Talk:Dvorak keyboard layout

Archives

Archive 1

Article Creation and Improvement Drive

Please include your discussions about improving DSK to Featured Article status under this subheading. Thank you for your contributions in advance. --ADTC 08:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Shortcuts

I can personally attest the difficulties in using the Dvorak layout regarding keyboard shortcuts. I would also like to point out, however, that on the Macintosh (OS X at least) it automatically reverts to QWERTY when the modifier keys are pressed. IMO it's this level of attention to user friendiness that makes Apple far ahead of the competitors.

I don't have any trouble using keyboard shortcuts with Dvorak any moreso than in qwerty. mnemonic 05:47, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

So you're saying that Mac OS is user-friendly because it suddenly reverts the keyboard layout you set up without any warning? Hmmm. — flamingspinach | (talk) 06:29, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Mac OS X has two Dvorak layouts, one which reverts to QWERTY when meta keys are pressed, and one that does not. Windows has no such option by default (maybe someone has made a layout for download?).

I've created a new keyboard layout called "United States-Dvorak with Qwerty-based Modifier Key support". It can be downloaded from here: http://send2adtc.googlepages.com/DvQwMod.zip

Limitations: I think the Alt key still follows the Dvorak layout, though Ctrl key follows Qwerty layout. If you find that this limitation is wrong, please feel free to delete this statement.

Also, if I'm not wrong, Stamina Typing Tutor doesn't recognise that you're using Dvorak layout when you are using this custom layout. It only recognises so when you use the standard Dvorak layout that comes pre-installed with Windows. You need to manually set Stamina to Dvorak if you use this custom layout.

This works only on NT based systems, I suppose. I have tried on Windows XP only. The setup file is an MSI file, that is a Windows Installer Package. --ADTC 16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you prounounce Dvorak? August_Dvorak's article says /dvOr{k/, is that similar to duh-vor-ack? The article should probably say.

BTW, I'm typing this (very slowly) in Dvorak right now. w00t!

The first syllable is pronounced like "door" with a v after the d. The "dvor" is one syllable. The second syllable is pronounced "ack".

I copied the pronunciation from Wiktionary, but it looks wrong, so I'm going to get somebody else to help.  :) Foofy 21:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

i wish there were just more user awareness

I think there would be many willing to switch if they just knew what the heck Dvorak is, and the support behind it. mnemonic

Agreed. The stumbling block I see is the perceived wisdom NOT to acquire physical dvorak layout keyboards. I see the 'don't get a physical keyboard' mantra as being counter-productive.

It's my belief that if more people could be encouraged to give the Dvorak layout a try using a keyboard with the dvorak layout, then the existence of the keyboard itself, actually on desks, actually in plain view, would become a conversation piece, encouraging awareness.

Many (most?) people these days are 'hunt-and-peckers', not touch-typists.

Children especially, in the main, do not learn to type by touch-typing! We are doing our youngsters no favours at all by not placing a dvorak keyboard in front of them at the earliest possible age. Pendant 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Is typing digraphs with adjacent fingers difficult?

Maybe it was true when typewriters were all-mechanical, and typist had to hit the keys violently. But now, with near-zero force applied to the keys, it's much easier to type with adjacent fingers, and with adjacent keys, than with distant keys. At least for me. And, at least for me, its much easier to type when I don't alternate hands frequently. It's possibly due to nerves' length that fingers of one hand are easier to synchronize. Grzes 10:00, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have you tried Dvorak? It is immensely easier. --130.215.170.204 22:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

On Dvorak, English digraphs are more frequently on adjacent keys. Furthermore, they almost always direct inward. Look at the home row. S-->N-->T-->H. So words like isn't, snot, this, that, the, and ant take no time to type.

I think Dvorak is better. I am typing this on Dvorak.

NPOV inconsistency?

"Dvorak conducted several studies in the late 1940s which showed that QWERTY typists could be retrained to the Dvorak keyboard, reached their original speed within 2-3 months and gained up to an additional 30% as they gained further proficiency (as measured in words per minute). Subsequent researchers have been unable to repeat his results, usually showing that there was little difference in efficiency between QWERTY and Dvorak layouts. The methodologies of the various studies remain points of intense controversy."

Accoding to this paragraph, which appears late in the article, the Dvorak layout is not clearly, obviously, and demonstrably better and faster than the QWERTY layout. There is, in fact, only one study that indicates this, and there are (according to this paragraph) several which indicate approximately equal efficiency.

