5 ms·

An interesting read whenever the topic of keyboard layouts comes up: http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing-errors http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/t

by blowski 13y ago

An interesting read whenever the topic of keyboard layouts comes up: http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing-errors http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing-errors Summary of that article: The 'QWERTY was developed to slow down the typist' story is a lie. There is no serious evidence that Dvorak is a 'better' layout. If you were starting from scratch, there would probably be no advantage choosing one over the other, except that QWERTY is the standard. Retraining is a waste of time. One of the key quotes: > The study design directly paralleled the decision that a real firm or a real government agency might face: Is it worthwhile to retrain its present typists? If Strong's study is correct, it is not efficient for current typists to switch to Dvorak. The study also implied that the eventual typing speed would be greater with QWERTY than with Dvorak, although this conclusion was not emphasized. I have no reason to believe that the Workman layout offers any other advantages.

Afforess 13y ago
In addition: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-lies-youve-been-told-about-the-origin-of-the-qwerty-keyboard/275537/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-li...
fsck--off 13y ago
Look at the HN thread about this article [1], specifically the top comment. Among other things, that study failed to take into account the "plateau effect" that occurs in all types of exercise regimens after several weeks of the same type of training. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=438124 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=438124
- vidarh 13y ago
  (EDIT: Downvoting doesn't make the claims in the references comment any less wrong. How about arguing the point instead) I stopped taking that comment remotely seriously when it claimed: > As a matter of fact, it is a well known and well documented phenomenon in the literature that if you train at close to maximal capacity on the same training regimen for longer than 3 to 4 weeks, you will stop making gains. You'll see big increases the first 3 weeks, and after that, nothing. This is a nervous system effect. ... which most people who have done heavy weight lifting for example can tell you is at best wildly misleading, and at worst, pure, unadulterated bullshit. To flatten out after 3-4 weeks would take such extreme over-training, at stress levels way beyond what even most high level athletes would normally even able to achieve in training, that it is extremely unrealistic for most people to every experience it. Certainly not "just" by training at something until you feel you can't do any more. At that point most people are not anywhere near a real maximum. I don't lift to a "training" 1RM (maximum weight I can at any time lift once) every week, much less manage/try to stress myself into a real max. (the reason for distinguishing these, is that it is normal that you can lift up to 10% +/- more in high stress situations like competitions), so maybe what I do don't count in that guys eyes. But I exercise large compound lifts to near failure (that is, until I have good reason to think that I will be unable to complete the next repetition) every workout - 3-4 times a week. So I'll hit my training 5RM, 3RM, 1RM for the various lifts on consecutive weeks. They are reasonably interchangeable. If I feel good enough, I may go for a 1RM to try to set a new personal record even if it's not the "right week". And see slow but steady improvement for months on end before I shake anything up, and when I do change things, it is mainly for other reasons - some progressions may follow the same program for years. Changing too often does not help - it just confuses you tracking. Most people are far more likely to run into limitations due to form/technique failures or lack of flexibility that they need to fix than due to any CNS limitations. Gains do slow down as you get closer to your limits, and you certainly can over-train, but it takes a lot to over-train so badly that you stop seeing gains after 4 weeks even when you massively brutalise major muscle groups on a semi-daily basis. I can't even imagine what you'd need to do to overload your nervous system from typing in that short time-span.
mistercow 13y ago
What a terrible article. First off, I was frustrated by how they quoted research but did not actually cite it. For example: >For example, A. Miller and J Thomas, two researchers at the IBM Research Laboratory, writing in the International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, conclude that "no alternative has shown a realistically significant advantage over the QWERTY for general purpose typing." OK, great. What was the name of the paper? Was it even in a peer reviewed article, or was it an op-ed? And when did they say it? The rate of research into keyboard layouts has been a trickle. If they said that in 1975, then it's not particularly useful today. In fact, there have been a few studies that have in one way or another demonstrated superior qualities of Dvorak: http://www.st.ewi.tudelft.nl/~buzing/Articles/keyboards.pdf http://www.st.ewi.tudelft.nl/~buzing/Articles/keyboards.pdf http://atri.misericordia.edu/Papers/Dvorak.php http://atri.misericordia.edu/Papers/Dvorak.php (admittedly both of those were published after the Reason article, but I'm not going to spend all night looking for pre-1996 articles) The article also claims that studies show only "a few percentage points" difference between QWERTY and Dvorak. How can this be, when the total typing distance for QWERTY was nearly twice that of Dvorak on Don Quixote? So why are we seeing quote and number mining, more typical of political discussions, in an article about keyboard layouts? Well, to understand that, we need to understand Reason's bias, and then read the last paragraph. And then all becomes clear. This isn't about uncovering the truth about ergonomics and keyboard layouts. It's about scoring a few points for the ol' free market. My guess is that one of the authors was having an argument at a party, and someone drunkenly suggested that QWERTY vs. Dvorak was a great example of the free market failing. "This will not stand!" the writer shouted at the sky, and then proceeded to write a five page article about how "nuh uh".
- jrhorn424 13y ago
  I doubt you'd be interested in actually reading it, but citations are usually found in research papers, like the ones the authors produced before writing this article for Reason: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/725509?uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102767796373 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/725509?uid=3739256&uid...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
