Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve theDvorak Layout?

[Xah Lee]

(a lil weekend distraction from comp lang!)

in recent years, there came this Colemak layout. The guy who created
it, Colemak, has a site, and aggressively market his layout. It's in
linuxes distro by default, and has become somewhat popular.

I remember first discovering it perhaps in 2007. Me, being a Dvorak
typist since 1994, am curious on what he has to say about comparison.
I recall, i was offended seeing how he paints a bias in peddling his
creation.

So, here, let me repaint his bias. Here it is, and judge for yourself.

〈Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the
Dvorak Layout?〉
http://xahlee.org/kbd/dvorak_vs_colemak.html

here's a interesting excerpt:
--------------------------------------------

Just How Much Do You Type?

Many programers all claim to type 8 or 10 hours a day. They may be
sitting in front of the computer all day, but the time their fingers
actually dance on keyboard is probably less than 1 hour per day.

Contrast data-entry clerks. They are the real typists. Their fingers
actually type, continuously, for perhaps 6 hours per day.

It is important get a sense of how much you actually type. This you
can do by logging you keystrokes using a software.

Let's assume a pro typist sustain at 60 wpm. 60 wpm is 300 strokes per
min, or 18k per hour. Suppose she works 8 hours a day, and assume just
3 hours actually typing. 18k × 3 = 54k chars per day. With this
figure, you can get a sense of how many “hours†you actually type per
day.

I sit in front of computer on average 13 hours per day for the past
several years. I program and write several blogs. My actual typing is
probably double or triple of average day-job programers. From my emacs
command frequency log for 6 months in 2008, it seems i only type 17k
strokes per day. That's 31% of the data-entry clerk scenario above.
Or, i only type ONE hour a day!

I was quite surprised how low my own figure is. But thinking about it…
it make sense. Even we sit in front of computer all day, but the
actual typing is probably some miniscule percentage of that. Most of
the time, you have to chat, lunch, run errands, browse web, read docs,
run to the bathroom. Perhaps only half of your work time is active
coding or writing (emails; docs). Of that duration, perhaps majority
of time you are digesting the info on screen. Your whole day's typing
probably can be done in less than 20 minutes if you just type
continuously.

If your typing doesn't come anywhere close to a data-entry clerk, then
any layout “more efficient†than Dvorak is practically meaningless.

Xah

 

[Elena]

Studies have shown that even a
strictly alphabetical layout works perfectly well, once the typist is
acclimated.

Once the user is acclimated to move her hands much more (about 40%
more for Qwerty versus Dvorak), that is.

 

[Yang Ha Nguyen]

More than that, any layout "more efficient" than QWERTY is practically
meaningless.  The whole "intentional inefficiency" thing in the design of
the QWERTY layout is an urban legend.  Once your fingers have the mapping
memorized, the actual order is irrelevent.  Studies have shown that even a
strictly alphabetical layout works perfectly well, once the typist is
acclimated.

Could you show which studies? Do they do research just about habit or
other elements (e.g. movement rates, comfortablility, ...) as well?
Have they ever heard of RSI because of repetitive movements?

 

[Chris Angelico]

Could you show which studies?  Do they do research just about habit or
other elements (e.g. movement rates, comfortablility, ...) as well?
Have they ever heard of RSI because of repetitive movements?

And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
mouse as well as a keyboard? The classic "grasp mouse" sitting to the
right of the keyboard mandates either a one-handed typing style (left
hand on keyboard, right hand on mouse) or constant re-aiming and
re-grasping. Or you can use a touchpad; what are the consequences of
that on typing speed? And my personal favorite, the IBM TrackPoint - a
stick mouse between the G/H/B keys, a design which other manufacturers
have since copied (although IMHO the IBM/Lenovo type still beats the
others hands down) - keep your hands where you want them and just
reach out to grab the mouse with your index finger, or slide your
fingers one key over (works fine if you're used to it).

Typing speed depends on a lot more than just your layout, and it's
going to be nearly impossible to narrow it down viably.

Chris Angelico

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

Once the user is acclimated to move her hands much more (about 40% more
for Qwerty versus Dvorak), that is.

