Talk:Dvorak keyboard layout

QWERTY & DVORAK Printed On One Keyboard

Hello.

I have an idea as to how DVORAK might gain more popularity. Basically, you would have a keyboard that has the normal QWERTY characters printed on it black on the top left of each key as usual, and then, on the bottom right of each key, you have the DVORAK key characters printed in red. That way, people could try out DVORAK without much hassle, and if they didn't like it, they could just go back to QWERTY. It would also be good for people who share computers- like, if you want to use DVORAK you can, then the other user just switches back to QWERTY. What do you guys think? Doom jester 11:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a good idea, and one that is already occasionally implemented. Regardless, it is irrelevant what we think, since it is our job to tell the way things are, not dream up new ideas for ways to make it better. Also, Dvorak, being named after the designer rather than following a particular series of keys on the layout, should not be typed in block capitals. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 17:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any links to examples of such keyboards, printed with both? The availability of such technology could be notable somewhere in the article, but I don't know of them. Klalkity (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wondering...

Can the information in this webpage be added to the wikipedia article? I wrote that post myself, and it is in my personal blog. But I think it would help Dvorak enthusiasts a lot, and may even help more people accept the layout, reducing the time required to set up Dvorak on public computer. > http://thehunk.blogspot.com/2006/10/d-of-dvorak.html

--ADTC 16:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

ADTC, I don't believe such a link would be appropriate. While the information will certainly be useful to some Dvorak typers (although I have to wonder how you propose to run the program on public terminals, most of which do not allow downloads and/or running downloaded applications), Dvorak Simplified Keyboard is an encyclopedic article about the certain phenomenon, not a collection of tips and tricks for Dvorak enthusiasts. If there is a Dvorak manual on wikibooks, your link might be appropriate there. Here, not so much.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your response. I understand it's not appropriate according to Wikipedia standards.

The program can be run on any Windows computer, provided the computer explicitely does not block downloading and running applications. This means that Windows itself should not be blocking the running of the application. Even if there are rules regarding usage of public terminals, Windows would be unaware of such rules and allow the user to run any application, unless a group policy was edited by the Admin to block it. I assume such is not possible as I've never seen a computer which automatically blocks download and running of programs. (For example, my college has rules that I am not supposed to download and run applications in the computers. But none of the computers have set Windows to not allow such. So I can run them.)

--ADTC 07:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. The computers of two public libraries I am occasionally using here are set up so they do not allow downloading and running downloaded apps. Apps on a flash USB drive are a different matter though; your little app might come in handy then. I'll certainly give it a try next time I need to use the library computer.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Shortcut Support

This discussion continues from Shortcut Support in Archive 1. To read older parts of this discussion, please view Talk:Dvorak Simplified Keyboard/Archive01#Shortcut Support

Err... this is getting nowhere. Just chuck the whole thing. It's not working in your Word, and well, I have nothing I can do to correct that. To answer your question, I modified the original Qwerty layout to create this layout. And so it's internally Qwerty, not Dvorak (referring to your last sentence above).

On a side note, the keyboard layout doesn't actually change to Qwerty when Ctrl is pressed. Every keyboard layout has two layers. One is the base and the other is the output. Base is naming of each key position. Output is what is given out when I press a key. The Base for my layout is Qwerty while the output layer is Dvorak. Ctrl key is supposed to look at the base layer, not the output layer. Anyway if this also doesn't clear things up don't bother wasting your time whacking your brain. It's not working for you and there's nothing (100% sure about that) I can do to correct it. Really sorry about it, maybe you should try for some other solution! --ADTC 07:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This probably won't be terribly helpful, but Mac OS X has a built-in layout called Dvorak-QWERTY [command], which does exactly what you're describing. However, I find that in the long run it's better to switch over to Dvorak for the command keys as well. It takes longer to change the automatic Command-S/N/X/C/V/whatever than changing layouts, but in the end it is nice not to rely on a custom layout. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 07:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about this getting nowhere! That is what I mean, about it perhaps being base Dvorak rather than base QWERTY. Ah well, it remains as a tool anyway!martianlostinspace 11:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

To clear things up:

Base Layer	Output Layer	Description
QWERTY	QWERTY	The standard Qwerty layout
QWERTY	Dvorak	The custom layout I have here (Shortcuts are supposed to follow Qwerty)
Dvorak	QWERTY	No use! Normal typing will yield characters according to Qwerty layout (Shortcuts are supposed to follow Dvorak!)
Dvorak	Dvorak	The standard Dvorak layout

IntrigueBlue, that's better and that's what I'm doing. I no longer use Qwerty even for shortcuts. The only reason I would use Qwerty is when I need to type with one hand (while the other hand is doing something else). Another reason why I have Qwerty installed is when my friends want to use my laptop, they can.--ADTC 20:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if you do a lot of cutting, copying and pasting but no typing, you can temporarily switch to Qwerty layout for doing so. Please don't be confused, this suggestion has nothing to do with my custom layout.--ADTC 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You probably realise this already, but if you use QWERTY for typing with one hand, you could do that on Dk single handed.martianlostinspace 14:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wastage of time. I don't always type with one hand. Just once in a while. So learning a new layout altogether will be inefficient in my case. It will help someone who regularly types with one hand or is handicapped. For me, I'd just brush up on QWERTY once in a while, since I already know. For 50 sentences typed in Dvorak, I may type one sentence in Qwerty. So what's the point in learning the one-handed layout for just typing one sentence? --ADTC 22:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

