New Standard Keyboard 973
An anonymous reader writes "There are two keyboard standards today - QWERTY and DVORAK. QWERTY, the one we usually have, was used on the first commercially produced typewriter in 1873. Ironically, QWERTY was actually designed to slow down the typist to prevent jamming the keys, and we've been stuck with that layout since. New Standard Keyboards offers new "alphabetical" keyboard. This keyboard has just 53-keys (instead of 101) and offers user-friendly benefits and quick data entry."
favorite keyboard (Score:5, Interesting)
Difficulty of change (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd have to institute it with people starting to use computers, because it'd be organizational suicide to replace QWERTY w/ DVORAK/alphabetical due to the steep learning curve and the resistance to change.
Personally, I'm great with a QWERTY keyboard, even knowing that it is designed to be an inefficient system and would never change to an alphanumerical keyboard, despite the ultimate benefits. Shortsighted perhaps, but I don't see the benefit to the steep learning curve. I'm willing to bet that many organizations won't be willing to make that step either.
keyboard "standards" (Score:3, Interesting)
And until there is something that is easy enough to learn without any practice, I doubt that anything will replace QWERTY.
Horrible, just horrible (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the biggest problems with the current AT-keyboard layout is the ordering
of digits on the numeric keypad.
I mean, damn near every other keypad in existance begins with 1 at the top left and works its way down to 9 at the bottom right (think telephone, ATM, eftpos terminal, security keypad).
But for some unfathomable reason the AT keyboard standard has transposed the top and bottom rows, so you get 1 at the bottom left and 9 at the top right, making it much more difficult to master data entry.
Which of these looks more familiar:
1 2 3 7 8 9
4 5 6 4 5 6
7 8 9 1 2 3
0 . 0
I'm betting most will pick the former, since the pattern in the latter is much less recognizable if it's not shown in the context of a computer keyboard.
Fewer keys a step back in useability for many (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ironically, that story isn't true (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody really denies that Qwerty is an inefficient layout. At least nobody who has done their homework. There are many studies comparing wpm speeds of people proficient in both Qwerty and Dvorak that show the clear advantage of the latter. I'll leave finding them as an exercise to the reader (read: I'm too lazy to look them up right now).
So let's use a keyboard designed for people, not machines, shall we?
(by that I mean Dvorak, not the monstrosity cited in this article)
Re: The QWERTY Rumor (Score:2, Interesting)
Plus, this post misses one of the key advantages of DVORAK: It reduces the various hand/arm injuries typing causes because you don't have to move your fingers as far.
Have you ever tried typing DVORAK? You'll quickly realize that its much, much easier on the hands.
Re: The QWERTY Rumor (Score:3, Interesting)
And here is some nice debunking of other myths about Dvorak [mwbrooks.com], including that GSA study you cited.
Re: The QWERTY Rumor (Score:2, Interesting)
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~shipman/ergo/parkinson
Re:Difficulty of change (Score:5, Interesting)
Just another keyboard layout, however, won't cut it. I learned Dvorak in college, and actually got as good typing Dvorak as I had been typing Qwerty. However, no matter where I went I was constantly running into Qwerty keyboards, and while I was learning Dvorak my Qwerty speeds went down significantly. Even if I could master Dvorak, it would bring my overall average typing speed down because everyone has a Qwerty. I switched back, and my typing speeds went back up.
Offer a truly revolutionary interface paradigm, or give up your illusions about changing the world.
Re:Ironically, that story isn't true (Score:2, Interesting)
Get some real references.
Re:Difficulty of change (Score:3, Interesting)
West, East, South, and 3 for North (Score:2, Interesting)
Switched to Dvorak, Switched Back (Score:2, Interesting)
Will someone buy London bridge from me then? (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean what are these people thinking? That cornering the 'Fisher Price, water-proof keyboards for the nearly toilet trained' is going to make them rich?
Sheesh!
Better ways to make a new keyboard. (Score:2, Interesting)
I had planned for quite awhile to switch over to a dvorak layout keyboard, but haven't just because I would be switching daily between the keyboard on my personal computer, and the ones that I use at school/work. Having to learn something new once would not be bad. Having to learn something new while constantly being reminded of how things used to be would be a real pain.
