NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/system/10426

Text File | 1992-07-27 | 7.2 KB | 136 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Path: sparky!uunet!nntp1.radiomail.net!fernwood!metrop!robert
From: [e-mail] (Robert Munyer)
Subject: Re: Dvorak vs QWERTY (-: (was DVORAK Keyboard driver)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Robert Munyer)
Organization: Metropolis Software, Inc.
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 20:19:45 GMT
Lines: 124


Hi, guys.  This is a letter I wrote to Adam Tow about the decision "to switch
or not to switch".  I think it's worthwhile reading for any comp.sys.mac.system
subscriber who is thinking about "going Dvorak".

Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 01:44:21 PDT
From: robert (Robert Munyer)
To: [e-mail] (Adam Tow)
Subject: Re: DVORAK Keyboard driver, can I change the keys of my keyboard?

> I enjoyed reading your post; I do have a quick question for you, though: 300
> words per minutes with words on the home row? That's... well.. not bad!

Of course, I suppose you could type just as fast on the Sholes keyboard, under
the exact same conditions (single sentences, home row only, etc.).  The only
problem is, how many sentences do you want to type that use the word "alfalfa"?

Actually, now that I think of it, that's probably not true.  Even for home row
exercises, Dvorak is probably somewhat faster, because it is designed to
alternate keypresses between the right hand and the left, and the Sholes
keyboard is probably not set up to do that.

Remember, the Dvorak record holder could sustain a speed of about 250 words per
minute for an entire page, with no practice period, and no "artificial"
restrictions on the kinds of words and sentences used.

> What would you say is your cruising speed with the Dvorak keyboard layout?

Cruising speed?  Hard to say.  Definitely over 100 WPM when I'm typing straight
out of my head; a ways under 100 if I'm typing from a piece of paper.  It's
hard to make reasonable comparisons between different people's typing speed,
because they use the keyboard for different things.  Composing new material at
the keyboard, typing from verbal dictation, and typing from written words on
paper are probably three completely different skills, and only one of them is
taken into account by standard typing tests.

> I tried to switch once before, but it was just too difficult to "unlearn" the
> QWERTY layout to learn another layout. I do a lot of work with my hands (I am
> an artist), and I give it a lot of b beating each year; I am slightly afraid
> of developing some less-than desired syndromes in the future. RIght now, I
> can type roughly 100 words per minute on a QWERTY keyboard (bursts of 120 are
> made occasionally); do the benefits of using the DVORAK keyboard layout
> outweigh this? Just wondering...

Well, in a "more perfect" world, where every keyboard would have a button that
would instantly turn it into a Dvorak keyboard, I would tell everyone that it
is DEFINITELY worthwhile to switch.  For the real "imperfect" world, read on...

I'm no expert in ergonomics, but I can make some predictions for you based on
what I've heard:  (1) If you switch, you will definitely be able to type faster
than you can now.  The speed difference could be as much as 100% (which, in
your case, would put you somewhere near the record), or it could be as little
as 10 or 15%.  (2) This is probably more important than #1: if you switch to
Dvorak, typing will FEEL GOOD.  Although you may not realize it now, typing on
the Sholes keyboard FEELS BAD.  The reason for this is obvious:  the Sholes
keyboard is DESIGNED to feel bad, to make the typist slow down so the machine
can keep up.

The disadvantage of switching, unfortunately, is also obvious: the world is
full of Sholes keyboards.  Everybody seems to agree that once you have learned
to touch-type on the Dvorak keyboard, going back to the Sholes keyboard is
pretty unpleasant.  It's like going back to riding a tricycle when you are used
to riding a bicycle: trying to take the corners at high speed just feels WRONG.

In part, the question of whether you should switch boils down to the question
of how often, in the future, will you be forced to use a Sholes keyboard -- and
how much will it bother you if and when it happens.  For most people, it is
certainly true that they will occasionally have to type on Sholes keyboards.
But if you think about it, it seems to me that usually, when you sit down at a
particular machine, either you are only going to type a very small amount of
text (in which case it doesn't matter), or you are going to type a very LARGE
amount of text -- in which case, you might as well spend some time getting that
machine set up in whatever way will make you comfortable.

When it comes to choosing a keyboard layout, it seems that I have two "unfair"
advantages over most people: (1) I never learned to touch-type on the Sholes
keyboard, so it doesn't bother me at all that I have to "hunt and peck" on the
rare occasions when I have to use a Sholes machine.  (2) I am a professional
systems programmer, so I can eventually figure out how to change just about
anything I want on just about any kind of computer I happen to come across.
One of the first things that I do when I am learning how to use a new kind of
computer is to sit down and figure out how to "repair" the keyboard.  (Of
course, these days often the best way to make effective use of a new kind of
computer is just to hook up a Macintosh to it -- you get the advantages of
using a "tried and true" window system and user interface, as well as being
able to use your own trusty old keyboard and mouse).

It seems to me that in your case, you also have two "unfair" advantages over
most people: (1) you use a Macintosh, which can be hooked up to just about
anything; and (2) you have access to Usenet.  If you can manage to keep your
Usenet access for the rest of your career, you will always have access to
people like me, who will more than likely be "fixing" the keyboards of every
important new type of workstation that hits the market, at least until cheap,
accurate computer voice recognition makes the Dvorak keyboard obsolete.

Actually, I have heard that there are better keyboards than Dvorak available,
so technically it is already obsolete.  However, all these better keyboards are
physically different from the Sholes keyboard, so they cannot be implemented in
software.  Ironic, isn't it, that one of the main things that makes the Dvorak
keyboard so popular is that it is physically identical to the old "born to be
bad" Sholes keyboard?

As for your decision, I can't tell you YES or NO; it's a decision that has to
be very individual.  But I hope that some of what I've said above will help.

> thanks
>
> -adam
>
> --
> INTERNET:  [e-mail] (Adam Tow)
> UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!dimshftr
> NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA [phone]

Good luck,
______________________________________________________________________
Robert Munyer            |   "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid."
[e-mail]    |      -- Bishop, _Aliens_


P.S.  After writing this, it occurs to me that most of what I've said to you
also applies to many other readers on comp.sys.mac.apps.  Do you mind if I
post all of this to the net?