Re: Taking the Dvorak issue into our own hands. No Pun Intended.

Marcus, I agree, I can't go along with a mandate to require use of Dvorak. 

If somebody in government would make some favorable remarks about alternative data entry and interface methods, in general, that would be a better use of our efforts.

Dvorak's keyboard up with was a definite improvement over QWERTY, and I wish people had listened to him way back when.  I made a real effort to use it about 13 years ago. The main reason I didn't continue was because I was working at a client's office, on a machine that other people would use once in a while. I wasn't allowed to activate Dvorak on it.  Then when I went home, I was making too many mistakes and it was too slow to get any work done on my home machine.  I quit after almost two months.

However, even though that hurdle has been overcome, the Dvorak layout is still not optimal for me, and I suspect a lot of other people. If Dvorak he were alive today, he'd probably arrive at a different solution (or even "solutions").

BTW, I have worked at a keyboard most of the last 25 years: in translation, software development, or engineering.

1. Old habits die hard.  Even Dvorak said it often wasn't worth retraining. For instance, Ctrl-X, -C, and -V are too engrained in my muscle memory to switch.  I might try a layout that is practically as efficient as Dvorak but that keeps those characters in the same positions as now. [1] [1] For example: http://colemak.com/

2. The Dvorak layout from the 1930's doesn't address the non-alphabetical keys on today's computer keyboards: Ctrl, Shift, Backspace, scrolling, cursor keys, and all those punctuation symbols that programmers need in the upper right quadrant: backslash, brackets, braces, parentheses, plus sign, ...

3. Most of my work at a computer doesn't involve typing text. It's thinking, revising, navigating around documents, web sites, PDF files, images ... Dvorak wouldn't help with any of those tasks.

In typing tests, I usually type around 80 wpm, with spurts to 100.  If I could keep this up for 50 minutes every hour, that would be 4000 words per hour.

However, when I'm actually working (mostly technical translation, these days), the most I can ever put out is about 500 words per hour.  The way I interpret this is, I'm only typing about 500/4000 = 1/8 of the time.  The rest of the time, Dvorak simply doesn't help.

I can be even more productive using computer-assisted translation tools, such as translation memory.  The best of those programs have lots of keyboard shortcuts, that are not helped by the Dvorak layout.  Sometimes I can reprogram the keys, either in the program itself or using a utility such as AutoHotKeys (Dvorak is no help) And  I still have to use the mouse for a few things (see the pattern?).

4. I have used the "vi" text editor and a couple of spinoffs, and got really good at them. The ability to customize keys is great, and that's what Dvorak is: a remapped version of the same old physical keyboard.

I got more benefit out of switching to an ergonomic keyboard (the Microsoft Natural Elite) and a more ergonomic mouse (Wow-Pen Joy), than I ever got during the couple of months that I tried to adopt the Dvorak layout.  When I have to work on a flat keyboard now, my wrists start hurting within minutes.  A lot of people in this group have their own accounts and their own favorites.

6.  Finally: we assume that QWERTY is bad because it makes our fingers work harder. Yet, in most fields of physical human endeavor, we WANT to make our bodies work harder.  Most of us should exercise more.  People who exercise live longer. Just a feeling, but I don't think my body is being permanently damaged by using QWERTY (on an ergo keyboard), regardless of the key arrangement.

This discussion group is great, and anything that leads to improvement should be talked about. But the Dvorak layout by itself is not an integral solution.

Mis dos centavos.

Steven Marzuola




--- In [email protected], Marcus Brooks <marcus@...> wrote:
>
> I hope the word "mandatory" refers to allowing access to the keyboard  
> layout setting for anybody who uses a computer, and perhaps a mandate  
> for educators to introduce the Dvorak option to new typists.  
> Mandating access removes the most valid objection to teaching Dvorak  
> to students: that they might someday be forced to use QWERTY anyway.
> 
> Current QWERTY typists should not be forced to switch. The GSA study  
> that is commonly cited to denounce Dvorak advised against switching,  
> and many people will choose to believe it. Fortunately, even if you  
> ignore that study's flaws, it is a real stretch to apply it to new  
> typists. Mandating that both layouts are allowed in all work and  
> school environments should be enough to encourage voluntary adoption.
> 
> Any suggestion of forcing current typists to switch will doom the  
> effort. There is a cost to retraining. Although the Navy study in  
> 1941 showed the cost of retraining could be recouped in ten days  
> (after training ended), the Navy had the luxury of assigning subjects  
> to non-typing duties during the training period. Indeed, for best  
> results it is important to avoid or at least minimize typing work  
> outside of actual training sessions, and to not use QWERTY at all  
> until the Dvorak pattern is fully learned.
> 
> People who make their living at a keyboard might not be able to  
> afford even two or three weeks of lost work. If the change were a  
> mandate, more switchers would try to rush the process, risking  
> failures that in turn would be blamed on the layout, not poor training.
> 
> Good luck,
> Marcus