The actual physical cost of typing is a small part of coding.
Productivity-wise, optimizing the distance your hands move is worthwhile
for typists who do nothing but type, e.g. if you spend their day
mechanically copying text or doing data entry, then increasing your
typing speed from 30 words per minute (the average for untrained computer
users) to 90 wpm (the average for typists) means your productivity
increases by 200% (three times more work done).

I don't know if there are any studies that indicate how much of a
programmer's work is actual mechanical typing but I'd be surprised if it
were as much as 20% of the work day. The rest of the time being thinking,
planning, debugging, communicating with customers or managers, reading
documentation, testing, committing code, sketching data schemas on the
whiteboard ... to say nothing of the dreaded strategy meetings.

And even in that 20% of the time when you are actively typing code,
you're not merely transcribing written text but writing new code, and
active composition is well known to slow down typing speed compared to
transcribing. You might hit 90 wpm in the typing test, but when writing
code you're probably typing at 50 wpm with the occasional full speed
burst.

So going from a top speed (measured when transcribing text) of 30 wpm to
90 wpm sounds good on your CV, but in practice the difference in
productivity is probably tiny. Oh, and if typing faster just means you
make more typos in less time, then the productivity increase is
*negative*.

Keyboard optimizations, I believe, are almost certainly a conceit. If
they really were that good an optimization, they would be used when
typing speed is a premium. The difference between an average data entry
operator at 90 wpm and a fast one at 150 wpm is worth real money. If
Dvorak and other optimized keyboards were really that much better, they
would be in far more common use. Where speed really is vital, such as for
court stenographers, special mechanical shorthand machines such as
stenotypes are used, costing thousands of dollars but allowing the typist
to reach speeds of over 300 wpm.

Even if we accept that Dvorak is an optimization, it's a micro-
optimization. And like most optimizations, there is a very real risk that
it is actually a pessimation: if it takes you three months to get back up
to speed on a new keyboard layout, you potentially may never make back
that lost time in your entire programming career.

 

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

The actual physical cost of typing is a small part of coding.
Productivity-wise, optimizing the distance your hands move is worthwhile
for typists who do nothing but type, e.g. if you spend their day
mechanically copying text or doing data entry, then increasing your
typing speed from 30 words per minute (the average for untrained computer
users) to 90 wpm (the average for typists) means your productivity
increases by 200% (three times more work done).

I don't know if there are any studies that indicate how much of a
programmer's work is actual mechanical typing but I'd be surprised if it
were as much as 20% of the work day.

I'd agree that while programming, typing speed is not usually a problem
(but it has been reported that some star programmers could issue bug
free code faster than they could type, and they could type fast!).


Now, where the gain lies, is in typing flames on IRC or usenet.

If they can do it faster, then it's more time left for programming.

 

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

More than that, any layout "more efficient" than QWERTY is practically
meaningless. The whole "intentional inefficiency" thing in the design of
the QWERTY layout is an urban legend. Once your fingers have the mapping

Oh, there was an "inefficiency" in QWERTY -- but it only applies to
fully manual typewriters, in which some of the more common letters were
placed under the weakest fingers -- to slow down key strokes enough to
reduce jamming multiple type blocks (didn't help for my last name -- I
and E are on opposing hands, same fingers, making for a fast parallel
reach).

Low pressure electronic keys don't have the strength feedback
slowing down the outer fingers.

 

[Ethan Furman]

The actual physical cost of typing is

more than dollars and cents.

The difference for me is not typing speed, but my wrists. The Dvorak
layout is much easier on me than the QWERTY one was.

~Ethan~

 

[Gregory Ewing]

And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
mouse as well as a keyboard?

What I think's really stupid is designing keyboards with two
big blocks of keys between the alphabetic keys and the mouse.
Back when standard-grade keyboards didn't usually have a
built-in numeric keypad, it was much easier to move one's
right hand back and forth between the keyboard and mouse.

Nowadays I find myself perpetually prone to off-by-one errors
when moving back to the keyboard. :-(

 

[Chris Angelico]

What I think's really stupid is designing keyboards with two
big blocks of keys between the alphabetic keys and the mouse.