One thing that I would like to see in the keyboard market is more variety in the shape of the board itself. I have one of those 'split' Micro$oft keyboards and love it. Unfortunately, there aren't many other manufacturers out there that use this layout. Being able to adjust the exact angle of the split, and the distance between the halves would make the board even better, but I can't see this happening in the current market. Closest thing to inovation that they've done in awhile is make keyboards that light up. It may look cool, but hasn't really improved the functionality or versatility of the product at all.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Re:Difficulty of change (Score:2, Interesting)
I learned dvorak over the summer a few years ago, and was up to 30-40 wpm after a week, and at 60-70 within a month (and that's more than enough to do your work efficiently). After a couple more months I was back at ~80-90.
I don't know if qwerty vs dvorak has a speed difference, and it really doesn't matter. I switched to dvorak because my fingers travel noticeably less, and this seems to have helped reduce cramping and tendonitis that I used to get.
Re: The QWERTY Rumor (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes it does.
That would be its primary problem.
There is nothing like trying to get people out of a local opitma, even if it is sending them towards disaster. It's like trying to quit smoking; you know it will lead to a better life, but the current cost of a cigarette is so minimal, and the current pleasure of it so high.
QWERTY won't kill your hand in ten minutes or ten days. More like ten years. For some people, maybe even never. But for others, much sooner. I for one would prefer to never get RSI, and I decided after I experienced what turned out to be a false alarm that I never wanted to experience the real thing. Unfortunately, no science has been done in this domain to my knowledge so we are on our own with anecdotes. I note, however, that while I have heard many "I switched from QWERTY to DVORAK and my pain got better" stories, I have never heard an "I switched to DVORAK and my pain got worse until I went back to QWERTY". (People with that story are invited to comment and tell it, please!)
DVORAK probably isn't an answer to all the problems, but it helps a lot. You really do move your hands a lot less. As a secondary result, you will also find yourself actually touchtyping; all my life my hands were always wandering with QWERTY, now they don't, because they don't have to; wandering hands always "wander" into sub-optimal positions, which if you think about it ought to be a characteristic of a properly designed keyboard layout.
It's also about the only ergonomic thing you can do to a laptop.
For most of us non-competitive typer types, i.e., probably all but maybe one person reading this post, speed isn't a reason to move to Dvorak. But comfort is. This is so much nicer; the gain-per-minute is small, but I still plan to put a lot more minutes in front of a keyboard.
Re:wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
(BTW, it's called a "Mac.")
Re:Difficulty of change (Score:3, Interesting)
At the time, the system was slow and primitive, but more importantly it was big. It had a big-ass projection screen and multiple cameras, and I think the operator had to wear a glove. Very impractical.
Ironically, today we have basically everything we need to make a system like "Put That There" work. If you've got a Mac with an iSight camera, all you really need to add is software.
Anybody seen ToySight? We're already there. We just need to tweak the software a little bit.
Of course, something like "Put That There" would not be useful for actual input. Natural language recognition is a neat idea, but there are some very good arguments that imply that it'll never be good enough to supplant typing. So who the heck knows.
Re:wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
After using this layout for several months, the only programs that didn't accept it were Microsoft applications, which seemed to randomly decide if they would follow the Qwerty or Dvorak layout for command keys. If you are on Mac OS X there really isn't a lot of disadvantages to trying Dvorak out if you are free from MS applications (I haven't tried Mac Office 2004 to see if this problem persists).
The only bad thing about learning Dvorak is that when you go back to a regular keyboard you are basically back to hunt and peck. I found it really difficult to be able to switch between the two and maintain typing speed; I can type at over 100 wpm on either layout after sufficient time is given for me to adjust. That said I would way rather use Dvorak it just feels nicer on your hands, you can type faster, and I found I made less typos.
Re:Ironically, that story isn't true (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that it is simply unclear how they projected it. It was the nineteenth century after all, and some weird ideas were followed: eg, you can type typewriter with just keys on the top row (I read this was intended, for what reasons I'm not sure). Probably it was some trial and error, and they came with an half-baked design.
Oh, the exercise to the reader, yes: here is a Guinness record [syr.edu].
Re:wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Or I pretty much grew up on WordStar. To do the equivalent of the CTRL-C CTRL-V you mention, you'd have to use block commands, which were prefixed with CTRL-K. But an even more fun command group were those starting with CTRL-O. Don't even try doing that with the left hand only, it's not comfortable. Again, it worked well enough and people were typing whole books in WordStar. (And I stuck to Borland IDEs for programming until 2001 or so, because they let me use the WordStar key mappings.)