QWERTY to Dvorak converter

There is a JavaScript-based QWERTY to Dvorak converter on my website which I believe works significantly better than the one linked in the article. Since it's my site I don't want to change the link (self-promotion and the rest), but I thought I'd point it out. If you agree with me go ahead and change the link. Compare the linked converter to mine. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you list the advantages of your page as compared to the one linked? Also, check out "Dvorak Assistant" and "Quicker Access to Dvorak Assistant" in External Links section. Thank you! --ADTC 08:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The linked version bugs quite badly with the use of the backspace key (it will only backspace once, and arbitrarily inserts spaces after you resume typing). Also, it is not possible to move the insertion point from the end of the typed text. However, it does have the benefit of not showing the gibberish QWERTY that is inputted. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 17:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Japanese and Dvorak

Poor OS integration with foreign languages. For example, on Windows XP, one can use the Japanese IME to type Japanese, but only in QWERTY, even if Dvorak is otherwise specified as the default keyboard layout.

It is possible to use the Japanese IME with a Dvorak layout in Windows but only by means of a registry edit. This probably is of no interest to the vast majority reading this article so I don't really see a need to change anything but I thought I'd just mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.255.239 (talk • contribs)

This is because Japanese has absolutely nothing to do with QWERTY. But it is mapped to a QWERTY keyboard so that all the people in Japan will have a fixed standard to type Japanese in. QWERTY, Dvorak and Japanese are all three unrelated keyboard layouts. You can remap Japanese to Dvorak, but there is absolutely no point in doing so. This is because Dvorak layout is based on English, not Japanese. All the Japanese letters will still be in random position, and would therefore not have any advantage over the QWERTY-based Japanese layout. I hope you understand what I mean to say.--ADTC 08:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Corrected your {{unsigned|86.29.255.239}}--ADTC 08:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the above poster is talking about the common method of typing Japanese using Roman letters, not by using the Japanese keyboard layout, which apparently is less popular, even with Japanese users. Obviously, a user used to typing Roman letters with the Dvorak layout would wish to do so regardless of the language the text was to be rendered in. The problem here lies with a poorly coded Japanese input method, though, and not with the Dvorak layout. Rōnin (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In Ubuntu I was actually was able to change the layout to Dvorak and still be able to type in Japanese ime. So it is possible, (at terminal I did #setxkbmap dvorak) at least in ubuntu. I think I disagree with ADTC just because dvorak has the vowels on the home row and Japanese almost always follows vowel, consanent, vowel pattern i.e. vowels are used a lot.For example 配列(means layout in japanese) in hiragana as はいれつ and in romanji(roman character representation of japanese) as "hairetsu" you type h a i r e t s u and space and it converts it to kanji. There is even a group in japan that has a dvorak layout customized for japanese Here (Worth adding to artical? maybe not...). So yeah it is possible to make a layout streamlined for Japanese. I really don't know why I'm even talking in this discussion as I don't even use dvorak anyways.--stan_the_fisher

Reverting Vandalism

Can anyone who deletes vandalism, check if the vandal replaced good text with vandalism, if so, revert to a previous, good version rather than just removing the vandalism

The current problem is that vandals are replacing the "overview" section with vandalism, and so when it's deleted/"fixed" the overview section remains missing -- Lee Carré 02:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

By default, vandalism is always reverted. This is because it's easier to revert than to go to Edit page and remove it manually. Also it ensures that the page returns to its previous state with 100% assurance. So, don't worry about it. If you find that a vandalism has been removed, but not reverted, feel free to revert to a version before the vandalism occured. Just make sure you include any legitimate edits which happened after vandalism was removed (not reverted).--ADTC 03:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough :)

I do my best to include any legitimate edits made after the vandalism, i believe in doing a through and proper job ;)

When vandalism occurs, what's the standard/default procedure for placing a notice on the user/IP page of the editor? I've just reverted another act of vandalism on this article, but don't know the accepted way to notify the user. -- Lee Carré 13:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out WP:TUSER and pick the template that seems the most appropriate. Remember to subst: it as explained on that page. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, great :) thanks -- Lee Carré 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

English-based typing versus Multiple languages as reason of not beating QUERTY

Strange, in this article I don't see nothing about different languages as reason to DSK not catching up. I mean, different languages have very different requirements to a "optimized" keyboard typing. However, Dvorak common (roman) letters are ONLY arranged for ENGLISH typing. Even in other language implementation, the common Roman letters remain in the same position, clearly ignoring the other language requirements. Also this article is very POV, the whole article is just a big propaganda telling how wonderful Dvorak is. SSPecter ^talk ♠ _{05:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)}.

That is because the only evidence against the ergonomic superiority of Dvorak is extremely biased itself. And, let's face it, who reads this article that doesn't already use the layout?