Is this accurate? If so, why is it listed under "Resistance to change" (which seems to imply that the researches are only saying this because they are resisting change)? It seems to me that "Even though many feel that the principles on which the Dvorak keyboard is based make it superior to the older QWERTY" is also a bit too strong. (It doesn't say who the "many" are. Are they the Dvorak users? How many are they, that is, 100,000 compared to how many QWERTY users? According to the paragraph I quoted above, most researchers have not been able to corroborate this claim.)

I realize that this is, of course, a controversial question; I don't want to decide on an answer, just to more toward an NPOV presentation of the facts.[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Without checking the article, it looks like that paragraph is parrotting what the Reason article stated. That article has been proved to be full of fallacies and just plain lies. Dvorak is easier and simpler to use for 99% of people (once they get used to the layout). I won't delete the paragraph since I don't know the source, but all the literature I've come across (except for the said article) states that the Dvorak layout is easier than QWERTY. I know several people who use it: all swear by it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:16, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Of COURSE the people who use it all swear by it -- otherwise, they wouldn't use it, since it's non-standard.71.32.109.22 16:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps the paragraph should be deleted. If it's unsubstantiated and quite possibly false, it could easily be misleading to people relying on the article for informational content. Most people won't read the history page to realize the information is dubious. I will admit to having a bias. My WPM went from 30 to 60 after learning Dvorak, but that was partly from training myself to type without looking at the keyboard (since it was still labeled for QWERTY). AlphaEtaPi 05:36, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Okay, I deleted it. If you want to restore, please discuss here first. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:30, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I do want to restore the paragraph. The existance of the studies on both sides of the debate are verified (and, in fact, are cited in some of the links at the bottom of the page). The arguments and counter-arguments about the appropriateness of the methodologies used and/or the motivations for the studies are also well documented and verifiable. I believe the text of that paragraph presented the dispute in a reasonably fair and NPOV manner. The article is poorer without a discussion of the dispute. Frecklefoot's assertion that "Dvorak is easier and simpler to use for 99% of people" is not supported by any academic study that I know of. (By the way, I think he's right. I just don't think anyone's proven it yet.)

I have no opinion on the original question of whether the paragraph's inclusion under the heading "Resistance to change" created an appearance of bias. Rossami 17:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed it because I suspected it came from the Reason article, the validity of which has be hotly disputed and I've read several articles that disprove many of the article's claims. The authors' methodology was also questioned. The authors of that article clearly had a bias when they wrote the article: they wanted to discredit the Dvorak layout. The fact that Reason even published such drivel is sad.

Those articles (I think there are actually two) were by the same authors and share the same bias. They are the only source of any controversy that I know of. Two feeb's bias does not a controversy make (IMHO). No one but these two authors have disputed the superority of the Dvorak layout. I don't want to add weight to their argument by including their disproven assertions in an article. The article is better without such conspiracy theory, IMHO. Even the US government agrees it is superior, but change is just hard.

I would agree to adding it back in with a disclaimer, stating that numerous people have disputed the authors claims and pointed out falsehoods in their article. If one can be added in a NPOV manner, go for it. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:38, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Inboard stroke flow?

I'm somewhat confused by this passage:

Stroking should generally move from the edges of the board to the center (as an example, rap your fingers on a table and see which is easier: going from pinkie finger to index or index to pinkie). This motion on a keyboard is called inboard stroke flow.

It implies to me that it's easier to rap your fingers from pinkie to index, but I tend to "jam up" when I do that, and going from the index to the pinkie flows more naturally. I'm also only able to do that on my right hand; I "jam up" either way when I do it on my left. Am I just a freak of nature, or is that passage wrong? Gus 02:25, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

I don't know if you're a freak, but I also find it easier to go from index to pinkie. Maybe the people he tested were freaks? I don't jam up, however, like you report. Perhaps someone should investigate this. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I find it MUCH easier to go from pinkie to index. Grinick Sept 11, 2005

Are you moving your hand? Try keeping it still, with your fingertips about half centimeter above the table. I find pinky-to-index is extremely easy, while index-to-pinky feels very unnatural and is somewhat slower. Mussavcom Nov 05, 2005

Keeping my hand absolutely still, with only the fingers moving, I find it far easier (and faster) to do index-to-pinkie. [[]] Dec. 8, 2005

I personally find it MUCH easier to do pinky-to-index. Whenever I try to go fast with index-to-pinky, I keep hitting my middle and ring fingers at the same time by accident... How odd, do you think this is something that varies between people? It could be like handedness... I'm right-handed and left-eyed and inboard-stroked XD ... -JC 23:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Count me amongst the pinky-to-index crowd. When I go the other way my index hits, then the next three. pinky-to-index just feels natural. That said, I doubt it affects typing very much.. Oreo man 21:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with index-pinky. I jam up on the reverse.--//Mac Lover ^Talk_C 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pinkie to index for me, much easier. Don't forget that a keyboard for general use has to be designed around the average person, most find it easier outer to inner, I'm not saying it's perfect; I wouldn't mind a couple of keys being swapped ( . (full stop) and , (comma) ) but that's probably due to my own typing/writing style. -- Lee Carré 05:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

One hand layout tutorials

Does anybody know of any left handed Dvorak tutorials? I already know standard dvorak (only layout I ever learned) and I want to experiment with the left handed layout so I can use the mouse and type at the same time, or eat a sandwich and type simultaneously.