Nowadays I find myself perpetually prone to off-by-one errors
when moving back to the keyboard. :-(

That's one of the reasons I like my laptop keyboard so much. Hands
don't have to leave to grab the mouse. Although if you lay out your
desk right (assuming you have one - the other advantage of the laptop
is the ability to type at the same speed on a bus) you can change that
"two big blocks of keys" issue. For instance, I have a computer at
work where the mouse is in front of the keyboard (between me and it).
It looks odd, but it works in practice. The actual distance my hand
moves to get from home keys to mouse is about the same as swinging to
the right past the numpad, but since I'm aiming in the opposite
direction, it's easier to not hit the off-by-one.

But as an old jester Pointed out, you can come in time to like
anything that you get used to.

ChrisA
PS. "Pointed" is not a mistake, but I doubt anyone on this list will
know why I did it.

 

[Grant Edwards]

What I think's really stupid is designing keyboards with two
big blocks of keys between the alphabetic keys and the mouse.
Back when standard-grade keyboards didn't usually have a
built-in numeric keypad, it was much easier to move one's
right hand back and forth between the keyboard and mouse.

That's why I always buy keyboards without numeric keypads.

Another good solution is to put the mouse on the left-hand side.

 

[Xah Lee]

What I think's really stupid is designing keyboards with two
big blocks of keys between the alphabetic keys and the mouse.
Back when standard-grade keyboards didn't usually have a
built-in numeric keypad, it was much easier to move one's
right hand back and forth between the keyboard and mouse.

Nowadays I find myself perpetually prone to off-by-one errors
when moving back to the keyboard. :-(

numerical keypad is useful to many. Most people can't touch type. Even
for touch typist, many doesn't do the number keys. So, when they need
to type credit, phone number, etc, they go for the number pad. Also, i
think the number pad esentially have become a calculator for vast
majority of computer users. These days, almost all keyboard from
Microsoft or Logitech has a Calculator button near the number pad to
launch it.

i myself, am a qwerty typist since ~1987, also worked as data entry
clerk for a couple of years. Am a dvorak touch typist since 1994. (and
emacs since 1997) However, i never learned touch type the numbers on
the main section till i think ~2005. Since about 2008, the numerical
keypad is used as extra function keys.

Xah

 

[Xah Lee]

On Jun 13, 6:19 am, Steven D'Aprano 〔steve
(e-mail address removed)〕 wrote:

│ I don't know if there are any studies that indicate how much of a
│ programmer's work is actual mechanical typing but I'd be surprised
if it
│ were as much as 20% of the work day. The rest of the time being
thinking,
│ planning, debugging, communicating with customers or managers,
reading
│ documentation, testing, committing code, sketching data schemas on
the
│ whiteboard ... to say nothing of the dreaded strategy meetings.

you can find the study on my site. URL in the first post of this
thread.

Xah

 

[Elena]

And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
mouse as well as a keyboard? The classic "grasp mouse" sitting to the
right of the keyboard mandates either a one-handed typing style (left
hand on keyboard, right hand on mouse) or constant re-aiming and
re-grasping. Or you can use a touchpad; what are the consequences of
that on typing speed? And my personal favorite, the IBM TrackPoint - a
stick mouse between the G/H/B keys, a design which other manufacturers
have since copied (although IMHO the IBM/Lenovo type still beats the
others hands down) - keep your hands where you want them and just
reach out to grab the mouse with your index finger, or slide your
fingers one key over (works fine if you're used to it).

Typing speed depends on a lot more than just your layout, and it's
going to be nearly impossible to narrow it down viably.

Chris Angelico

Moreover, I've seen people move the mouse faster than I could achieve
the same task by keyboard.

To me, the advantage of ergonomic layout is not about speed - I'm sure
there will always be people able to type blazingly fast on any random
layout - but about comfort. Even when typing slowly, I don't want my
fingers and my hands neither moving much more nor contorting much more
than necessary.