As for your point about other languages, it is true that Dvorak is optimized for English. However, all romance languages use similar word structure, so Dvorak in French would still be more ergonomically correct than QWERTY. Besides, how is QWERTY any more optimized for a completely different language than Dvorak is? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. For example: Words in Portuguese and Spanish are very similar, but are quite different from English. Indo-European languages rules ARE very similar, but word structure can be very different. For example: English use k, y and w as normal letters. However Portuguese abolish these letters in portuguese words (although it still use these letters in foreign words). Other letters can be poorly used (z, x and h in Portuguese, for example). There are many other word differences, like the usual th English sequence (see the H - T together in Dvorak?), which is not used in Spanish or Portuguese at all. I agree QWERTY dont have any optimization in key positions, but it is wrong implying Dvorak is globally better than QWERTY, and not just English-specific. And its foolish say Dvorak should be used instead of QWERTY without considering global needs (and not just American/British needs). SSPecter ^talk ♠ _{15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)}.

I think that there's very little to disagree about. Dvorak is likely to be better than Qwerty (or Azerty, or...) for most European languages. However, Dvorak is not optimized for any language other than English. The Dvorak keyboard for Spanish would have to include accents, the ñ letter, and so forth. According to [one comparison page], the 23d Psalm in Spanish was still 33% better in Dvorak than Qwerty. (I don't know how that applet handled accented characters or ñ.) Chip Unicorn 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also really, is that quite that big a deal? it seems like a nonissue to me. somehow, on my computer, theres this little red line that pops up underneath misspelled words. I have no idea where it came from and I cant stand this little red squiggly. so i took the liberty of spell checking your post. Thejakeman 04:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a big deal to people in jobs involving typing. And a big POV unproven propaganda-like article praising one thing (Dvorak) and condemning other (Qwerty) is simply wrong. Thanks for fixing my letters, by the way. ;) SSPecter ^talk ♠ _{15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)}.

Let's not confuse encyclopedic standards with reality. Any "independent research" you like, or Dvorak's himself, applied (again, "independent resaerch") to a corpus of any of the major traditionally latin-alphabet languages, will clearly show Dvorak as the winner over QWERTY. Unless you disbelieve everything except what is appropriate for use in Wikipedia (including the very application of academic content to a new question), you have to conclude that Dvorak is indeed superior to QWERTY. QWERTY's own inventor would agree. So would Dr. Dvorak, who would be well-qualified to say so, I might add. Apply his facts, Dvorak wins, hands down, even in the "wrong language", over QWERTY. Klalkity (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Because of a resumption in the spam-blanking by an anonymous vandal, I have re-protected the page from any editing by anonymous users. I'm not sure why they are targeting this page in particular and hope that we won't have to keep the protection on for long but I do think that we need to drive off this vandal. Rossami (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Why is this tag in here? I read the article and I didn't see any blatant weasel words. Can anyone elaborate on this? Also, this page should be archived again. I'd do it, but I haven't learned how.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

External links section

Please review Wikipedia:External_links before re-adding any of the huge number of external links I deleted from this article. Wikipedia is not a link farm or a link directory. (Even after deleting more links than I can count, there are 15 external links. That's more than enough for any article.) Rray 00:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think we ought to cut it back to a manageable size of say six links at most. I would suggest the following:

• DvZine.org - A website advocating the Dvorak layout with a webcomic zine
• Step by Step Guide to Switching to Dvorak - How to switch to Dvorak with minimal disruption to your work/life
• A Basic Course in Dvorak - by Dan Wood
• Dvorak vs QWERTY Tool - Comparison site that allows to calculate statistics of the different layout.
• The Fable of the Keys - Article by Liebowitz and Margolis questioning the Dvorak keyboard’s superiority.
• The Fable of the Fable - Web page questioning the credibility of "Fable of the Keys".

This would give us a good, manageable sample to start with. If anyone wants to add any more, we can discuss them on a case by case basis one at a time. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 16:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have Doomtech's guide to learning Dvorak added again? It might not be perfectly written, but it is a good method for learning Dvorak anyway. The less people who need to rearrange the keys the better. Best wishes, 62.16.207.52 06:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Nicho.

I'd be inclined to give a weak no, I'm afraid. There are a lot of high quality resources out there on switching to Dvorak, and we need to draw the line somewhere. One or two of the links in the list may be a little bit arbitrary, but the main idea is to just have a small representative selection. On the other hand, if other people think it is worth adding then I won't object. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 11:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this typing tutor: http://dvorak.nl/learn.plp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.100.113 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dvorak vs QWERTY Tool appears to be broken. I would however like someone else to verify before it is removed. Jincopunk 6 April 2009

Flaws with Dvorak

Yu frg ypf yr yfl. cb ',.pyf gocbi a ekrpat t.fxrapew yd. p.ognyo ,cnn oyprbiny p.o.mxn. brbo.bo.v [ Abrbfmrgo

Alh ,jt ,sfph tsf ,gppglupt ,alk ks hs kjak{ :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I give up. Translation, please? --Pendant 21:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. I don't exactly remember what this was about, but basically the text above is what you get when you try to type Dvorak on a QWERTY layout.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it might be, although I tried to 'translate' it and failed (I didn't try very hard, honest). If this is supposed to illustrate one of the 'flaws with Dvorak,' as the topic suggests, I don't see this as a 'flaw' at all. If it were, then a 'flaw with QWERTY', or indeed any layout, would be the ability to accidentally toggle to a different langage layout (as many systems allow) and continue typing using that, producing similar gibberish. --Pendant 15:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah if you roughly translate it: Tf you try to type in q,erty using a dvorak keyboard, the results will stronglt resemble. {anonymous} Zapjw ckw ;yrjw

To do this translation I just switch to QWERTY mode using my hotkey and typed it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.48.155 (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary fact tags

I just happened across this article and found some very unnecessary {{fact}} tags. For example, on the statement that most UNIX variants can be configured to use Dvorak. I don't think it's necessary to cite the existence of keyboard maps (and the xmodmap utility) to prove this -- every modern OS can manage keyboard layouts, it's not a fact that needs citing. Similarly, the fact that typing on a Dvorak keyboard when expecting QWERTY can lead to gibberish -- this is also obvious, when you hit the wrong keys, you'll get gibberish output. No citation needed. There are a lot more such tags which could be removed by someone with the desire to clean this up. -- dcclark (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Resistance to change section too long?