I also wonder if there are any one handed Dvorak tutorials. While there are many Dvorak tutorials available, I have never seen on that included a full set of lessons for one handed keyboarding. 66.94.95.194 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

how optimized is dvorak anyway

Shouldn't i be on the home key, since it is a lot more frequent than u?

Yes. 141.213.129.40 22:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. We can't know for sure without some actual hard data about letter frequency. One could probably find statistics like that online, but I don't care enough to do so. ✈ James C. 23:49, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

This Dvorak vs QWERTY tool will tell you the most frequent letters. For any reasonably large body of text, i is at least two times more frequent than u. I often find myself resting the index on i rather than u for this very reason. I was considering swithching them myself but using Dvorak in a QWERTY world is hard enough, it would be an awful idea to use a custom Dvorak.

I found that swapping I and U resulted in the total distance being reduced from approx. 38.89 m to approx. 36 m when processing a text with 2824 keystrokes in a Java applet similar to the page above. Otherwise the numbers remained the same. I think that if one's goal is to find the optimal layout, though, there's little reason to stop at DVORAK, even for its popularity, since QWERTY's already the undisputed leader in that department. Of course, the more people use a better layout the better, but it'd be kind of a waste to have convinced the world to switch and then find out we settled for the second best. Rōnin 01:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Did your test take into account the fact that going from right to left with the right hand and left to right with the left hand is easier based on the shape of the hand? Mithridates 04:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know. I'm not really an expert on ergonomics... But I couldn't find any proper studies done by anyone qualified. Rōnin 04:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What's that got to do with it? You're switching keys on the same finger, not between fingers. 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There's also the issue of letter sequences; for example if the sequence UI is more common than IU, then having them in the standard Dvorak layout is better, because there is a high cost if the sequence goes in the direction of index finger to little finger; little finger to index finger is much easier and more comfortable (try it, "drum" your fingers on the desk each way)

Keep in mind that Dvorak designed his keyboard using the English of his era, and modern English may be different (as this example probably shows)

The fact that the Dvorak layout is vastly better is a good start, as most people here know, QWERTY was designed to be slow, and is just awkward as hell

I don't claim to be an authority on these things, this is just what I've read, remember that Dvorak did vast amounts of research before, and while designing his layout, and I'm sure there are many many factors affecting key placement.

It may also depend on your writing style, for example I would find it easier if the , (comma) and . (full stop) keys were swapped (so the comma key was on the inside), but then i often use commas in my writing for flow etc. as i tend to write longer paragraphs (as you can see here); where as someone who writes shorter sentences would probably appreciate the full stop key on the inside -- Lee Carré 15:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

'Fable' of the keys

The treatment of this argument was seriously skewed and did not present a NPOV. The work of L&M is prefixed by adjectives such as 'Influential' and 'Academic', those arguing against them have their arguments distorted and then dismissed.

L&M actually face some serious credibility problems because their work is not exactly disinterested. They are economists and they have a bee in their bonnet about market failure being impossible. So they spend their time 'disproving' the cannonical examples used to illustrate market failure. Dvorak vs QWERTY, VHS vs Beta etc.

They are not historians and they have a political axe to grind. It should be reasonably obvious that Dvorak would have to be a whole heap better than QWERTY to have any chance of displacing it, so regardless of which system is better it is clear that there are circumstances where a lock in effect or 'network externality' can exist. The fact that L&M try to draw this conclusion and argue in their book that Microsoft cannot therefore be a monopoly indicates the type of 'research' they perform. Incidentally their 'research' institute received $100,000 from Microsoft at the time their book was published.

Applying their own principles which they use to dismiss the work to support Dvorak (the funding source) we should dismiss L&M.

