5 ms·

Hasn't Dvorak been pretty thoroughly debunked as far as claims of speed? [1] is only the first google result, I can recall seeing quite a few articles on HN. D

by cdr 14y ago

Hasn't Dvorak been pretty thoroughly debunked as far as claims of speed? [1] is only the first google result, I can recall seeing quite a few articles on HN. Dvorak is more unicycle than bicycle. [1] http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing-errors/print http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing-errors/print

starpilot 14y ago
No. That 1996 article is wrong on that point, and fluffy on others. It's straightforward to calculate finger travels for typing words on various keyboard layouts [1], and Dvorak easily comes out on top. Placing e on the home row alone is probably a significant improvement. Compare the home rows: asdf jkl; aoeu htns Placement of high-frequency letters, especially vowels, reduces finger movement and eases typing. There's no magic about it. [1] www.typocheck.co.uk/dvorak/
- aw3c2 14y ago
  Does that calculate the way between keys or guess a common hand/finger size to calculate actual hand movements?
- slurgfest 14y ago
  How do finger travels affect efficiency? This is not obvious.
aangjie 14y ago
OT: I haven't read this specific article, but have been on DVORAk for about a year and am happy about it. But one of the problems i have noticed in arguments for and against these kb layouts is the hand size. they vary from individual, and i can easily see someone with a bigger hand not realizing the same efficiency improvement as i did when i switched over. *-- I switched over by trying Dvorak for an hour a day instead of the QWERTY i had used for about 3-4 weeks. I was a below average QWERTY user. Touch typist, but not fast/ not a lot of typing experience.
decklin 14y ago
That article is mainly about the strawman argument that if Dvorak is better, then free markets are bad, because they lead to the kind of network effects that gave us QWERTY. (As a happy Dvorak user, I find this argument silly.) The author is very motivated to prove the premises false, for political reasons. I don't think it's very insightful.

by cdr 14y ago

starpilot 14y ago

No. That 1996 article is wrong on that point, and fluffy on others. It's straightforward to calculate finger travels for typing words on various keyboard layouts [1], and Dvorak easily comes out on top. Placing e on the home row alone is probably a significant improvement. Compare the home rows: asdf jkl; aoeu htns Placement of high-frequency letters, especially vowels, reduces finger movement and eases typing. There's no magic about it. [1] www.typocheck.co.uk/dvorak/

aw3c2 14y ago
Does that calculate the way between keys or guess a common hand/finger size to calculate actual hand movements?
slurgfest 14y ago
How do finger travels affect efficiency? This is not obvious.

aangjie 14y ago

OT: I haven't read this specific article, but have been on DVORAk for about a year and am happy about it. But one of the problems i have noticed in arguments for and against these kb layouts is the hand size. they vary from individual, and i can easily see someone with a bigger hand not realizing the same efficiency improvement as i did when i switched over. *-- I switched over by trying Dvorak for an hour a day instead of the QWERTY i had used for about 3-4 weeks. I was a below average QWERTY user. Touch typist, but not fast/ not a lot of typing experience.

decklin 14y ago

That article is mainly about the strawman argument that if Dvorak is better, then free markets are bad, because they lead to the kind of network effects that gave us QWERTY. (As a happy Dvorak user, I find this argument silly.) The author is very motivated to prove the premises false, for political reasons. I don't think it's very insightful.