This section seems a bit over-long and rambling -- is it possible to prune it a bit? — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Microswitch?

The article refers to installing a microswitch in the back panel of an Apple. I've always heard that term used to refer to a snap-action momentary switch with a lever on it, as in the linked article. Surely it's a toggle or a push-on/push-off? --Yuubi 21:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• What is being called a microswitch here is in fact a DIP switch. —optikos (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Stan Liebowitz & Stephen E. Margolis: SHOULD TECHNOLOGY CHOICE BE A CONCERN OF ANTITRUST POLICY? should be added. —Zorro CX 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The argument against the DSK given by Liebowitz & Margolis is a strawman stuffed with wrong data, bad history and poor logic. More to the point, the central theme of the position they continue to maintain (despite such debunking as put forward so succinctly by Marcus Brooks in The Fable of the Fable) is totally irrelevant to the DSK, and would, in my opinion, serve only to rekindle tangential debate.--Pendant 19:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Developer Dvorak

http://www.siteuri.ro/dvorak/ddvorak.php The idea is based on Programmer Dvorak. Sorry my english.

tricky

God, has anyone ever tried typing "wikipedia" in Dvorak? I'm not that good overall yet, but it's the most excruciating word I've yet come across--worse that "puppyish", don't ask me why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.147.73 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A conspiracy!

I think I more or less wrote it off once I tried typing "David". Rōnin (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Where's the tilde

On a standard US-Dvorak keyboard? I can't sign my edits at home without switching back to qwerty! Tar7arus 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's to the left of 1 in the top (number) row (you have to hold SHIFT when typing it).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Tar7arus 18:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for references

A section is marked references requested. Here is a reference: http://web.syr.edu/~rcranger/blackburn.htm. It seems to verify that Apple produced a DSK in the early days. I found it by chasing the link in this article to the world typing speed record holder and my reference came off that Wikipedia page.

However, I must apologize that I have never submitted anything before and it looks a bit like 30 minutes to do the required reading to make proper updates, which is a barrier to me. So I did not update the article nor do I expect to be back here again, so use this or not as you see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.0.103 (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ref the Fact for "seeing a resurgence recently" text - well a few people (author+some friends) are mentioned on post at http://theironlion.net/blog/virgin-typing-very-first-time/ as using it. Enough? I have also never made a substantial edit before, unsure how to edit the Fact tag or include the link for the mo. This edit should remind me when/if I become more confident in future but feel free to edit/comment on this link/how to ref to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgbreezer (talk • contribs) 12:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The World's Fastest Typist

Barbara Blackburn, cited in the 'Notable users' section of the article as being "world typing speed record holder", no longer holds this record. She held this record from 1975 to 1985. There is no successor since Guinness stopped evaluating for the category of World's Fastest Typist in 1985, alledgedly because the lack of a standard layout prevented fair comparisons. So one can say that Ms Blackburn is the only record holder.

1. Mark Kislingbury of Houston, Texas, USA holds the Guinness World Record for using a stenotype machine(a). The National Court Reporters Association speed and real-time champion achieved 360 words per minute with 97.23% accuracy, at the NCRA 2004 summer convention on 30 July 2004.

2. Gregory Arakelian (USA), of Herndon, Virginia, holds the Guinness World Record for a standard keyboard(b). He set a speed record of 158 wpm, with two errors, on a personal computer in the Key Tronic World Invitational Type-Off. He recorded this speed in the semi-final, in a three-minute test, on 24 September 1991.

(a) confirmed (to me by email) by National Court Reporters Association Director of Communications Marshall Jorpeland

(b) Note that I have so far been unable to determine which 'standard keyboard' Mr. Arakelian was using! I've written to Guinness World Records Limited for confirmation (18th October 2007) - no response as yet... --Pendant 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've just today had a (very terse) letter signed by Sarah Wagner at Guinness World Records, London, stating that 'George Arakelian was using a QWERTY keyboard when he achieved his record typing speed.' Sadly, no references were cited in the letter at all. The reference to Barbara Blackburn as "world typing speed record holder" needs to be removed. --Pendant 15:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this published in a publicly available reliable source anywhere? If so, the article can be updated to say she was the former world record holder, but in any case the statement needs to stay in one form or another, because she is a notable user and was in fact instrumental in popularising the layout through her status as a world record holder. However, you do need to cite your sources. Snthdiueoa (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Escape Key

It seems like this article needs some discussion of the missing escape or 'esc' key. 76.24.213.203 20:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the Escape key, as well as of the function keys (F1 through F12), is not affected by the keyboard layout, hence there is no point of discussing them in this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguments why QWERTY is better than Dvorak

I have learnt Dvorak and I find QWERTY definitely better. 1) I have a weak right hand pinkie and Dvorak demands that this finger is highly active in jumping from L to S in any plural ending in LS and any word with the very common cluster SL.