Or here's an bit of fun about German keyboards. The CUA Undo is CTRL-Z, and German keyboards are QWERTZ. I.e., CTRL-Z is where CTRL-Y would be on the USA keyboards. People use it with no problem, though. More fun for programming is that the square brackets have been moved on RIGHT_ALT-8 and RIGHT_ALT-9, instead of being a single keystroke, to make way for the national characters. And "@" (as used in emails) is RIGHT_ALT+Q. Again, seems to work OK, if that's what you got used to.
Basically as was said, _any_ keyboard arrangement works just as well, if that's what you're used to. Including, I'd add, any arrangement of the shortcuts on the keyboard.
However, the reverse is also true. Switching to a new arrangement just brings a long learning curve before you get back to speed. So buying Dvorak keyboards for the whole company to "improve their productivity" might have the opposite effect, as well as needlessly annoying everyone.
Re:Ironically, that story isn't true (Score:3, Interesting)
I can type at about 100wpm on a qwerty (well, with relatively spotty accuracy). This is because my mother forced me to do Mavis Beacon, as her father had forced her to memorize the layout of a qwerty and play-type even before they had enough money to buy a typewriter for the children to use. Also, I think EFNet owns some of the blame in this case.
The problem is, nobody can think at 100 words per minute. The only person who would ever need to type that fast would probably be a professional stenographer. Transcription and "typing pool" work is really on the outs, and if it's not, it damn well should be. I certainly can't think -- can't think WELL -- at 100 words per minute. I'd rather not learn a whole different standard which is fast, but, practically speaking, useless, just like I'd rather not own a DB7 Vantage when the Autoban is an ocean away.
Re:wrong (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Some friends and I were actually going to make a footboard [for emacs] once
Taladar, critic of vim writes:
You forgot to mention the mode-change-key (or however vim users call it) that is for some strange reason the one key worse reachable than almost every other: Escape
given the choice between a text editor that requires me to hit the escape key and one that is so complex that a footboard is proposed a solution to control key chaos, i'd choose the escape key!
Re:wrong (Score:1, Interesting)
The way I work around this is by having a custom key mapping in Linux that gives me áéíóúüñ without remapping any of the other keys. I wish it was as easy to set up a custom key mapping in Windoze.
foot pedals (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: The QWERTY Rumor (Score:3, Interesting)
I tried typing Dvorak. Used a typing tutor, remapped my keyboard at work and home, the whole works. After a few months, I was still slower and making more errors on dvorak than I had been on qwerty. And I couldn't use vi productively. I gave up and went back to qwerty.
The main way dvorak was "easier on the hands" for me was that it forced me to type slower. Other than that, I didn't really notice a difference.
I suspect 90% of the gain for people who notice a gain is that switching layouts forces them to train to a degree they hadn't recently (or perhaps ever) done and to pay more attention to their typing and hand position.
Re:wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
I use both vi and emacs extensively. I originally coded entirely in ed (I'm actually not kidding), and I still enjoy it. Then I started using vi (I was already using emacs at this time for most development work) for lots of short edits -- it was more convenient for remote sessions and sus and loaded faster, making it ideal for mutt.
I always hated vim, because it took what I perceived to be vi's primary selling point -- its light weight -- and perverted it beyong recognition. Check this out:
vim is a full fourth of the size of emacs! Keep in mind that emacs includes X11 support, and my vim doesn't have X11 support compiled in. I don't actually have nvi or better, Bill Joy's original vi installed on this system, but compared to how light-weight vi used to be, I always considered vim to be an evil editor, installing nvi on all of my machines instead.
Recently, though, I've been using vim much more, because it has good unicode support (nvi doesn't, at all) and I currently operate in a completely unicode environment. In the past, emacs kicked the crap out of vi in terms of internationalization -- it could do unicode-style editing before unicode existed. But emacs 21 has some random wackiness where utf-8 isn't considered a valid encoding for CJK, and since I work in China, that's a bit of a deal breaker. Emacs 22 is a unicode-based rewrite that aims to fix this, but you know how GNU is ... release Real Soon Now[tm].
So I installed vim. Now here's the point I'm getting around to: the mode key.
A lot of emacs users think the mode key in vi sucks donkey nuts. Similarly, every vi user makes jokes about the cryptic control character sequences used by emacs users. Personally, I'd never found either to be at all annoying. Until I started having to type Chinese in vi.
