3 ms·

Our wonderful universe acts in surprising ways. Human intuition is often wrong, and the only way to know something for sure is to test it. The Dvorak keyboard's

by s_tec 18y ago

Our wonderful universe acts in surprising ways. Human intuition is often wrong, and the only way to know something for sure is to test it. The Dvorak keyboard's logical organization seems intuitively faster, but we don't know how the human brain is wired, so we don't really know the limiting factors on typing speed. Anything is possible, and the only way to know the truth is by experiment. That's the scientific method. According to this article, the valid experiments support QWERTY over Dvorak, or at least show little difference. I don't know if the article true without examining the experiments myself, but I wouldn't call the article "unreasonable" for valuing science over fallible human reason.

tokenadult 18y ago
Human intuition is often wrong, and the only way to know something for sure is to test it. Hear. Hear. http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
Hexstream 18y ago
Qwerty couldn't be much less scientific. You can spell "TYPEWRITER" with the letters from its top row, for fuck's sake. Dvorak (the man), on the other hand, dedicated a good part of his life studying Typewriter Behavior (he wrote a book with the same name but it's out of print) by looking at actual people while they type, then formulated theories about what eases typing speed and accuracy, then conducted experiments to validate his models. Wait... Haven't I just described the scientific method?
elviejo 18y ago
Agree on all accounts except on: "I wouldn't call the article 'unreasonable' for valuing science over fallible human reason. " Because I don't think this article values science. If it did, then it would simply state: "Here we have 2 keyboards which one is better?" Defining better as either: a) Fastest to type in for a user with IDK a 2 year experience in it. b) Easiest to learn, from scratch. c) Easiest to retrain for a person that already dominates the other keyboard. d) Healthiest over a period of 10 years (RSI anyone). Instead of doing an experiment or honestly revising the studies mentioned. This article spends most of its time, attacking the Dvorak history or "hoax" as the author calls it in the end. So this study is neither truly scientific nor truly logical. Is simply the author trying to support his preconceived notions: "Dvorak is a hoax". And using "ad hominem" attacks or self selecting studies to support his conclusions. as I mentioned before for real science on keyboards check: http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/ http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/ And thank very much for your comment, it is nice to see succinct well thought argument on the internet.

by s_tec 18y ago

tokenadult 18y ago

Human intuition is often wrong, and the only way to know something for sure is to test it. Hear. Hear. http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html

Hexstream 18y ago

Qwerty couldn't be much less scientific. You can spell "TYPEWRITER" with the letters from its top row, for fuck's sake. Dvorak (the man), on the other hand, dedicated a good part of his life studying Typewriter Behavior (he wrote a book with the same name but it's out of print) by looking at actual people while they type, then formulated theories about what eases typing speed and accuracy, then conducted experiments to validate his models. Wait... Haven't I just described the scientific method?

elviejo 18y ago

Agree on all accounts except on: "I wouldn't call the article 'unreasonable' for valuing science over fallible human reason. " Because I don't think this article values science. If it did, then it would simply state: "Here we have 2 keyboards which one is better?" Defining better as either: a) Fastest to type in for a user with IDK a 2 year experience in it. b) Easiest to learn, from scratch. c) Easiest to retrain for a person that already dominates the other keyboard. d) Healthiest over a period of 10 years (RSI anyone). Instead of doing an experiment or honestly revising the studies mentioned. This article spends most of its time, attacking the Dvorak history or "hoax" as the author calls it in the end. So this study is neither truly scientific nor truly logical. Is simply the author trying to support his preconceived notions: "Dvorak is a hoax". And using "ad hominem" attacks or self selecting studies to support his conclusions. as I mentioned before for real science on keyboards check: http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/ http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/ And thank very much for your comment, it is nice to see succinct well thought argument on the internet.