2) In Dvorak, your fingers are locked up for lots of combinations 'digraphs', while in QWERTY, you use one finger from each hand. An example of this is GH - a tremendously common digraph in English (and Dutch) and the qwerty solution is far superior to Dvorak - the forefinger of each hand like tapping a drum. Dvorak has the same finger jump from G to H which is less satisfactory.

3) QWERTY has some brilliant/neat solutions like the WERT - so that the word WERE WE SWERVE etc (Nothng in Dvorak matches the speed of WERE on QWERTY. And backwards REW FOR REWIND, FLOWER, POWER, FEWER, LOWER etc.

Then QWERTY uses the pinkie and the forefinger of the same hand in combination as in PH and AT. That gives stability to the hand as a whole similar to using the pinkie and thumb in piano playing. The fingers don't work, the larger muscles of the arm do. Using a Chinese brush to do calligraphy, the fingers do not work so much as the larger muscles of the arm and this is less tiring. The same principle is used in QWERTY with PH and AT ST. This is exactly the opposite of how Mr Dvorak explained it in his book - that the greater distances between two keys makes things difficult as if you had to go a long way on a journey to the shops. Nonsense.

Dvorak did not design his own keyboard. There were lots of typewriters with all the vowels on one side.

Sholes, who invented the typewriter from the beginning did not arrange the layout to slow people down so the keys would not stick. Dvorak sold typewriters and needed to increase sales.

Sholes had a journalist use his machine who made switches in qwerty that we have today. The military or air force test (the only one)where typists learn Dvorak from scratch and increased their speed above their old QWERTY speeds was conducted by Dvorak himself.

For my own part I did the following experiment. Having learnt QWERTY and Dvorak I took a keyboard and starting from the Dvorak layout, started to improve Dvorak by switching keys around. Although the new combinations you create are faster, you lose other quick combinations - nothng beats WERE in qwerty for speed and it is really your own frustration with your typing technique - especially if you do not play a musical instrument.

A pair of philosophers wrote an article that questioned all of Dvorak's and Dvorak's present day advocates putting some of the above points.

However, Dvorak was asked to design a one-handed layout for someone who lost the use of one hand, and there are Dvorak layouts for one-handed use for the right and left hand in Mac and in Windows.

Changing from QWERTY to Dvorak frees the hand up because the layout is different, but while particular stresses in QWERTY are solved, other stresses (LS and SL) are introduced.

As for people claiming that it is easy to switch back and forth between the two systems, this is not true. Unlike a musical instrument, you do not have a sound - audible feedback that puts you on the right track and you inevitably mix the one up with the other.

Why putting the vowels bunched together on one hand is better is not explained logically anywhere, and IE and EI combination is easier if you the middle finger of each hand used alternately.

Dvorak explains that it is an advantage to have the vowels on one side as most words are consanant/vowel alternately. This is not true in English which does not have accents over letters like Ö and Å and instead uses vowel combinations - as saint, pea, thought ai, ea, ou, ai etc.

And yet, in vowel pairs: ea ae ie ei etc, ie and ei are on QWERTY typed with alternate middle fingers, whch is a good thing. So the argument that English is composed of consonant/vowel/comsonant combinations falls apart - and the argument for having all the vowels on one side with it.

Dvorak was essentially a salesman for his own products and distinguished himself by sticking to the outmoded layout of having vowels on one side that he did not invent himself. He used enthusiasm and arguments that do not hold together as few people used both systems perfectly, and most of those who used typewriters were women and they were not supposed to out-argue men in an office environment.

I do have a problem with Dvorak with this L and S thing. QWERTY has Q and A on the little finger which is not an active combination except in Arabic words like Qatar.

Dvorak is ok, but QWERTY is better.

Most languages use QWERTY with only very slight changes, such as the French AZERTY (they have a frequent combination EZ. But there is a Canadian keyboard keeping QWERTY.

Most languages have more than five vowels, and the requirement to keep the vowels on one side of the keyboard - which is the only thing that identifies Dvorak cannot be met in any case.

Dvorak users do not, in practice, show higher speeds than the fastest QWERTY typists.

In any case the basic layout of the keyboard with two free vertical rows in the middle - TY, GH and BN in QWERTY is the same. Because Dvorak gives less chance to relax the fingers, I find that at fast speeds it causes me more pain than QWERTY.

Dvorak argues that it is better to make the right hand do more work, while on QWERTY the left hand is too busy. This argument does not hold water either. most string instrument players - who are right handed - use the right hand for plucking or bowing and the difficult delicate fingering is done by the left hand. The left hand is more active in those who play wind instruments, the right hand coming in for the lower notes only. Most left-handed people do not play stringed instruments the other way around in any case, although it is possible. RPSM (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Original Dvorak Layout

If anyone were to click on the link in this article that leads to the patent of dvorak, they would get stuck and need to download a tiff alternatiff, therefore I would like to inform you what is hiding there. The original layout indeed had the keys for "pyfgcrl" in the top row but... The letter Z is on the wrong side of the image in this article. In this article's diagram Z appears to the far right while in reality dvorak's patent has Z on the far left. The symbols are positioned differently too. The hyphen is on the far right of the home row in this article's diagram whereas the layout Dvorak patented has the hyphen in the bottom row. In this article's diagram the semicolon is in the bottom row on the left while the layout dvorak patented has it in the top row. I indulge you with a diagram of the patent. >>>Please include this diagram in the article.

