3 ms·

Dvorak touchtyper since 2010 is here ^_^ I appreciate any attempts to make August Dvorak's work even better. For example, that claster of wovels is not AI's wor

Dvorak touchtyper since 2010 is here ^_^ I appreciate any attempts to make August Dvorak's work even better. For example, that claster of wovels is not AI's work but Dvorak's. BTW there is one strange claim from my POW: > QWERTY - 0% (baseline) > Dvorak - +77% > Colemak - +84% > Workman - +101% > Halmak - +134% If author considers Colemak and Workman more efficient than Dvorak, I should not even to give this layout a try :) because I have tried these and can not report such experience. Probably it is because I am a piano player since 2016 and the fingers which are weak on average people are not that weak for me. Another rebuke to mention is that Halmak is not compatible with Programmer Dvorak. That idea of 7531902468 and three pairs of brackets, braces, parentheses (all paired symbols except diamond braces) is extremely handy while programming. AFAIK, 7531902468 is also August's gem of mind, can your AI/HAL/whatever to design a layout with that row and at least [{}(=*)+] cluster untouched?

danpalmer 5y ago
You make a good point about finger strength, not something I had considered. Another issue is the dataset used for evaluation here. If they used a sample of the regular English language, that's likely to differ from the sort of typing that a programmer does, not just in punctuation, or it's likely to differ for those who type other languages. It's a shame the cost of learning a new layout is so high, because there's so much scope to optimise for each person, what they type, how they type.
- eimrine 5y ago
  > It's a shame the cost of learning a new layout is so high Haven't you mean the cost of _creation_ a new layout? Learning is super easy for any non-QWERTY person because since you have managed to realize that default layout is bad - you have all freedoms possible to fix this obstruction. Sometimes the number of freedoms is too high, that's why it is so hard to create a layout which will be really used by anybody. What about learning a new layout per se - the cost of getting rid of QWERTY in my opinion is doubling for every year of touchtyping QWERTY or QWERTY-like layouts. Layout is something that you will be carrying in all your muscles for the rest of your life but after your first switch you will not consider switching layout that hard especially if you really love your new one. > Another issue is the dataset used for evaluation here. A beauty of a layout is kind of a beauty of a girl - it must be measured by heart, not by numbers. Layout is something that you will be carrying in all your muscles for the rest of your life. I do not respect any attempts to fix QWERTY (like Colemak and Workman) because QWERTY is so broken that there are no reasons to fix it (coining more and more of fancy metrics usually) except if QWERTY sits too deep in your muscles. And there is not much difference in using three rows of symbols when somebody either programs or writes a letter to his lovely ones. > You make a good point about finger strength, not something I had considered. Maybe yes but maybe I haven't disclose my opinion fully. I used to touchtype Dvorak way before some musical instruments gave additional strength for my fingers and I do not remember any desire to rearrange any letters. There are lots researches going on for enhancing QWERTY, based on rearranging as few keys as possible. They usually are based on: the datasets, somebody's opinions about finger strength, some ideas of alternation of fingers or hands, now AI has joined to the army of fancy metrics. I do not respect any attempts to fix QWERTY (like Colemak and Workman) because QWERTY is so broken that there is no good reason to fix it, except of for users who have QWERTY sitting too deep in their muscle level. The Halmak's idea of punctuation in the middle of the board is really interesting, I haven't see this idea on any layout I have tried. But my message is that layouts must be created not by complicated calculation's call but by heart's call.
vladvasiliu 5y ago
> Probably it is because I am a piano player since 2016 and the fingers which are weak on average people are not that weak for me This reminds of my situation. I'm not a piano player, and I used to type with basically two fingers (plus thumb for space and pinky for ctrl/alt/shift). Since I've started trying to use more fingers, I've noticed that using a traditional, non split keyboard, is more painful, because it requires me to twist my wrists sideways. With my old way of typing, I would move the whole hand instead, so the wrist angle would stay roughly the same.
- eimrine 5y ago
  > I've noticed that using a traditional, non split keyboard, is more painful, because it requires me to twist my wrists sideways I have never used a split (which almost always is an ortholinear and not requires any twist) but my experience tells me than I am twisting not a wrist but only one finger, while 9 others just resting on a home row. I do not understand how it is possible to touchtype while you are twisting your wrists because if your index fingers lose the home row - you have to look at kbd to find it again. BTW I have noticed that touchtyping on laptop may be harder than on dedicated kbd because comfortable position of display may require an uncomfortable position of wrists and touchpad (if enabled) does even bigger mess.
  - vladvasiliu 5y ago
    The split I use is the MS Sculpt, which is regular, not ortholinear. The only way I've ever used a laptop with a position of the display kinda comfortable while also being able to type was with a bed tablet [0]. I've always actively avoided laptops with numpads, so the keyboard was always well-centered, at least as much as a desktop one, so no issue with staying on finding the home row. [0] Something like this: https://www.amazon.fr/Cooper-ordinateur-portable-r%C3%A9glable-travailler/dp/B0846QG6MR https://www.amazon.fr/Cooper-ordinateur-portable-r%C3%A9glab...
minimilian 5y ago
> 7531902468 I've been using this (almost) and had forgotten it was from the programmer's Dvorak, but surely it must be: 7531980246 Surely programmers start counting from 0 and use 0 more often than 8.
- eimrine 5y ago
  > Surely programmers start counting from 0 and use 0 more often than 8. So interesting that me and you are using the same argumentation for different positions of all even digits. Maybe it is just a matter of habit, for example my layout for my mother language is heavy modified for some reasons I do not want to put on debate.
  - minimilian 5y ago
    Not sure what you mean, but don't you agree that, if we take 0 to come before 1 and not after 9, there's an asymmetry between the left and the right hand?
    - eimrine 5y ago
      Both yes and not. There is some asymmetry in wrist's angle but there is kind of a symmetry that you have two keys left from our 7 and two keys right from my 8 (your 6). If I understood your POV correctly then you seems to consider the position of [ and ] symbols in Programmer Dvorak as symmetric for you.
      - minimilian 5y ago
        No, on a regular keyboard I regard 4 as corresponding to 7, since they are both pressed by the index finger directly above the home position. I see the numbers as split in odd and even between the left and the right hand. 75319 80246