ricardobeat 13y ago
> There is no serious evidence that Dvorak is a 'better' layout. The typing speed record, while it still existed, was held by a dvorak typist. I can type at 130-140wpm using qwerty and feel like it's almost impossible to go any faster, while it's not uncommon to see dvorak users typing 160wpm+. If anything, the reduction in total finger travel is enormous.
- blowski 13y ago
  "The plural of anecdote is not evidence." Without seeing some kind of properly conducted scientific test that examines a range of conditions (age, native language, current typing ability on QWERTY, typical typing material, etc) it doesn't seem worth the effort. If Dvorak (or Workman) is that much better, then it's surprising nobody has been able to conduct such a study.
  - nether 13y ago
    All of the evidence out there, however limited, is in favor of Dvorak (that 1996 Reason article you linked not withstanding). Lower finger travel = less strain = less RSI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvorak_Simplified_Keyboard#Comparison_of_the_QWERTY_and_Dvorak_layouts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvorak_Simplified_Keyboard#Comp... The advantage of Dvorak is no more "theoretical" than the theory of evolution. Whether it's "worth it" for you to switch is aside from the inherent performance of either layout. I can say that Dvorak is better, while not being worthwhile for you to learn, though it was worthwhile for me.
tjoff 13y ago
The 'QWERTY was developed to slow down the typist' story is a lie. There is no serious evidence that Dvorak is a 'better' layout. If you were starting from scratch, there would probably be no advantage choosing one over the other, except that QWERTY is the standard. Retraining is a waste of time. The last sentence isn't supported by the prior, assuming you want to improve your typing. Let's say that dvorak and qwerty just as "good"/"bad" and that there would be no advantage choosing one over the other. Then retraining is probably not a waste of time because when retraining you don't pick up bad practices, like you did when you first started to type (not knowing better). It probably is easier to start from scratch than trying to relearn some subtle parts of something you've done every day for for over a decade. Also, the motivation to learn qwerty better isn't as big compared to dvorak where you are forced to make progress to be able to do anything useful.
- krrrh 13y ago
  I found this to be true. I typed Dvorak for a few years while in University, but switched back to QWERTY when I entered the workforce. I was pleasantly surprised that the increased speed and comfort I had attributed to Dvorak was maintained when I went back to QWERTY. It may have been less efficient than putting the same time I to traditional typing training would have been, but it definitely did increase my general skills as a typist to practice a new layout "from scratch".
  - loup-vaillant 13y ago
    Well, you can effectively re-train without switching layouts. I started out as hunt-and-peck with QWERTY, then decided to properly touch type. Major comfort benefit. Then I re-trained with http://bepo.fr http://bepo.fr I got a smaller, but noticeable additional comfort. My conclusion is that touch typing is more important than layout. Layout is icing on the cake. Not essential for me, but damn useful.
Too 13y ago
Have you tried yourself? In my experience typing on dvorak is much more comfortable. Speed wise i maybe reached the same level as my qwerty after almost a month but for me the biggest wow factor was the comfort. Your hands are really never twisting, most of the time you are just using the home row. It's like holding a gamepad where all the keys you need are designed to be in just the right position, not having jump and fire mapped to the start and select-button. In the end i still switched back to qwerty because I'm using way to many other computers than my own throughout a day and need to be fast on all of them.
- blowski 13y ago
  Yes, I tried, and I switched back for the same reason as you. The amount of time I spent trying to work out whether I was on QWERTY or Dvorak, and in that case where was the full stop, far outweighed any possible benefit in typing speed. When people tell me that QWERTY is uncomfortable, slow, etc, I honestly have no idea what they're talking about. For me, the problem is sitting in a chair staring at a screen all day.
ye 13y ago
> There is no serious evidence that Dvorak is a 'better' layout. Yes, there is, and it's even presented in the article. Finger distance traveled if horrible for QWERTY compared to other layouts.
- blowski 13y ago
  Laying in bed all day listening to the radio gives less 'finger distance travelled' but doesn't mean greater productivity. I'm being facetious to point out that 'finger distance travelled' is not a meaningful measurement (at least not to me).
  - ye 13y ago
    Laying in bed all day gives you zero MPG. It doesn't mean that your bed is the most efficient vehicle in the world, it only means you fail at basic logic. "Finger distance travelled" is a proper metric. If you have a better one, write an article and see how it does.
ZeroGravitas 13y ago
For those unfamiliar with Reason, it's a libertarian publication. You might then wonder why they are so concerned with typewriter ergonomics. The reason is that it's a popular example of path dependence, where previous decisions affect the best possible current choice. This undermines their economic theories (the authors are economists). So don't expect them to be an unbiased source on this. They also, for example, claim that Windows is the best OS, and that network effects have no impact on people choosing to use it
- krrrh 13y ago
  The article was from 1996, I think you'd be hard pressed to suggest an OS that was better suited for the average user than Windows 95 was at the time. I say this as someone who was still running OS/2 at the time (with a Dvorak layout of course), but that was due more to me being ideologically driven (go Team OS/2!) than Reason. Network effects are only one feature that appeals to end users, but they aren't the first.
  - mistercow 13y ago
    In 1996 Apple's System 7 was extremely mature, and completely blew Windows 95 away in terms of reliability and ease of use for the average user.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Here is an "economic" explanation that suggests that both QWERTY and Windows are the worst available alternatives of their respective domain, simply because they are the most popular. Basically, it boils down to "You can survive by being popular, or you can survive by being good." http://lesswrong.com/lw/hd/the_majority_is_always_wrong/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/hd/the_majority_is_always_wrong/