    ;   ,   .   P Y F G C R L 
    A   O   E   U I D H T N S
    Z   Q   J   K X B M W V -

24.44.79.177 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)ben

OR you could add a link to the specific patent at http://www.google.com/patents --Cogburnd02 (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the layout showed into original patent is different. Does anyone understand what character you'd get by shifting '.' (dot)? Maybe the patent is expired and you could include a picture of the layout in this article. Also, what function have keys on the right of 'L' and 'S', which are showed as blank?

Pronunciation?

Is the IPA right? I read the listed as dv oo r ahk. I think it should be dv ore ahk. In other words, should the oɹ instead be ɔr, ɔər, or ʊəɹ? 199.46.200.233 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I was never good with the IPA format, but I thought it would be something like: dvɔɹʒɑk as "duh-vore-beige-ack -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some clarity on this. In fact, it is the reason I came to this page: to get an accurate pronunciation. I would guess that I am not alone in this. I have heard it both duh-vore-ack and duh-vore-beige-ack . My understanding is the first is the correct. In other words, it is not like the composer's name. 199.46.199.233 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I say it the way I suggested because that's how my father taught me, and he's British, so maybe it's a British thing? -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, on the Dvorak wikitionary talk page, someone made a similar comment:

Is there also a pronunciation like /ˈdvɔː(r)ʒɑːk/? That would work for the Czech composer spelled "Dvořák" but maybe the name of the keyboard is further anglicized/americanized...

--MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the composer's name has the ʒ (beige) sound, while the keyboard layout has an ɹ sound (or whatever your dialect of English does with r's). The exact quality of the first vowel also likely depends on your dialect: any of o, ɔ, ɔə, or ʊə are reasonable. -- Arthaey (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Antonin Dvorak, lol, ...

...is the composer, August Dvorak the ed psych and inventor of the kb. I've changed it accordingly --Mongreilf (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Electric Typewriter caused interest

I'm not sure and I don't have any sources, but I think "Improvements in typewriter design made key jams less of a problem, but the introduction of the electric typewriter in the 1930s made typist fatigue more of a problem. This caused an increase in interest in the Dvorak layout.[citation needed]" is false. There wasn't an increase in interest in Dvorak because it hadn't been invented yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanperson0 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Svorak

Does Svorak really need a separate page? Pretty much everything there is reproduced in this article. Vquex (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should be merged under a new section called "Variations" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.48.155 (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's actually already mentioned under the "other languages" category. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why no scientific tests on Qwerty vs Dvorak performance?

I taught myself to touch type when I was about 16, and on a portable manual typewriter. It was about the handiest thing I have ever done, because I have always done my own typing, and average about 60 wpm on a computer keyboard. I have often wondered why the outmoded QWERTY is STILL standard, even when everything else about typing has changed so much.

I read many years ago that Dvorak minimised the distance the fingers had to travel by putting the most used keys on the home row, as well as on the keys used by the strongest fingers. Figures I read earlier were that Dvorak cut finger distance travel by about 30% over Qwerty which means you could either type a lot faster, or type at the normal speed but go easier on your fingers, with less chance of Repetitive Strain Injury.

I find it astonishing to read—here and elsewhere—that tests on the merits of the two systems “are inconclusive”. We are talking about entirely measurable quantifiable operations here, which can be researched for next to nothing in monetary outlay, by just about anyone. What, we have a Large Hadron Collider looking at the early universe, but tests on keyboard layout efficiency “are inconclusive’? Bollocks!

My idea would be that someone could write a simple program that begins by randomly allocating a virtual keyboard position to every letter and adds up the distance that has to be covered by moving from one letter to the next in a piece of input text. So the program would generate a particular keyboard layout, and the operator would then input a sizeable piece of text, say about 100 pages, and the program would measure how far fingers resting on home keys would have to travel to type the entire piece of text. If the program also included an average finger movement speed, it could also tell you long a competent typist would take to type that text.

The first thing you would measure would be the performance of Qwerty and Dvorak and the other candidate arrangements. At least such a system would give you measurements on the notional efficiency and speed of one system over another which had scientific and mathematical credibility.

By getting the program to test ALL the possible keyboard layouts, we could well come up with one which is better than any of the other candidates, and would be notionally the most efficient layout of all. Of course, there are other criteria to be considered apart from pure finger movement distance. The stronger fingers should have more work to do than the weaker ones, the work should be roughly equal for both hands, and awkward movements when fingers have to move down a row should be minimised, speed and dexterity measures would have to be adjusted for the different fingers, digraphs should not be adjacent and so on. But the initial program could be rejigged to give weight to all these other variables. Why has nothing like this been done? A program like that could be written by any amateur coder.