Up until then, I'd only ever used emacs for internationalized editing. Emacs rules in this respect. It has very nice input methods built into the editor -- by which I mean of course that they're written in elisp -- meaning that I don't have to rely on XIM or anything similar and can be sure that inputing stuff won't interfere with emacs' default user interface paradigm.
In vi, here's an example session:
Now, if I forget to exit the XIM, ESC typically does nothing (or sometimes, depending on the input method in question, will transparently be passed to the application) and then my vi editing keys go to the input method and not to vi! ARGH!
See, one mode is no problem -- but two, nested modes definitely are. I have to enter insert mode, then enter chinese input mode, then type, then exit chinese input mode, then exit insert mode, then type commands. Do you see how these two levels suck penis?
This is where the non-extensibility of an editor like vi really bites it in the butt. It would be cool if I could have one key that puts me into insert mode, and turns on the Chinese input method. Not possible to do, not the least because vi already uses pretty much every key.
In emacs, for comparison, I put myself in Chinese mode at the beginning, and because the characters I type that get inserted into the buffer (or in this case, fed to the input method system) are never interpreted as commands, I don't ever have the problem of emacs thinking that some characters I want to type are actually commands. When you don't need an IME, this isn't a problem -- but when you do, it's a pain in the butt.
That having been said, I'm quite fond of the modal system, most of the time. And I do use vi a lot (more than any other editor, nowadays, because it allows me to edit CJK-having utf-8 files). But this one thing about it is just infuriating.
And unfortunately, I don't see any way to really fix this, without completely destroying vi's input paradigm.
Re:Difficulty of change (Score:2, Interesting)
And faster? I doubt it could ever go faster than people can speak. By people I mean people who aren't horse racing commentators. BINGO! [perkigoth.com]
Re:wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
But ....
It would be cool if I could have one key that puts me into insert mode, and turns on the Chinese input method. Not possible to do, not the least because vi already uses pretty much every key.
Have you tried to map a key, using good old ":map"? I can go:
:map v ihello
and it maps the command mode "v" key to put me insert mode, enter the "hello", and leaves me in insert mode. I could put a ^V^[ on the end to escape back to cmd mode - but it sounds like you want to automate something that stays in input mode.Of course, you may have been trying this for the last year and have written a textbook on why this doesn't work ... but if you haven't, then it might be worth a try.
Note that you can stick the map into your .exrc to make it permanent. I usually use 'v', 'V', 'Q' for mappings, as they aren't used for anything I've ever found. Or you can use #1 to #9 for function keys. Also, note that :map! will define the map to work in insert mode, not cmd mode, so you can write "get me out of ins mode and then do something else" macros.
Have you ever seen that maze solver, written entirely in vi mappings? Awesome. Terrible. Nerve shaking. After I saw it, I had to write a useful expression solver the same way, just to prove that I still had any testicles at all ... :-)
Re:Actually, it's very clear (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ironically, that story isn't true (Score:3, Interesting)
The reports that Strong was biased and refused to provide his raw data come from another Dvorak disciple (Hisao Yamada), who later published other defenses of the Dvorak layout and was not above using odd analyses to interpret data as being in Dvorak's favor. Not exactly a sterling source.
Complaining that Windows (or QWERTY) won the market instead of your favorite is petty: free markets are pretty efficient, and if the benefits were as significant as you seem to think, somebody would have switched and saved a bundle in the long run.
Re: The QWERTY Rumor (Score:2, Interesting)
I am a capable DVORAK typist (0%err.approx. 45-55 wpm), and an excellent QWERTY typist (0%err.approx. 80-95 wpm).
I also suffer from incredible wrist and forearm pains from typing too long (or too fast).
Other hackers should be able to attest to this: under a good hacking session, that "0% error approximate" typing rate can go up quite a bit. I've had bursts of 5-12 minutes of well over 120wpm, with zero error.
I try and minimize those moments (when I notice they are happening) because it usually means my forearms are about to swell up and my wrists are about to stop responding without severe pains.
At first, when I was learning DVORAK I never had any pains- but I assumed this was because of the low typing speed, and in a way, I was right.
As I started picking up speed (and entering hack-mode in DVORAK), I noticed the pains coming. But even while barely reaching 45wpm in DVORAK, it was still hurting in about the same amount of time as my 85wpm QWERTY.