Incorrect citation

The article cites the following URL:

http://web.mit.edu/jcb/www/Dvorak/

for the claim that "It is also possible to learn how to use Dvorak only for touch typing while retaining the ability to use QWERTY when looking at the keyboard (though a very few claim to touch type both keyboards efficiently, admitting it takes longer to learn this way).[1]"

This makes it look like the linked site argues for it being more difficult to touch type both keyboards efficiently. This is a misleading citation, since the author of the linked page discusses easily touch-typing on both layouts. Where is the substantiation for the idea that very few can touch type both keyboards efficiently? --128.252.165.99

I don't know. I think that sentence is unfounded since all the Dvorak typers I know can easily switch between the two layouts, and do so frequently. Perhaps it should be revised to reflect reality. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

While the 'difficulty' of holding two 'autonomous' mappings in one head is over-rated (it's no more difficult than speaking two languages), the dual qwerty/dvorak capable typist is still a rarity. If there were more of them then objective testing of the relative ergonomics of each system would be easier. I would not suggest however that a dual-format typist would be a useful model for testing ease of learning or achievable speed, as it would be unreasonable to suggest you could control for the circumstances of learning (one would have to have been first!) and unusual for such a typist to spend an equal amount of time using each system (maintenance of speed being dependent upon frequency of use), although the latter factor could be 'engineered' over a period of 2 to 4 weeks.Tban 03:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A different, more wide-scope argument is that a user of a single layout would be more proficient with that layout than a user of both layouts, so i think the benifits of using just Dvorak would be lost by examining a dual-layout typist -- Lee Carré 15:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting testament

Hi, I just started using Dvorak almost a month ago and I've since regained about 60% of my Qwerty speed. One interesting thing to note though - I also know Korean and there's a striking similarity to the Korean keyboard and Dvorak in the way the hands don't really have to move as far and there is a lot more left and right motion. I only just noticed how efficient the Korean keyboard is when I started using Dvorak and saw a lot of similarity to the way in which my hands are moving now. Let's hope that in the next month or two that I surpass my Qwerty speed. io:user:mithridates

That is interesting. Obviously keyboard layouts for different languages have different requirements than for english. It would seem likely that the designers of, in this case, the Korean layout took into account at least some of the factors that Dvorak did. From a technological development point of view; as far as i know technology developed in the western (english-speaking) world, which would go some way to explaining why the "default/standard" english keyboard is so inefficient. Also the Korean layout may have been developed after the existance of computers, so the need to slow typists down is not an issue. Also typewriter technology has improved in the time between the creation of QWERTY and Korean layouts. I've seen some really fancy models in the past, which were electronic, and the arms were controlled in both dircetions (rather than "falling" back, or relying on a spring) enabling extremely fast arm movement (in both directions) thus allowing high-speed use of Dvorak. (Unfortunetly, and quite ironc-ly/ironically (can't spell) the typewriter i saw was a QWERTY one lol -- Lee Carré 16:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You refer to the 'need to slow typists down'. I understood that this was a myth. Pendant 00:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ergonomics

Is Dvorak actually better for the hands? The article doesn't seem to make this clear. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 11:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

According to everyone I've talked to that uses it, yes, it is easier on the hands. The Benefits section which discussed this was removed some time ago. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that switching kept me from developing a case of carpal-tunnel syndrome several years ago (or perhaps allowed me to recover from a mild case without treatment). Like Frecklefoot, I've only ever heard positive comments from those who have switched. But such anecdotes can not meet our verifiability requirements. The few medical studies I know of which have been conducted on this question have been ambiguous, either finding no statistically significant difference or being challenged on methodolgical grounds. Unfortunately, I don't know of anyone actively studying the question right now. Rossami (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

One thing that occurs to me (and despite its seeming obviousness I have not seen yet elsewhere) is that a substantial portion of the stress on the hands and wrists during typing comes from the actual pressing of the keys rather from the movement of the fingers to individual keys. Whatever Dvorak's impact on typing speed may be, it seems that it isn't likely to be a cure-all solution for RSI disorders. Ataru 04:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the relevant issue for repetitive strain injury is not the speed of the action or even the force needed to press the individual key but the alignment of the muscles and bones in the finger when doing so. The unproven hypothesis here is that the Dvorak layout moves more of the keystrokes to the more efficient (and therefore less stressful) strokes which are directly under the fingers rather than the more torqued strokes necessary to stike the out-keys. Rossami (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

typing "ls"

I removed this paragraph:

Some command line interfaces are optimized for the QWERTY layout. One of the most commonly-used commands in UNIX-like environments is "ls", which is very fast to type as mirrored ring finger keypresses on QWERTY, but requires two consecutive strokes of the little finger to type on the Dvorak layout (in both cases a third keystroke to enter to complete the command). Another frequently used command, "cd", is easier to type on Dvorak. See the above notes the ease of typing sequences.

