Re: COLEMAK layout?

--- In [email protected], "Patrick S Horne" <prl.horne@...>
wrote:
>
> The Dvorak layout is based on years of research on numerous 
> aspects of typewriting behaviour, not just casual impressions of
> which letters belong where. Anyone hoping to improve the Dvorak
> layout should read Dvorak's book first.

I haven't read Dvorak's book, but I have read excerpts (probably
posted or linked on this group).  He did an impressive job, but there
are some limitations to his work when applying it to computer
keyboards today.

First, he didn't change the basic look of the keyboard.  He didn't
separate the hands, nor did he change the tilt or slope of the
keyboard.  He didn't straighten out the vertical key alignment but
kept the inclination to the left.

He didn't address the Enter key, because in those days a typewriter
had a manual carriage return lever.  Possibly no backspace and
definitely no cursor or Page Up/Down keys.

He didn't have to contend with any modifier key except the Shift -- no
Ctrl, Alt, Windows, or Menu (context) keys. And he didn't include
non-alphanumerical characters in his scheme, which really affects
programmers.

His assumption was a typist enters text.  Some of us do just that, but
we also spend a lot of keyboard time doing other things, including
moving cursors, mousing, clicking, Alt-Tabbing, navigating around
documents and web pages, using drawing programs, and on and on.

He adapted his keyboard to the mechanical and manufacturing
limitations of his time.  It's possible that he didn't imagine a time
when the keyboard could be completely disconnected from the machine
being controlled.

Finally, I think he could have done something else with the thumbs,
instead of limiting them to entering spaces -- same as Qwerty.

I respect him enough to believe that if he were around today (or at
the dawn of the PC era), he would have done a great job on a layout. 
I just don't think he would have come up with the same keyboard today
that he did in 1932.

When I tried Dvorak for a few months, it was fabulous for raw text
input.  I would finish typing a paragraph or a page, and think, my
fingers hardly moved at all! 

But it drove me nuts when I had to revise my work, mostly because of
the layout of the control and cursor keys. I am a translator and spend
all day at a keyboard. Most of my job is not simply typing, but
editing -- my own translation, or someone else's, or the output from a
TM (translation memory) program.  When I'm in edit mode, my right hand
is far to the right -- on the cursor keys and closer to the mouse,
while my left hand is mostly working with Ctrl-V, C, and X.

> The claim that Dvorak "isn't optimal because it was designed
> without the aid of computers" seems particularly rich in the
> absence of any evidence that computers were needed or that 
> they were used in the design of this COLEMAK thing. The 
> criticisms advanced below are unscientific and in many cases
> picayune.

I agree with you, there wasn't much substance in the criticism posted
here.  However, there are web pages with more substantial comments
about COLEMAK, including tests.

If I were going to switch at all, I might try COLEMAK. But as others
have suggested, the differences between COLEMAK and Dvorak, and to an
extent even Qwerty, are relatively minor compared to the advantages of
changing the physical keyboard altogether. I have only tried the
Microsoft Natural and it works for me (have bought three).

Steven Marzuola