

I don't feel the need to switch to any other layout, there may be something that's 1% better for me, but colemak is quite good so unless something groundbreaking comes out, I'll probably stick here.

[Tony]

The switch from Dvorak to Colemak is probably 3% better or so, quite not efficient, but if you have 3 free months or so then go all the way and switch.

It will be good in the long term, for example ZXCV coming back to the old places, makes you copy paste faster.