My objections:

• ls (as I just typed then) is not typed with the little finger twice, but with the ring finger then the little finger - it's actually easy and convenient to type (equivalent to p; on qwerty)
• In any case it wasn't "optimised" - it's presumably short for "list" and just worked out that way.
• "cd" is not particularly easier to type, and requires a stretch to get the d.
• This whole paragraph stinks of "my keyboard is better than your keyboard".
• Make a useful statement about MS clipboard shortcuts instead (ctrl+c, ctrl+v etc make no sense on dvorak). Stevage 17:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Resistance to change

Noting that we are trying to move to a more NPOV stance, it is reasonable to suggest that there 'has been' resistance to widespread adoption of Dvorak. I agree with the creation of the 'Resistance to Change' section to explain this, but had a sense as I read it that it bogged down straight away on the issue of keyboard shortcuts, and on the Dvorak-Qwerty war back in the 40's and the studies done back then. It seemed to me that keyboard shortcuts warranted a mention, but in perspective, as one of several factors. And I believed that the issue of 'inherent superiority' had to be 'number one' on the list - although it was the most contentious and there was a sense that 'leaving it out' might avoid an edit-war. So getting a NPOV on the relative superiority of Dvorak and Qwerty seemed to be a high priority. It turned out to be easy (I hope!!) because the issue in this section was about 'resistance' and there was no doubt there had been resistance. Therefore there MUST have been a perception (however ill-founded) that Dvorak was 'not sufficiently superior' to warrant overcoming all the other resistances in order to adopt it. So far I think we are in self-evident territory. So we can report that much. Then I observed that the absence of good studies meant that the perception had not been significantly 'affected' one way or the other. My KEY point (made later) is that even in the absence of good studies, as awareness increases, and as the opportunity to self-teach and use Dvorak on PCs increases we MIGHT see an increase in the rate of use, which would indicate people voting with their feet (fingers actually..) to move to Dvorack. If we don't see that trend then we'd have to conclude (in a democratic sense and in the absence of scientific study) that the Dvorak layout isn't selling itself better over time as resistance crumbles, and infer from that that Dvorak wasn't inherently superior to Qwerty. Problem is that nobody has been doing usage surveys. So we are still in the dark. At the end of the day though, I think I've put down a comprehensive list of 'resistances' which is useful regardless of what conclusion you draw about the inherent character of the layouts. Resistance is a story of 'what happened', and that lends itself to a NPOV. And if you are wondering, I can touch type in both, but I'll keep my non-NPOV on which is easier out of the debate.. Cheers, Tban 09:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A query

"By the early 1990's the Dvorak layout was a built-in selectable option on nearly all computers systems." - any evidence for this? I used a few versions of unix around 2000, and none had built in dvorak support. They generally had xmodmap, but you had to download a mapping for dvorak, or more often, make one. It's hard to say whether Windows has "built in" support - you generally need access to the original CD, so you can't just sit down at any workstation and be guaranteed Dvorak access. With XP it seems to be installed by default. Stevage 17:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember it being available by default as far back as Windows 95 and was available on my old Amiga before that. I can't speak to systems older than that. Rossami (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree that Windows 95 (and Macs around the same time) had it 'built-in'. Perhaps a less contentious way of putting it would be: "By the mid 1990's the Dvorak layout was an installable option on most computer systems". Which allows for some 'push and shove' in terms of getting it running. Appreciate the comments. The argument that the 'assertion' was intending to support is that a lot of time had passed between the invention of Dvorak, and the availability of a (relatively) easy way of acquiring a machine that would use it. In that sense, plus or minus 5 years or so doesn't make much difference - but I agree every assertion should be able to stand up in its own right. If lack of machines was a 'major' resistance factor (rather than simply Qwerty superiority) then since the mid 1990's we should see a upturn in the rate of use of Dvorak as that particular resistance factor diminished in significance. I appreciate that Qwerty is still the 'default' on computers, but I'm talking about some kind of 'trend' information. Tban 23:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

aoeu redirect

I had added the comment

"aoeu" redirects here. aoeu is to the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard as asdf is to the QWERTY keyboard layout.