by blowski 13y ago

Afforess 13y ago

In addition: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-lies-youve-been-told-about-the-origin-of-the-qwerty-keyboard/275537/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-li...

fsck--off 13y ago

Look at the HN thread about this article [1], specifically the top comment. Among other things, that study failed to take into account the "plateau effect" that occurs in all types of exercise regimens after several weeks of the same type of training. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=438124 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=438124

vidarh 13y ago
(EDIT: Downvoting doesn't make the claims in the references comment any less wrong. How about arguing the point instead) I stopped taking that comment remotely seriously when it claimed: > As a matter of fact, it is a well known and well documented phenomenon in the literature that if you train at close to maximal capacity on the same training regimen for longer than 3 to 4 weeks, you will stop making gains. You'll see big increases the first 3 weeks, and after that, nothing. This is a nervous system effect. ... which most people who have done heavy weight lifting for example can tell you is at best wildly misleading, and at worst, pure, unadulterated bullshit. To flatten out after 3-4 weeks would take such extreme over-training, at stress levels way beyond what even most high level athletes would normally even able to achieve in training, that it is extremely unrealistic for most people to every experience it. Certainly not "just" by training at something until you feel you can't do any more. At that point most people are not anywhere near a real maximum. I don't lift to a "training" 1RM (maximum weight I can at any time lift once) every week, much less manage/try to stress myself into a real max. (the reason for distinguishing these, is that it is normal that you can lift up to 10% +/- more in high stress situations like competitions), so maybe what I do don't count in that guys eyes. But I exercise large compound lifts to near failure (that is, until I have good reason to think that I will be unable to complete the next repetition) every workout - 3-4 times a week. So I'll hit my training 5RM, 3RM, 1RM for the various lifts on consecutive weeks. They are reasonably interchangeable. If I feel good enough, I may go for a 1RM to try to set a new personal record even if it's not the "right week". And see slow but steady improvement for months on end before I shake anything up, and when I do change things, it is mainly for other reasons - some progressions may follow the same program for years. Changing too often does not help - it just confuses you tracking. Most people are far more likely to run into limitations due to form/technique failures or lack of flexibility that they need to fix than due to any CNS limitations. Gains do slow down as you get closer to your limits, and you certainly can over-train, but it takes a lot to over-train so badly that you stop seeing gains after 4 weeks even when you massively brutalise major muscle groups on a semi-daily basis. I can't even imagine what you'd need to do to overload your nervous system from typing in that short time-span.