danpalmer 5y ago

You make a good point about finger strength, not something I had considered. Another issue is the dataset used for evaluation here. If they used a sample of the regular English language, that's likely to differ from the sort of typing that a programmer does, not just in punctuation, or it's likely to differ for those who type other languages. It's a shame the cost of learning a new layout is so high, because there's so much scope to optimise for each person, what they type, how they type.

eimrine 5y ago
> It's a shame the cost of learning a new layout is so high Haven't you mean the cost of _creation_ a new layout? Learning is super easy for any non-QWERTY person because since you have managed to realize that default layout is bad - you have all freedoms possible to fix this obstruction. Sometimes the number of freedoms is too high, that's why it is so hard to create a layout which will be really used by anybody. What about learning a new layout per se - the cost of getting rid of QWERTY in my opinion is doubling for every year of touchtyping QWERTY or QWERTY-like layouts. Layout is something that you will be carrying in all your muscles for the rest of your life but after your first switch you will not consider switching layout that hard especially if you really love your new one. > Another issue is the dataset used for evaluation here. A beauty of a layout is kind of a beauty of a girl - it must be measured by heart, not by numbers. Layout is something that you will be carrying in all your muscles for the rest of your life. I do not respect any attempts to fix QWERTY (like Colemak and Workman) because QWERTY is so broken that there are no reasons to fix it (coining more and more of fancy metrics usually) except if QWERTY sits too deep in your muscles. And there is not much difference in using three rows of symbols when somebody either programs or writes a letter to his lovely ones. > You make a good point about finger strength, not something I had considered. Maybe yes but maybe I haven't disclose my opinion fully. I used to touchtype Dvorak way before some musical instruments gave additional strength for my fingers and I do not remember any desire to rearrange any letters. There are lots researches going on for enhancing QWERTY, based on rearranging as few keys as possible. They usually are based on: the datasets, somebody's opinions about finger strength, some ideas of alternation of fingers or hands, now AI has joined to the army of fancy metrics. I do not respect any attempts to fix QWERTY (like Colemak and Workman) because QWERTY is so broken that there is no good reason to fix it, except of for users who have QWERTY sitting too deep in their muscle level. The Halmak's idea of punctuation in the middle of the board is really interesting, I haven't see this idea on any layout I have tried. But my message is that layouts must be created not by complicated calculation's call but by heart's call.

vladvasiliu 5y ago

> Probably it is because I am a piano player since 2016 and the fingers which are weak on average people are not that weak for me This reminds of my situation. I'm not a piano player, and I used to type with basically two fingers (plus thumb for space and pinky for ctrl/alt/shift). Since I've started trying to use more fingers, I've noticed that using a traditional, non split keyboard, is more painful, because it requires me to twist my wrists sideways. With my old way of typing, I would move the whole hand instead, so the wrist angle would stay roughly the same.

eimrine 5y ago
> I've noticed that using a traditional, non split keyboard, is more painful, because it requires me to twist my wrists sideways I have never used a split (which almost always is an ortholinear and not requires any twist) but my experience tells me than I am twisting not a wrist but only one finger, while 9 others just resting on a home row. I do not understand how it is possible to touchtype while you are twisting your wrists because if your index fingers lose the home row - you have to look at kbd to find it again. BTW I have noticed that touchtyping on laptop may be harder than on dedicated kbd because comfortable position of display may require an uncomfortable position of wrists and touchpad (if enabled) does even bigger mess.
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  The split I use is the MS Sculpt, which is regular, not ortholinear. The only way I've ever used a laptop with a position of the display kinda comfortable while also being able to type was with a bed tablet [0]. I've always actively avoided laptops with numpads, so the keyboard was always well-centered, at least as much as a desktop one, so no issue with staying on finding the home row. [0] Something like this: https://www.amazon.fr/Cooper-ordinateur-portable-r%C3%A9glable-travailler/dp/B0846QG6MR https://www.amazon.fr/Cooper-ordinateur-portable-r%C3%A9glab...

minimilian 5y ago

> 7531902468 I've been using this (almost) and had forgotten it was from the programmer's Dvorak, but surely it must be: 7531980246 Surely programmers start counting from 0 and use 0 more often than 8.

eimrine 5y ago
> Surely programmers start counting from 0 and use 0 more often than 8. So interesting that me and you are using the same argumentation for different positions of all even digits. Maybe it is just a matter of habit, for example my layout for my mother language is heavy modified for some reasons I do not want to put on debate.
- minimilian 5y ago
  Not sure what you mean, but don't you agree that, if we take 0 to come before 1 and not after 9, there's an asymmetry between the left and the right hand?
  - eimrine 5y ago
    Both yes and not. There is some asymmetry in wrist's angle but there is kind of a symmetry that you have two keys left from our 7 and two keys right from my 8 (your 6). If I understood your POV correctly then you seems to consider the position of [ and ] symbols in Programmer Dvorak as symmetric for you.
    - minimilian 5y ago
      No, on a regular keyboard I regard 4 as corresponding to 7, since they are both pressed by the index finger directly above the home position. I see the numbers as split in odd and even between the left and the right hand. 75319 80246