to the page. This change was then reverted with the comment "I don't think taht writing why aoeu redirects here is important, anyone who types aoeu is looking for this page". However, the page itself never explicitly mentions aoeu. I always find it confusing if I am redirected from a page X to another page Y if the reason for the redirect is not immediately obvious, like if the meaning of X is not explained within the introduction of Y. — Tobias Bergemann 13:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair point but maybe it doesn't need to be at the top of the page in the traditional "dablink" format. It's not the first thing that we necessarily want a new reader to focus on since they won't know yet what the Dvorak layout even is. Could your comment be reworked a bit and added in the See also section perhaps? Rossami (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This really is a very minor point, but I always find it annoying if I am redirected to a page and than have to search within the content of that page to even find the term I was originally looking for, and I thought the dablink format was introduced to solve exactly that problem. My preferred solution would be to have a one-line explanation of the meaning of aoeu on the aoeu-page itself, as it used to be until August 2004 when that page was turned into a redirect. — Tobias Bergemann 14:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Abbreviation

As the main article grows I've found typing 'Dvorak Keyboard layout' repeatedly painful. I'm coming around to the idea of using 'DSK layout' instead. This is consistent with Wiki's rules on abbreviations.

This - seems to me - to also have the advantage of making the references to QWERTY and DSK stand out equally from the bulk of the text. If nobody raises any objections I'll do the conversion on the document in a couple of days. Oh, and don't read anything into the fact that DSK is easier to type than QWERTY! Cheers, Tban 01:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Consistent or not, I think that's absurd. --StuartBrady 12:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Help me out Stuart. I noted your 'tidy' habits in putting the QWERTY's in order. Could you indicate whether you'd prefer 'Dvorak Simplified Keyboard layout' or 'Dvorak layout' (presumably you're not a fan of 'DSK layout'). You see my problem is that to be consistent with the 'thing' that the article describes ('Dvorak Simplified Keyboard') it seems to me that we are obliged NOT to call it the Dvorak layout (which would at least be a tolerably short way of putting it) and we ARE obliged to give it its proper title.

Having said all of that - how about if we say at the top of the article something like ..'The Dvorak Simplified Keyboard layout, commonly known as the Dvorak layout..' and thereafter call it simply the 'Dvorak layout'. How does that rate on your absurd-o-meter?. Regards, Tban 12:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer 'Dvorak layout', with the modification to the introduction that you describe. I'd like to see what others think, first, though. --StuartBrady 12:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks Stuart, I'll go along with that approach. Tban 14:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I think we have a deafening unanimity. I have added a 'also known as the Dvorak layout' at the top of the article, and then replaced (nearly) all the various versions of the Dvorak 'thingy' with 'Dvorak layout'. Couple of exceptions though: 'Dvorak keyboard' or 'Dvorak typewriter' are the 'thing'. Theoretically the 'Dvorak layout' is a style or concept. And when talking about foreign keyboards it seems better to use 'Dvorak keyboard layout' - it just seems right. Tban 02:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was the 'Simplified Dvorak Keyboard layout', not the 'Dvorak Simplified Keyboard layout' - which would make an abbreviation 'SDK', not 'DSK'. Potential confusion with Software Development Kit? Pendant 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Accent marks

Is there an easy way to type accented letters with Dvorak layout in Windows; something similar to the International English layout, when you can press " and then a to get ä? The "AltGr+symbol code on the numpad" method is really tiring, and I didn't have much success in finding a different method.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

option-u + letter = umlaut (ä)

option-e + letter = accent acute (é)

option-` + letter = accent grave (è)

option-i + letter = circumflex (î)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous 198736 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks, but it seems that you did not notice the fact I was asking about Windows, not about Macs ("option" is a Mac key, right?). Any other ideas?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to take a look over here: http://arjenvankol.com/dvorak.php

I love you, man! That's just the ticket, and it works like a charm. Thanks a bunch!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

(From the article) With improvements in typewriter design, key jams became less of a problem. With the introduction of the electric typewriter in the 1930s, typist fatigue became less of a problem. Consequently, interest in the Dvorak layout increased.

This statement does not make sense. It seems like interest in the Dvorak layout would decrease as typist fatigue became less of a problem.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I'll go change that in the article to say that fatigue became more of a problem. —Mets501 (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What, are you just making this up? /blahedo (t) 05:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it. IMO, neither makes any sense. --StuartBrady (Talk) 11:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article for discussion

The keyboards shown here are not correct. With Windows XP you can go to accessories> accessibility> on-screen keyboard and the keyboard that is loaded will appear at the bottom of the screen. You can even type on it with the mouse if you wish or just use it as an aid while learning.

Go to control panel> regional and language options > languages> details> add if you need to add Dvorak, LH Dvorak, or RH Dvorak to your options. A keyboard icon will appear in your tray at the bottom of the screen that allows you to change keyboard layouts rapidly.

It is quite possible to become an excellent typist using only one hand. If you use Windows there is no cost as the programs include this help. An internet search of "single-handed typing" will return a number of helpful sites and even a free tutor for single-handed persons wishing to type.