mistercow 13y ago

What a terrible article. First off, I was frustrated by how they quoted research but did not actually cite it. For example: >For example, A. Miller and J Thomas, two researchers at the IBM Research Laboratory, writing in the International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, conclude that "no alternative has shown a realistically significant advantage over the QWERTY for general purpose typing." OK, great. What was the name of the paper? Was it even in a peer reviewed article, or was it an op-ed? And when did they say it? The rate of research into keyboard layouts has been a trickle. If they said that in 1975, then it's not particularly useful today. In fact, there have been a few studies that have in one way or another demonstrated superior qualities of Dvorak: http://www.st.ewi.tudelft.nl/~buzing/Articles/keyboards.pdf http://www.st.ewi.tudelft.nl/~buzing/Articles/keyboards.pdf http://atri.misericordia.edu/Papers/Dvorak.php http://atri.misericordia.edu/Papers/Dvorak.php (admittedly both of those were published after the Reason article, but I'm not going to spend all night looking for pre-1996 articles) The article also claims that studies show only "a few percentage points" difference between QWERTY and Dvorak. How can this be, when the total typing distance for QWERTY was nearly twice that of Dvorak on Don Quixote? So why are we seeing quote and number mining, more typical of political discussions, in an article about keyboard layouts? Well, to understand that, we need to understand Reason's bias, and then read the last paragraph. And then all becomes clear. This isn't about uncovering the truth about ergonomics and keyboard layouts. It's about scoring a few points for the ol' free market. My guess is that one of the authors was having an argument at a party, and someone drunkenly suggested that QWERTY vs. Dvorak was a great example of the free market failing. "This will not stand!" the writer shouted at the sky, and then proceeded to write a five page article about how "nuh uh".

jrhorn424 13y ago
I doubt you'd be interested in actually reading it, but citations are usually found in research papers, like the ones the authors produced before writing this article for Reason: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/725509?uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102767796373 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/725509?uid=3739256&uid...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

ricardobeat 13y ago

> There is no serious evidence that Dvorak is a 'better' layout. The typing speed record, while it still existed, was held by a dvorak typist. I can type at 130-140wpm using qwerty and feel like it's almost impossible to go any faster, while it's not uncommon to see dvorak users typing 160wpm+. If anything, the reduction in total finger travel is enormous.

blowski 13y ago
"The plural of anecdote is not evidence." Without seeing some kind of properly conducted scientific test that examines a range of conditions (age, native language, current typing ability on QWERTY, typical typing material, etc) it doesn't seem worth the effort. If Dvorak (or Workman) is that much better, then it's surprising nobody has been able to conduct such a study.
- nether 13y ago
  All of the evidence out there, however limited, is in favor of Dvorak (that 1996 Reason article you linked not withstanding). Lower finger travel = less strain = less RSI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvorak_Simplified_Keyboard#Comparison_of_the_QWERTY_and_Dvorak_layouts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvorak_Simplified_Keyboard#Comp... The advantage of Dvorak is no more "theoretical" than the theory of evolution. Whether it's "worth it" for you to switch is aside from the inherent performance of either layout. I can say that Dvorak is better, while not being worthwhile for you to learn, though it was worthwhile for me.