Of course the usual anal retentive will now post in and tell me that “this is not the place to canvass new ideas, no matter how brilliant”, so I am going to post this on the Wikipedia Computer Research Desk. As well as here. Myles325a (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Like this? It's in a link from one of the external links. However, he's hardly an expert and it isn't exactly the kind of source which would meet the terms of WP:RS. --Izno (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually so easy to measure. Just about everyone has years of experience with the QWERTY keyboard, so it takes a LOT of training to make a comparison, and people who would be interested in doing so aren't really a random sample. It took months for my Dvorak speed to surpass my previous QWERTY speed (~60wpm) and eventually peaked at 10-15 wpm faster. Once I let myself type QWERTY again when it was necessary, that speed had plummeted, but eventually came up to 10-15 wpm slower than my old speed. But it wasn't a controlled enough test to conclusively rule out that my QWERTY speed wouldn't have improved with similar training (though I'm pretty sure it's the layout.) I do know that it feels like less work than QWERTY, but my personal experience doesn't belong in the encyclopedia; I hesitate even to put it in the discussion. Craig Butz (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a program that compares typing on various documents and books. The author concluded that Dvorak takes about 38% less finger travel than QWERTY. http://www.integrity.com/homes/tomandkaren/Keymileage/ --WikiBum (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed overload

"Piers Anthony, author of the Xanth novels[citation needed]" - eh? It's disputed that he wrote the Xanth novels? Will any one of the Xanth novels with his name on the cover do as a reference, or would they be considered too primary? --81.171.134.226 (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Citation needed" doesn't mean that the factoid is "disputed", just that a reference is needed. In theory, since Wikipedia is not supposed to feature so-called "original research", every single contribution should have a corresponding reference. In practice, much of the submitted material doesn't, but unsupported material can always be "challenged and removed", especially if the "citation needed" tag was applied first to request a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.159.162 (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Studies

This article is a mess as far as mentioning studies. There is no mention of claims or studies that show (or do not show) whether Dvorak is better than Qwerty. Even August Dvorak's original claims are not mentioned! Instead, the "Resistance to adoption" section starts with mentioning the "resistance" without saying what is being resisted. There is a phrase that says "however, Liebowitz notes that..." without mentioning who on earth Liebowitz is. (In fact it's the only mention of Liebowitz in the article proper.)

Anyway, I came here to mention Donald Norman and Diane Fisher's paper Why Alphabetic Keyboards Are Not Easy to Use: Keyboard Layout Doesn't Much Matter from Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Volume 24, Number 5, October 1982 , pp. 509-519(11), which ought to be mentioned in the article as well. (Quick summary: For *beginners*, alphabetical, QWERTY, Dvorak, and random arrangements of keys are all equivalent, and for experts, Dvorak (ASK) is 10% better than Qwerty, and alphabetical layouts are quite bad.)

[I'm reading his The Design of Everyday Things; he also cites the book Cognitive aspects of skilled typewriting, edited by J.K Cooper (1983), New York: Springer-Verlag, which contains more on this.] Shreevatsa (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dvorak is a con

The article should link to http://www.reason.com/news/show/29944.html which does a pretty good job of debunking the myths about Dvorak keyboards being better. Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it now? I'm not sure it's the same article as mentioned here [1], but the authors are the same. As an aside, I'm rather astounded by the "if X was superior to Y it would have prevailed" thing. Some people seem to be way to attached to their pet economic theory (usually ideologically motivated, no less). 85.226.59.234 (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Examples of non-English Dvorak keyboards?

In other European languages, letter frequencies, letter sequences, and digraphs differ from English. Also, many languages have letters that do not occur in English. For non-English use, these differences lessen the supposed advantages of the original Dvorak keyboard. However, the Dvorak principles have been applied to the design of keyboards for these other languages.

Could we get some examples of these, or links to articles or images discussing them? 64.85.240.2 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Notable users

Should this section really be here? I understand that it is significant that a world typing speed record was set using dvorak, but this is mentioned earlier in the article. That these other people use it is really not significant (who cares which keyboard some random fantasy author and a former microsoft executive use?). To keep things even, we should add a notable users section for QWERTY keyboards. It will be long. NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 07:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. In an overwhelmingly QWERTY world, it is quite significant that alternatives such as Dvorak are used by notable people. As long as the individuals concerned meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and the fact that they use Dvorak is verifiable, then there's no reason whatsoever to remove them. Why did you do it (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The page on reference [16] is down (permanently)

The page on reference [16] is down. It's this page: http://web.syr.edu/~rcranger/blackburn.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.118.182 (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hurdling

Section 2.2 states that "there are no words requiring a hurdle on the Dvorak layout" and it's even cited. However, it isn't true. "Starve" and "Harvey" require hurdling. Though, to be fair, the same words require it on the QWERTY layout. The Luizer (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good point, the article should be changed to reflect that. Would you happen to have a source for that? --WikiBum (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Slow down the typist

The purpose of the qwerty keyboard was not to slow down the typist, as urban legend has it. Whether keys jammed was more a function of key location than speed. You could hit e.g. "th" faster without jamming if the typebars were further apart. A study suggests that placing commonly used keys apart actually speeds things up.--Louiedog (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be clearer if I explain the mechanics of the jamming. When Sholes made his typewriter, touch typing was not in existence then and people had to hunt-and-peck. Thus, if 2 keys were in close proximity to each other, then people could hunt-and-peck those 2 keys in quick succession (since they were close to each other) and that quick succession would cause the jam because the second type bar would come up and jam the first type bar as it was coming down. Thus when Sholes scattered the digraphs, hunt-and-peckers would not be able to peck digraphs as fast because they had to move their hand further along the keyboard to peck the second key, slowing down the digraph sequence and allowing more time for the first typebar to fall back into place before the second typebar came up. It was this slowing of the digraph typing that reduced the jamming. Thus, the jamming was a function of the speed, and to your point (and as Sholes recognized), the speed was a function of the location of the digraphs. Essentially, Sholes was able to reduce jamming by slowing the digraph typing speed by hunt-and-peck typists. If I missed something about the mechanics please let me know.