This was recently added to the "One-hand layouts" section and I think it should be validated before being added. —Mets501 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

One-handed layouts

X.org's left and right-handed layouts don't seem to match the images shown here (and I'm guessing Windows uses the same layouts...) However, I've found a site with images that do match X.org's layout[1], but I did find a site with the other versions, too [2]. What's going on? --StuartBrady (Talk) 23:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the other layouts are (older versions of the layouts, maybe?) but I've uploaded GFDLed SVG images that should be correct and used these in the article instead. --StuartBrady (Talk) 04:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

New userbox

I've just added {{User:StuartBrady/User dvrk3}}:

dvrk

I initially tried calling it {{user dvrk3}} but it seems that isn't acceptable. It uses a GFDLed SVG image, instead of the fair use (IMO) image in {{user dvrk2}}. --StuartBrady (Talk) 05:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Classic and ANSI layouts

I'm having trouble finding information about the classic and ANSI layouts. I'm also not sure what the Selectric used — as I said on its talk page:

The Dvorak Simplified Keyboard article says that "the original ANSI Dvorak layout was available as a factory-supplied option on the original IBM Selectric typewriter". One slight problem is that the ANSI standard for Dvorak dates from 1983... So did ANSI just take the Selectric's Dvorak layout, or is the Dvorak article wrong? (After this has been cleared up, I think that a short sentence in this article mentioning Dvorak might be a good idea.) --StuartBrady (Talk) 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the new ANSI layout might be what's shown in the article. As for the old ANSI layout, I'm not exactly sure what it looks like... and for the "classic" layout — there doesn't appear to be a single layout, and I can't find the one described in this article. Anyone have a better idea? —StuartBrady (Talk) 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Modern OS section

Unless there is some objection, I will at some point soon either delete or move the data in the Modern OS section relating to how to configure various Unix flavors to use Dvorak. This is an encyclopedia, not Slashdot or a *nix configuration FAQ. Ataru 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you leave Mac OS and Windows, could you also leave GNOME/KDE, please? --StuartBrady (Talk) 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly I'd like to remove the configuration details for all the operating systems, and just say that "Systems X, Y, and Z can be configured to use Dvorak" and be done with it. I really don't think Wikipedia is the place for "how-to" type information; there are innumerable other resources for that sort of thing. Ataru 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Update - I have now removed the technical details from Modern OS. At the absolute very least, your average Windows user will understand absolutely nothing about the technical details of configuring a *nix OS or Mac OS to use Dvorak, and care very little about the details of configuring Windows to use it. If someone insists on bringing the deleted data back, at least move it to a different page, but I oppose bringing it back at all. Ataru 03:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

While I tend to agree that this material is not encyclopedic, I don't think "what your average Windows user will understand or care about" is the appropriate criterion here either. What might be helpful is to scrounge up some *links* to this kind of information and include them in the "External links" section, if there aren't already such links there. I will work on this. --Tkynerd 16:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding appropriate external links, thanks for taking it on. I think the fundamental criterion is comprehensibility to a lay audience, i.e. that which reads general reference works; this certainly isn't the first article to delve further into "inside baseball" than is really advisable. Ataru 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the best page I found for reconfiguration under various OSs is a subpage to an external link we already have! So I just added a further comment to that link to alert readers that that info can be found at that link. --Tkynerd 17:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ataru and Tkynerd — looks much better, now! I'm wondering if the section should be renamed, though? The Apple IIc isn't especially modern... --StuartBrady (Talk) 23:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Retailers Who Sell DVORAK Keyboards

Would it be acceptable to add something in the article about retailers who sell DVORAK keyboards? I'm just wondering if it would break any Wikipedia rules or anything? Because I found this one at www.hooleon.com, who do. The reason I ask is because it's pretty hard to find companies who actually do. I only got given that link by another company who I found via google, and then sent an email to ask. Cheers. Doom jester 11:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be strongly discouraged. Wikipedia is not for advertising. We have massive problems with users attempting to misuse the encyclopedia. Your edit would be viewed with great skepticism, I'm afraid. Rossami (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rossami, but I am also very curious as to why anyone would even want to by a Dvorak keyboard? Dvorak layout is advertised as superior to QWERTY in terms of typing speed, which implies that one would be touch-typing, and people who are touch-typing couldn't really care less what layout is printed on the actual, physical keys. What is the point of a Dvorak keyboard then? I, as a Dvorak typist, never even thought of getting one, let alone knew that someone actually produces them. I'd rather buy one with completely blank keys (it would look cool); any pointers in that direction? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Get an old IBM Model 50 "clicky" keyboard. The keys are removable, and you can either put whatever you want on them or type right on the blank cap skirts. Fumblebruschi 16:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that'd be a bit extreme, I'm afraid. I mean, after all those years of ever-improving ergonomics it'd be kind of hard to switch back to a dinasaur like IBM Model 50 :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though I don't think a link would be appropriate in the encyclopedia, I do wish that someone would advertise them better. I looked for a Dvorak keyboard when I first switched because I thought it would help me to learn the pattern better/faster. I never did find one. I finally decided to pop all the key-heads off and replaced them in the Dvorak layout. When they switched me to an IBM with the little eraser-head pointer in the middle of the keyboard, I could no longer do that and finally had to make little sticky-labels to cover up my existing keypad. It's less than ideal. Rossami (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

