Software Development

And the author clearly has luck and business savvy-ness confused. If you're looking to examples, the Microsoft + Intel world of the past several decades is not a very good one. Microsoft had the resources to stay afloat even if one of its products failed. But other companies usually don't have that luxury. Look at the history behind the Glide API, followed by OpenGL and how DirectX survived. It wasn't so much Microsoft, but countless failures on the other side that created the current scenario. And it's not Microsoft or Intel that picked up the pieces on the hardware side. It was NVidia and ATI.

Oh, and how many times did developers and managers recite the "no one ever got fired for using Microsoft products"?

If Strong's study is correct, it is not efficient for current typists to switch to Dvorak.

Here, we have a flawed argument. Cost of switching is different than the benefit of Dvorak. If it were a straight up determination of which one is best, you'd take two untrained clones and have each one trained in a different keyboard layout. But switching means that they already know Qwerty. That's a whole different ballgame and while switching costs should be considered, it should not be used to determine if Dvorak is better or not.

Programmers should know this all too well. Learning a new API may be difficult and could be a reason to stick with the old one. But it doesn't mean that the new API sucks because of this. It simply means that porting costs are too high, and this is usually true REGARDLESS of what the other API is.

I'll state right now that if you're comfortable with Qwerty, then keep using it. The job of a keyboard is to get letters and numbers and other symbols into the computer. If you can do that, then great. Even if you use something inferior, you will learn to work around or get used to the drawbacks. That's why using a keyboard isn't like using VHS vs. Beta. One involves human adaptability and the other does not.

A 1973 study based on six typists at Western Electric found that after 104 hours of training on Dvorak, typists were 2.6 percent faster than they had been on QWERTY. Similarly, a 1978 study at Oregon State University indicated that after 100 hours of training, typists were up to 97.6 percent of their old QWERTY speed.

100 hours to become as good as you were just weeks ago on a completely different layout? I think that's awesome! These were typists. For me, I was faster within a week. The e and o keys kept tripping me up though. I think it was those vowels (if not, it was another set of vowels). I'm fine now, but at the time, it was very difficult to keep them apart. It took me a full three months before I felt comfortable. But I was never good at Qwerty. EVER! I'd used it forever and just could not touch type. I hated it. Nothing flowed and I typed at something like 30 wpm. With Dvorak, you have to actually do it on purpose to type slower than 40 wpm. Heck, doing less than 60 wpm is almost impossible to do on Dvorak once you've learned it.

I never type everything at once. I like to take breaks and think about what I'm typing. I don't need to look at the keyboard anymore and it's really liberating. So if you can't use Qwerty, then try out Dvorak. You won't regret it. So it's not just a matter of what's better. It also has to do with what you're comfortable with.

One other drawback is that while you're learning Dvorak, you will likely get much slower in Qwerty. I even got slower. Imagine going slower than 20 wpm!!! I was at something like 5 to 15 wpm on Qwerty while I was learning Dvorak. I was literally useless on both keyboards.

As to the advantages, there was one that was critical to me. With Qwerty, my fingers would lock up. I wasn't in serious pain or anything, but it did hurt after 6 or more hours at the computer. But like I said, nothing flowed. I always had to stop and shake my hands in the air to relieve the stresses in my fingers. Dvorak has none of that. Not only that, but you don't move your fingers much with Dvorak. Makes for a much more relaxing experience.

What's more, the advent of computer keyboards, which can easily be reprogrammed to any configuration, lowers the cost of converting to Dvorak to essentially zero (not counting retraining). Yet few computer users have adopted the Dvorak keyboard.

This is ridiculous. Switching is not easy. First off, you cannot find Dvorak keyboard as easily as Qwerty. They are out there, but don't expect to find them at your local computer store. What I do is find a keyboard where all keys are exactly the same shape. Then I pop out the keys and replace them in the Dvorak layout. But things aren't always that simple. I recently encountered a keyboard where the f and j keys had a slot rotated by 90 degrees. So it would not fit correctly in its new location.

Once you have a Dvorak keyboard, you need to get your machine to recognise it. If you get an original Dvorak keyboard, you may not need to do anything. There is often a switch that will remap the keys on the keyboard itself. So while the layout is in Dvorak, it will send the correct keystrokes to the machine. But if you have a keyboard like mine, then you need to tell the OS that you're using Dvorak. With Windows, it's easy, but it can switch off on its own if you use multiple accounts and/or virtual accounts. Very frustrating. With Linux, it's likewise easy. You can do it within XWindows, or you can have your Windows Manager do it for you. What's annoying is that sometimes the login screen isn't configured correctly and you find yourself pecking for the right Qwerty keys.

Another drawback is that other people can't use your computer unless they know Dvorak, or if they know how to switch keyboard layouts and also know how to touch type regardless of the actual physical symbols on the keys.

These drawbacks have NOTHING to do with the Dvorak keyboard. These drawbacks have to do with switching. Using an alternative has a built-in cost that the default option does not. Sometimes, you can't even switch. Dvorak is annoying when changing the BIOS. Luckily, the most annoying part is that the Y key is one over. You cannot use Dvorak in any BIOS I've seen.