 

[Dotan Cohen]

Once the user is acclimated to move her hands much  more (about 40%
more for Qwerty versus Dvorak), that is.

And disproportionate usage of fingers. On QWERTY the weakest fingers
(pinkies) do almost 1/4 of the keypresses when modifier keys, enter,
tab, and backspace are taken into account.

I'm developing a QWERTY-based layout that moves the load off the
pinkies and onto the index fingers:
http://dotancohen.com/eng/noah_ergonomic_keyboard_layout.html

There is a Colemak version in the works as well.

 

[Andrew Berg]

That's one of the reasons I like my laptop keyboard so much.

I find that the terribly tiny keys on a laptop keyboard make them very
evil. I don't see how anyone could type fast on one of them without
making tons of errors. I constantly have to fix typos (the 'o' key is
the worst) when writing with this thing, and I'm not typing fast at all.
I suppose if you have really small hands, the compact layout might be
more comfortable, but I hate my keyboard. Then again, maybe I just have
a tiny keyboard; you might have one that actually fills the space on the
bottom.

 

[Chris Angelico]

And disproportionate usage of fingers. On QWERTY the weakest fingers
(pinkies) do almost 1/4 of the keypresses when modifier keys, enter,
tab, and backspace are taken into account.

That's true on a piano too, though. My pinkies are quite accustomed to
doing the extra work now, so whether I'm playing the church organ or
typing a post here, they're put to good use. It's the longer fingers
in the middle that aren't pulling their weight...

Chis Angelico

 

[Chris Angelico]

I find that the terribly tiny keys on a laptop keyboard make them very
evil. I don't see how anyone could type fast on one of them without
making tons of errors.

Then again, maybe I just have a tiny keyboard; you
might have one that actually fills the space on the bottom.

There are many different designs of laptop keyboard. Tiny netbooks
seem to have the very worst, leaving it nearly impossible to get any
decent work done (there may be exceptions to that, but I've seen a lot
of bad netbook keyboards). My current laptop is an IBM T60, one of the
last of the IBMs (now they're all Lenovos); prior to him, I've had
various other 14" or 15" laptops, all with the keyboards using most of
the available room. Obviously there's no numeric keypad on a keyboard
that small (having one overlaid on the main keyboard doesn't help when
you're playing Angband), but other than that, it's a complete keyboard
with enough room for the fingers to whack the right keys.

There's also a lot of difference in travel. The smaller keyboards have
keys that move about half a nanometer, but better keyboards feel
right. The worst keyboard of all, in that sense, would have to be the
virtual laser keyboard, no longer available on ThinkGeek but seems to
be here http://www.virtual-laser-devices.com/ - it's an incredibly
cool concept, but I can't imagine actually using one long-term. Typing
on concrete is not my idea of productivity.

Chris Angelico

 

[Andrew Berg]

There are many different designs of laptop keyboard. Tiny netbooks
seem to have the very worst, leaving it nearly impossible to get any
decent work done (there may be exceptions to that, but I've seen a lot
of bad netbook keyboards). My current laptop is an IBM T60, one of the
last of the IBMs (now they're all Lenovos); prior to him, I've had
various other 14" or 15" laptops, all with the keyboards using most of
the available room.

I thought that might be the case. I can take a picture of mine if you're
keeping a collection of bad laptop keyboards.
Seriously, I have a 17.1" display, and the keyboard is almost small
enough for a large tablet. It takes up no more than 30% of the area
available.
Also, the left shift and left control keys don't want to work most of
the time, but that's another issue.

 

[rusi]

That's true on a piano too, though. My pinkies are quite accustomed to
doing the extra work now, so whether I'm playing the church organ or
typing a post here, they're put to good use. It's the longer fingers
in the middle that aren't pulling their weight...

For keyboarding (in the piano/organ sense) the weakest finger is not
the fifth/pinky but the fourth.
Because for the fifth you will notice that the natural movement is to
stiffen the finger and then use a slight outward arm-swing; for thumb,
index and middle, they of course have their own strength.

The fourth has neither advantage. IOW qwerty is not so bad as it
could have been if it were qewrty (or asd was sad)