4 ms·
What bullshit. There's a common pattern in Dvorak VS Qwerty: Dvorak advocates sometimes rely on history and sometimes on purely technical grounds to prove their
by Hexstream 18y ago
What bullshit. There's a common pattern in Dvorak VS Qwerty: Dvorak advocates sometimes rely on history and sometimes on purely technical grounds to prove their claims, while Qwerty advocates always only rely on history because there's simply absolutely no way to prove Qwerty approaches Dvorak when it comes to logic.
Here are some facts about Dvorak that are easy to verify and the utility of which is obvious:
- Dvorak has the most used keys on the home row.
Compare: AOEUIDHTNS VS ASDFGHJKL;
- Dvorak optimizes for alternating hands, which obviously helps speed. Ever tried typing "street" or "states" in Qwerty, two common words with common letters that you have to type all with the left hand? On the Dvorak side the worst word is "joke" I think.
- Dvorak optimizes for typing a bit more with the right hand instead of the left hand, which makes sense because the right hand is usually the strongest.
- Dvorak optimizes for typing from the outside to the inside (try tapping your fingers in rapid succession on the desk from outside to inside, then inside to outside, and you'll see immediately which one is easier and faster).
- Dvorak optimizes for typing more with stronger fingers (index and friends) than weaker ones (pinkies and friends).
- Dvorak has all the vowels on the left hand on the home row (except Y which is conveniently on top of I), one beside another, which is great for learning. It also makes sense because you use consonants more than vowels, (see right hand argument) and since the most used consonants are on the right home row, it optimizes alternating hands.
No need to mention Qwerty makes no such optimisations and the result is correspondly atrocious.
See? No need to bullshit with biased reports about history.
- lliiffee 18y agoYou weaken an otherwise useful post by using words like "bullshit". The problem with "bullshit" isn't that you are cursing. It is a way to dismiss an article with out actually engaging in any of the arguments made by the article. At the end you do hint that you believe the article gives a biased report of history, but you give no specifics, and it comes many paragraphs after "what bullshit".
- cchooper 18y agoI see nothing wrong with beginning the post "What bullshit". It's a concise statement of what he believes. And what's wrong with stating your belief up-front and then providing the argument afterwards?
- lliiffee 18y agoMy objection is that he does not provide the evidence! He gives a bunch of sensible reasons that Dvorak might be better, but never once addresses anything the article says. You don't get the right to call something "bullshit" with out giving your reasons. If you do give your reasons, saying "bullshit" is unnecessary.
- cchooper 18y agoSo if you give an argument for a conclusion then you shouldn't state what the conclusion is? Judge that point with reference to your own comments.
- lliiffee 18y agoYou are mischaracterizing what I said. Of course, stating the conclusion is fine. My point is that he never gave an argument for the conclusion that the article is bullshit. There is not a single statement in the article whose truth has been called into question.
- Hexstream 18y agoI won't address the article's historical claims for the same reason I won't address the Bible's historical claims: - Addressing those historical claims would be an implicit acknowledgement of their relevance, but I believe they aren't. - It would take a massive effort of research on my part to verify the historical accuracy of the claims, and this effort would be pretty aggravating for me since as I stated the claims are not relevant whether true or false. Also, it's disproportionally easier to make a new (BS) historical claim than to definitely disprove it so it's a losing battle. And let's see... First August Dvorak claimed his layout is better, then there was the Fable of the keys, which said it wasn't, then there was the Fable of the Fable which contradicted that... And I'm sure there's a Fable of the Fable of the Fable lurking somewhere. So if you believe this historical BS is important, help yourself.