Is Dvorak better? It seems that it has an uphill battle even before you start using it. These are things you have to consider before switching. I still say the main cost of switching is having a few weeks where you don't have to type fast. One month, you should be back up to speed. And after three months, you should be 100% comfortable with the layout (and you can also be back up to speed with Qwerty well before then). If you can't schedule that, don't switch.

The story of Dvorak's superiority is a myth or, perhaps more properly, a hoax.

That line is a hoax. Nowhere does he state how Dvorak is not superior. Yes, there is plenty of evidence as to the cost of switching. The irony of all this is that switching is something that helps "lock-in" defaults seemingly in contradiction to the author's entire argument that 'actual entrepreneurs look for ways to overcome supposed "lock-in."'

Immediately before the above quote about a hoax, the author says this:

Very simply, no competing keyboard has offered enough advantage to warrant a change.

We're no longer talking about which keyboard is best, but rather if the advantages of Dvorak can overcome the costs of switching. By claiming that it doesn't, then Dvorak is not better than Qwerty. As far as flawed arguments go, this one's a beauty.

If we compare two items, we should give them both initial starting conditions. But all things are not equal. One is the default. The other is not. If you're going to talk about which one is better, it should be about two sets of people who each use a different layout from the beginning. Or where both sets of people have switched. Otherwise, one layout has an added cost of switching that the other does not. The comparisons are no longer balanced out.

When people say X is better, they mean that if X was the default, there would be more advantages than the current solution. And after the author has given countless examples, it should be obvious why people stick with what they first use. It's because the cost of learning something new takes time and personal investment. It's a well understood principle when dealing with consumer products. Even if it would be worth it in the long run, immediate concerns can outweigh long term goals. The entire article that I linked seems to be one big contradiction.

So do *I* think Dvorak is better? Well, yeah. Qwerty is useless to me (though it's not an issue to use it if need be). So my assessment is not really pertinent. But I thought I would at least give ONE piece of hard evidence. All speed typing records are done on Dvorak. Not one or two. ALL OF THEM!

Before going further, let's see an example of this.

Typing, Fastest. Mrs. Barbara Blackburn of Salem, Oregon maintained a speed of 150 wpm for 50 min (37,500 key strokes) and attained a speed of 170 wpm using the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard (DSK) system. Her top speed was recorded at 212 wpm. Source: Norris McWhirter, ed. (1985), THE GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS, 23rd US edition, New York: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc.

...

"Typing was the bane of my existence." She remembered how her I-minus (I for Inferior) typing grade kept her from graduating at the top of her class. As it was, she graduated third in a class of 46 students. In 1938, as a freshman in business college, Blackburn first laid hands on a Dvorak keyboard. She took to it like a fish to water. In only a few years her speed was up to 138 words per minute.

Don't know if someone has beaten the late Mrs. Blackburn's records since 2005. But 170 wpm is impressive. 212 wpm is crazy from my perspective. And her story parallels mine, except for the excessive 139 wpm part.

While this is not proof that Dvorak is better, it is proof that Qwerty is not any better. How so?

Most would say that one example does not make the rule. True enough. But in this case, there is something that changes that. There simply aren't that many people using Dvorak compared to using Qwerty. In ALL the people in the world who should be having typing records, the odds should be in Qwerty's favour. If we were to put both keyboards on equal footing as far as usability, Qwerty should be the hands down favourite simply by the sheer number of people that use it. Even if someone on Dvorak types extremely fast, there should be many more that type equally fast on Qwerty.

Otherwise, it means that Dvorak isn't any worse than Qwerty. Even if you believe that Qwerty is better, the fact that typing records are set in Dvorak means that they're not that bad. An analogy would be Michael Phelps. His training regime may not be the best (and there are some parts that are downright scary), 8 gold medals means that there's something to it.

Now, we can argue about the absolute best of the best. Or what's best for most people. Obviously, Dvorak is quite up to the task for elite speed typing. As for the average user, there are advantages there that surpass those of Qwerty.

If you care about those advantages, then you may want to consider Dvorak. If not, then sticking with Qwerty would likely be a wise choice.

Advantages of Dvorak.

1. Less strain on fingers.
2. Can type for longer periods at a time.
3. Less movement of the fingers.
4. Better flow with alternate use of hands.
5. Easier to achieve satisfactory and elite typing speeds.
6. Touch typing can be learned within days.
7. Fewer typing mistakes.


You may disagree with these. That's fine. It simply means that this list isn't for you. But if you're struggling to achieve any of the items above with Qwerty, you may want to consider switching. And you can regain Qwerty typing speed a couple weeks after learing Dvorak.

One thing I find curious though is that I have no problem listing what I like about Dvorak, primarily that it's simply more comfortable. But if you leave out the costs of switching, I don't find many (or any at all) about why Qwerty is better. What's really aggravating is that I get a lot of people who think I switched to Dvorak just to be different or eccentric. I can't touch type on Qwerty. Dvorak wasn't a "choice". It was a necessity. But I think of those where it WAS a choice. A keyboard layout seems to be one of the more mundane choices that should be available. No one should give a rat's ass what you use.

And that's the truth!