You see, when typing DVORAK, my hands certainly don't do much travelling, but I end up with enormous bias- using my left hand for several characters in a row, then getting a single right-hand key, before going back to the left hand. This lack of hand-travel definately contributed to learning how to type DVORAK very quickly.
When using QWERTY, on the other hand, my hands do MORE travelling (more still because of vi's escape-key fetish) but I find I'm using both hands more evenly. I've noticed that hand travel (however) doesn't stop my typing; i.e. my left hand will travel while my right is still typing.
Some say I can improve my DVORAK speed, and surely I know many folks that say their highest DVORAK speed is higher than their highest QWERTY speed. I also know of many more who haven't found any discernable difference in "top speed".
But note that I'm deliberately keeping my QWERTY speed down, as going MUCH too fast accelerates the pains.
Since DVORAK "hurts" at 50wpm where QWERTY "hurts" at 90wpm, I think it's easy to see why I use QWERTY to avoid hand/wrist pains.
Dvorak and me and studies and keyboards... (Score:4, Interesting)
I switched because less finger travel made my hands less tired at the same typing speed. I still use both layouts, but if I am typing a lot, I will use dvorak.
When I first thought about switching, I created an Excel macro to count finger reaches in QWERTY phrases and one for Dvorak. I also started making a list of common words that can be typed on the home row in each. In both of these endeavors, Dvorak won. roughly 25-30% less finger travel, more in some phrases. Many more common words on the home row.
Here http://www.kinesis-ergo.com/ [kinesis-ergo.com] is a company that makes ergo keyboards with vertical rows, QWERTY, Dvorak, or both.
History says:
The slant of the columns on the keyboard is an artifact left over from mechanical typewriters.
For those not acquainted with the story of the keyboards, here's a short version:
http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/jcb/Dvorak/ [mit.edu]
Lets bring some plain old reason (Score:3, Interesting)
You can troll all you want for qewrty or dvorak layout. You all seem to be missing a fundamental piece of the picture though.
When discussing what layout recquires least handmovement and so on, you all seem to assume everyone in the world types in english, or that all other languages in the world has the same basic construction of words with the same sounds.
Let me inform you, as I'm not even from a country where english is native language and am somewhat capable in at least three other languages, that this is definetly not the case. My effiency when it comes to words per minute is very dependent on what language I write. Not because I have to stop and think about the language, but because the keyboard mapping may be practical for that language or not.
So all you idiots trolling about qwerty or dvorak, would you please shut up? If you take into account that different languages relies on regular use of character combinations different from your english, you should easily be able to realize there is no such thing as an ultimate(tm) keyboard layout.
So please shut up, and try to think before you crap out any more nonsense.
Re:Ironically, that story isn't true (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, can you guess which layout I use? I hate to admit I'm wrong
In my own experience I must say I prefer Dvorak's layout - it's not perfect, but it's better. The simple idea of having the most commonly used consonants and the vowels on the home keys... why didn't that smack anybody in the face before? I didn't place my hands an the home keys when I used QWERTY - it didn't make sense to me to do so. Now I do as that's where it makes most sense for my hands to rest.
It's not all good - typos are weird (I get a lot of mexid vewols). Configuration can be a pain (some Linux distros do NOT work well with alternative layouts). Other people's computers make you look brand new, hunting and pecking, but on the upside nobody wants to use your computer
I'll agree that it's not for everybody, but for those of you willing to put up with the slight annoyances the benefits are plain to see.
Re: The QWERTY Rumor (Score:2, Interesting)
I never learned to touch-type properly - but I have been typing since I was about 5 years old (it's been decades since then). I can touch type now - but my "home configuration" has nothing to do with the traditional home rows - which I honestly do believe are ergonomically bad in design. The "home position" of my hands actually looks a lot like the position they would be in on an ergonomic keyboard -- slightly rotated.
(This means my gibberish doesn't look like adjlfhdlsfjl.. It looks like sdaopmeqcqwmwq)
If I try, I can touch-type over 100 words per minute (never timed it accurately), which is not a bad rate..
I'm not sure if I am an exception rather than a potential rule - being a musician, I am used to having my hands/fingers be somewhere very quickly without looking - but there is very little hand movement as I'm typing this.
Anyway, what I am suggesting is that perhaps the qwerty layout isn't at fault - that maybe it's the way we are taught to use it.
(Incidentally, I liked the post above mine, somewhere, about the alternating-hand advantage of qwerty... )