tjoff 13y ago

The 'QWERTY was developed to slow down the typist' story is a lie. There is no serious evidence that Dvorak is a 'better' layout. If you were starting from scratch, there would probably be no advantage choosing one over the other, except that QWERTY is the standard. Retraining is a waste of time. The last sentence isn't supported by the prior, assuming you want to improve your typing. Let's say that dvorak and qwerty just as "good"/"bad" and that there would be no advantage choosing one over the other. Then retraining is probably not a waste of time because when retraining you don't pick up bad practices, like you did when you first started to type (not knowing better). It probably is easier to start from scratch than trying to relearn some subtle parts of something you've done every day for for over a decade. Also, the motivation to learn qwerty better isn't as big compared to dvorak where you are forced to make progress to be able to do anything useful.

krrrh 13y ago
I found this to be true. I typed Dvorak for a few years while in University, but switched back to QWERTY when I entered the workforce. I was pleasantly surprised that the increased speed and comfort I had attributed to Dvorak was maintained when I went back to QWERTY. It may have been less efficient than putting the same time I to traditional typing training would have been, but it definitely did increase my general skills as a typist to practice a new layout "from scratch".
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Well, you can effectively re-train without switching layouts. I started out as hunt-and-peck with QWERTY, then decided to properly touch type. Major comfort benefit. Then I re-trained with http://bepo.fr http://bepo.fr I got a smaller, but noticeable additional comfort. My conclusion is that touch typing is more important than layout. Layout is icing on the cake. Not essential for me, but damn useful.

Too 13y ago

Have you tried yourself? In my experience typing on dvorak is much more comfortable. Speed wise i maybe reached the same level as my qwerty after almost a month but for me the biggest wow factor was the comfort. Your hands are really never twisting, most of the time you are just using the home row. It's like holding a gamepad where all the keys you need are designed to be in just the right position, not having jump and fire mapped to the start and select-button. In the end i still switched back to qwerty because I'm using way to many other computers than my own throughout a day and need to be fast on all of them.

blowski 13y ago
Yes, I tried, and I switched back for the same reason as you. The amount of time I spent trying to work out whether I was on QWERTY or Dvorak, and in that case where was the full stop, far outweighed any possible benefit in typing speed. When people tell me that QWERTY is uncomfortable, slow, etc, I honestly have no idea what they're talking about. For me, the problem is sitting in a chair staring at a screen all day.

ye 13y ago

> There is no serious evidence that Dvorak is a 'better' layout. Yes, there is, and it's even presented in the article. Finger distance traveled if horrible for QWERTY compared to other layouts.

blowski 13y ago
Laying in bed all day listening to the radio gives less 'finger distance travelled' but doesn't mean greater productivity. I'm being facetious to point out that 'finger distance travelled' is not a meaningful measurement (at least not to me).
- ye 13y ago
  Laying in bed all day gives you zero MPG. It doesn't mean that your bed is the most efficient vehicle in the world, it only means you fail at basic logic. "Finger distance travelled" is a proper metric. If you have a better one, write an article and see how it does.

ZeroGravitas 13y ago

For those unfamiliar with Reason, it's a libertarian publication. You might then wonder why they are so concerned with typewriter ergonomics. The reason is that it's a popular example of path dependence, where previous decisions affect the best possible current choice. This undermines their economic theories (the authors are economists). So don't expect them to be an unbiased source on this. They also, for example, claim that Windows is the best OS, and that network effects have no impact on people choosing to use it

krrrh 13y ago
The article was from 1996, I think you'd be hard pressed to suggest an OS that was better suited for the average user than Windows 95 was at the time. I say this as someone who was still running OS/2 at the time (with a Dvorak layout of course), but that was due more to me being ideologically driven (go Team OS/2!) than Reason. Network effects are only one feature that appeals to end users, but they aren't the first.
- mistercow 13y ago
  In 1996 Apple's System 7 was extremely mature, and completely blew Windows 95 away in terms of reliability and ease of use for the average user.
loup-vaillant 13y ago
Here is an "economic" explanation that suggests that both QWERTY and Windows are the worst available alternatives of their respective domain, simply because they are the most popular. Basically, it boils down to "You can survive by being popular, or you can survive by being good." http://lesswrong.com/lw/hd/the_majority_is_always_wrong/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/hd/the_majority_is_always_wrong/