Dvorak/QWERTY Myth Myth

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

I have a few comments about the addendum that was posted to the STRAIGHT DOPE article Was the QWERTY keyboard purposely designed to slow typists?

The Dvorak keyboard layout is not a scam. The old Margolis and Liebowitz article that was cited is about economics, not ergonomics. As convincing as its rhetoric seems, that article serves its own political agenda, and not the truth. If you care, some years ago I posted some more specific criticisms at http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak/dissent.html My apologies for any link rot.

However, no argument for or against the Dvorak layout is relevant to the article’s title question. (Nor, for that matter, is the title question relevant to the benefits of Dvorak–I think Dvorak proponents should pick better arguments.)

I don’t think anyone disputes the claim that Sholes rearranged letters in the type basket to reduce jamming. But the effect of that is widely misunderstood. Because his typewriter used a full circular type basket (obsolete by 1900), separating letters in the basket might or might not separate them on the keyboard. The effect was essentially chaotic.

I’ve found no historical sources to indicate Sholes gave any consideration, either way, to how these changes affected the typist’s motions. Certainly he could not have considered the effect on efficient touch typing, because at the time touch typing had not been invented. Some time later, Sholes himself patented an improved layout that seems to have anticipated some of the methods used by Dvorak.

So the answer to the question is no. However, there have been those who say if Sholes had intended for QWERTY to encumber the typist, he could hardly have done a better job! Personally I’m not convinced QWERTY is ill-adapted for the four-finger typing that prevailed in the 1880’s. What I can say for sure is I know a lot of people who have tried both QWERTY and Dvorak, and like Dvorak better.

I would like to say one more thing about the Margolis and Liebowitz articles. I know of at least one person who switched from QWERTY to Dvorak, liked Dvorak better, and was doing well with it. Then he read one of those articles decrying Dvorak and switched back to QWERTY for no other reason! That, I believe, is tragic.

2

I concur that the Margolis and Liebowitz article is a shameless piece of political propaganda. Boiled down, what it really says is:[ul]
[li]QWERTY was produced by Capitalism[/li][li]Capitalism produces the best of all possible worlds,[/li][li]Therefore, QWERTY cannot be improved upon.[/li][/ul]Frankly, whenever I read it, I want to slap them for intellectual prostitution.

3

I don’t know if I would go as far as that. Let’s say M&L’s eye for detail might have been blurred somewhat by the heat of their free-market passion.

4

Your debunking was very interesting. By the way, in that article you spelled “Carnegie foundation” like this “Carnagie foundation”. The correct way is with an e.

5

Now I’m going to have to re-read Candide again.

6

Oops. I guess my eye for detail was blurred by the heat of my passion… :slight_smile:

7

By the way, mwbrooks, one thing that you could add to your site is something that I think would be a boon for devotees of the Dvorak typing method:
The Optimus keyboard is an (expensive) keyboard with every key being an LED (or some of the keys - from what I’ve read you can buy the keyboard with some LED keys and some ordinary, and slowly add more LED keys). So for example, you have a Dvorak afficionado and a QWERTY lover using the same keyboard?
Person A switches to the Dvorak layout, and the LED displays on the keyboard will reflect that layout.
Person B switches back to QWERTY, and the LED displays go back to QWERTY. No manual relabelling of keys.

One reason I’ve never tried Dvorak typing is because I didn’t want to bother relabelling all my keys.

ETA: if you go to the demo page at the site I linked to for the Optimus keyboard, the Dvorak layout is one of the possibilities they demonstrate.

8

I use the Dvorak layout, but all my keyboards are still arranged for QWERTY.

What better way to encourage touch typing?

9

I confess that my wording was probably influenced by just that day having watched the 2005 Kristen Chenoweth version. If I had just read the Purgatorio, I probably would have said “Earthly Paradise”.

10

and notoriously vaporware, but perhaps it will really ship this month

11

What? WHAT?!?!? A GUEST was less fervid in his belielfs than a longtime poster? Quick, mwbrooks, JOIN! With all the nuts who guest here to show how wrong Cecil is you are an exception. Not that you have proven Cecil wrong, because that is impossible :wink: , but you make a good point.

And John, your Kristen Chenoweth excuse is one of the few I can accept. Perhaps we should revise the bylaws to state that she can trump ANYTHING.

12

Er, except when discussing theology, since she doesn’t seem to realize she is a goddess.

And yes, I AM straight.

13

Not less fervid. More timorous. (M&L are lawyers, I believe.) Anyway, I’ve been a Dvorak fan for over 20 years now–I’ve begun to suspect you can’t convince everybody.

Also, I didn’t try to show Cecil was wrong, except in caving in to the previous nut.

I’d love to join the forum, but I just came close to getting caught up in one of the great debate threads, and I’m still supposed to be working.

14

Hehehe, work? What’s work?? :stuck_out_tongue:
(Where’s that totally deranged from being addicted to Dope smiley when you need him!? :eek: )

15

OK, heck. I joined. My wife told me to. She says I need to interact more with people like me.
I won’t fault anyone here who takes that as an insult.

16

Well, we do, but that’s why OUR wives made us join, too.