In addition, the study you cited has been questioned. [[2]]--WikiBum (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Two-handed hunting and pecking still makes it possible to hit two keys in very fast succession, wherever those keys happen to be located. There's no reason keys not adjacent to each other would necessarily take longer to stamp out. More sources that show "slowing down" to be urban legend:

Despite the commonly held belief, the Qwerty keyboard was not actually invented to slow down typists and thereby reduce typewriter jams. It was created to reduce jams, yes, but it did this by separating common letter pairs from each other. It also attempted to increase speed by having many letter pairs on different hands.

Legend has it that the QWERTY keyboard was also made intentionally clumsy (only one vowel in the home row, for instance) in order to slow down typists and further reduce the possibility of jamming.

reason.com also debunks.--Louiedog (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: Additionally, if you've ever used a typewriter, you'll notice that the easiest keys to jam are those right next to each other. This is because the trajectories of the two typebars have so much overlap that the path of one takes a good deal of time to clear the path of the other. The further away keys have minimal overlap in their trajectories; hence the next letter can begin sooner without clashing. If Sholes really wanted to slow down the typist on successive keystrokes, he wouldn't have put the most common digraph "th" on opposite hands, especially not in the most central place where the fingers are most likely to be anyway.--Louiedog (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently traveling and I'm at the airport now and I don't have much time to look into the sources. I promise to look at them objectively and I look forward to continue our discussion later and I hope that we can continue to handle this professionally. --WikiBum (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You might also want to look into the qwerty article. They have a higher quality source basically attesting to the same thing. As far as I can tell from searches, the "he tried to slow down the typist" idea was conjured up somewhere in the effort to justify Dvorak as a superior format and everybody else just assumed it was a legit story and copied it down the line.--Louiedog (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can someone please add a pronunciation guide of the usual type (eg. "pro-NUN-see-AY-shun") alongside the IPA one? I speak for most of the world when I say that I can't read IPA.76.75.115.163 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No criticism of the Dvorak layout?

There are new keyboard layouts that are better than Dvorak, for example, Klausner, Colemak, CarpalX, and others.

Common criticisms of Dvorak include:

• Dvorak overuses the pinky and ring fingers - especially the pinky stretch to reach the frequent letter L.
• the awkward lateral stretch to reach the frequent vowel letter I.
• The fact the top-ten frequent letter R isnt even on the home row.
• The letter R in the top row requires a ring finger stretch.
• Punctuations kill relatively prime key positions, instead of being on the bottom row.

The CarpalX site publishes a scientific comparison of the various popular keyboards. This page has a friendly chart showing the results of the study, and compares many keyboard layouts. (QWERTY sucks compared to all of them.) http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?popular_alternatives

The study evaluates the keyboard according to 'base', 'stroke', and 'penalty'. Unfortunately, the definitions for these terms exist elsewhere on the site, but they are straightforward.

• Base: how 'reachable' the most frequent keys are. The most frequent letters should be under the fingers in the home positions, whereas the least frequent letters should be in the bottom row or the awkard lateral stretches of the top row.
• Stroke: how easy it is to type letter combinations. Frequent letter combinations should be done with alternating hands or else by a single-hand 'roll' (like drumming the fingers), to ensure speed, accuracy, and comfort. Using the same finger for different letters in the combination is bad. Hopping up and down between the top row and the bottom row is bad.
• Penalty: counted separately, the overuse of the 'weak' ring and pinky fingers, which are less dexterous and shorter than the middle and fore fingers.

The main point of the findings is, these typing components are ultimately conflictive. For example, if all the most frequent letters are within relatively easy reach (good base), then this may cause certain frequent letter combinations to become awkward (bad stroke) and overuse of the weak fingers (bad penalty), or so on. Thus, it is possible to have different kinds of layouts, each making tradeoffs, to specialize in one component at the expesne of an other. (Tho, it should be noted, QWERTY sucks at all three components.)

Of the popular optimal keyboards, the study considers the Colemak the best, requiring the least overall effort in terms of base plus stroke plus penalty. Klausner is almost as good overall, but actually is slightly better in terms of base plus stroke, but at the cost of a slightly higher penalty. The statistical analyses suggest two keyboard configurations that improve on the Colemak success, doing slightly better in all three catagories. Then, the study offers the 'CarpalX keyboard' (generated from the computer-simulated statistical evolutions of each component), that is dramatically better at stroke and penalty, but at the cost of a slightly less good base, because it intentionally avoids using the ring and pinky thus reducing access to frequent letters. Even so, the CarpalX layout preforms significantly better than the Dvorak in all three components.

Despite how supremely important the keyboard is to the 20th and 21st centuries, this seems to be the only study of its kind. (In English anyway, presumably the German 'Neo Keyboard' derives from scientific comparisons of keyboards of several languages.) AFAICT, even the inventors of other keyboards seem to refer to the CarpalX study and no other studies. If you can plow thru the unfriendly statistical analyses, its quite a fascinating study. This page has links to statistical models and analyses. http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/ Haldrik (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)