But doesn't the first rule for those wishing to learn how to touch-type say "Do not ever, under any circumstances, look at the keys"? And if you just want to learn to type, but not touch-type, why inconvenience yourself with Dvorak at all, instead of using mainstream qwerty? I would guess that may be one of the reasons why Dvorak keyboards don't sell well (and hence are not advertised), but it's just speculation on my part, of course.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone but that's not how I was trained. How do you learn the pattern in the first place if you don't study the keys? How do you learn where the right key is when you mistype if you can't check your fingering? Once you know the basic layout, you can take away the letters but that's not how you start. Rossami (talk)

The way I was taught (and, prior to your comment above, the way I thought everyone is taught) was to learn how to put the fingers into original position (left=aoeu, right=htns) first. From there, each letter in the original position was introduced with a series of excersises. Once the original position was mastered, the remaining letters in the home row were introduced. Then letters in other two rows, then numbers and symbols. At any given point there was never any need to look at the keyboard; in fact, that was strongly discouraged (not that peeking would even help, because my keybord was standard qwerty anyway). I've been using Dvorak for four years now, and I doubt I'd be able to draw Dvorak layout on paper from memory without resorting to finger memory. It is a very effective method, really, and I am quite surprised there are other methods that not only allow, but actually encourage you to look at the keys while you learn. I was told that significantly slows down the learning process, and I honestly believe that it does.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh... Perhaps the difference is the luxury of a formal course of instruction. I had to teach myself. When I wanted to learn, I couldn't find any such series of exercises or other coursework (though I do remember getting such exercises back when I learned QWERTY). Your technique probably would have been faster. Rossami (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I never went through formal courses of any kind, although I used the software and materials developed for a formal course. How I learned touch-typing and ended up among "Dvorak enthusiasts" (something I very much regret) is a very long story not exactly suitable for this talk page, but my guillibility played a major role :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done the same thing. I have a computer with a qwerty keyboard and I decided that learning Dvorak would also be a good way to get myself to touch-type all the time as opposed to the 80% touch-type but with the occasional glance down kind of method I was using with qwerty. I hope that people don't look at sales of the keyboards themselves to judge the numbers because the next time I buy a laptop I'll get one with a qwerty keyboard because you're never sure when somebody else is going to have to use it and since I don't need to look at the keyboard, having the Dvorak keys there would just be a luxury. Of course, there is that keyboard made of light. I wonder how that one works. Saw someone in a coffee shop using one of those last week. Mithridates 23:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A reason one may want to buy a Dvorak keyboard is that some of them, such as those sold by Typematrix, are hardware switchable between Qwerty and Dvorak. This means that you do no need to rely upon Operating System support in order to change layout and that the change will affect every application (something that Windows does not do unless you make use of Dvorak Assist application). I think a hardware switchable keyboard is a great idea as you can quickly and easily switch layout whenever you are sitting at the computer with someone else. Oniony 09:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I only wish I could buy an unlabelled keyboard with switchers for more than two layouts... Oh well, that's probably wishful thinking.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not intended as an advert, but as a declaration of interest: I am trying to sell standard keyboards modified to Dvorak Simplified layout, with minimal success to date. I would welcome other 'competitors' in this, since it's my belief that if it is possible to crack the 'QWERTY hold' (that has lasted 75 years this year!) then sales would skyrocket: and there is NO way I could keep up with demand!

I've created a page at http://www.typocheck.co.uk/dvorak/dvorak-conversion-instructions.html that provides some instructions how to modify a standard keyboard to the Dvorak layout. After my first few conversions I soon realised that popping all of the keytops off at once was not necessarily the best way to do it, and came up with a method I call the 'Six Keys Off' method.

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)

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)

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 it's 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 occours, 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-brittish 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 [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)}.

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)

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)

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)