Buttons & Jobs

--On August 10, 2007 2:54:29 AM -0700 Nigel Stanger
<nstangerinfoscience.otago.ac.nz> wrote:

> True. The thing I always notice about proficient Dvorak typists is how
> much quieter they sound than proficient QWERTY typists (at least in my
> experience). Presumably this is because they don't have to move their
> fingers such large distances in general, and thus end up hitting the keys
> more softly?

Or the higher cost of most dvorak keyboards means they can afford to use a
higher quality key so they aren't as loud.

On 8/10/07 04:43 AM, "Dan Frakes" <frakesmac.com> wrote:

> (For what it's worth, I have no position on the actual superiority of QWERTY
> or Dvorak; I just think it's a mistake to conclude that Dvorak offers no
> significant advantages over QWERTY based on the fact that the former hasn't
> been able to overcome the latter's overwhelming pervasiveness.)

Actually, I think that for all the DVORAK supporter's noise, the best they
can come up with is "somewhat better", not "better enough to switch".

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 8/10/07 04:54 AM, "Nigel Stanger" <nstangerinfoscience.otago.ac.nz>
wrote:

>> Sometimes, actually, often, people confuse "I like this" with "It's better".
>
> True. The thing I always notice about proficient Dvorak typists is how much
> quieter they sound than proficient QWERTY typists (at least in my
> experience). Presumably this is because they don't have to move their
> fingers such large distances in general, and thus end up hitting the keys
> more softly?

More likely, they never spent a lot of time on typewriters. I learned on a
manual and my early computer work was on IBM terminal keyboards. To this
day, I hit every key, spacebar to tilde, like there was some mechanical
linkage driving an actual impact to make the letter.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

> To this day, I hit every key, spacebar to tilde, like there was some
> mechanical linkage driving an actual impact to make the letter.
>

I, too, learned how to type on a manual typewriter. If people watch me as I type, they will think I'm trying to break the keyboard. Old habits are very difficult to break.

I even installed Keyclick <http://sustworks.com/site/prod_keyclick_overview.html> so I could listen to the tap, tap, tap.... noise as I type.

A while back, I purchased a membrane type keyboard at a supermarket, of all places. I thought I'd give it a try since it was only about $10. I used it for a couple of weeks but could never get used to it because it did not have any audio or touch feedback. I was pressing each key so hard my fingers would get stiff after about 10 minutes.

Ryoichi Morita

On Aug 10, 2007, at 8:39 AM, John C. Welch wrote:

> On 8/10/07 04:54 AM, "Nigel Stanger"
> <nstangerinfoscience.otago.ac.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>> Sometimes, actually, often, people confuse "I like this" with
>>> "It's better".
>>
>> True. The thing I always notice about proficient Dvorak typists is
>> how much
>> quieter they sound than proficient QWERTY typists (at least in my
>> experience). Presumably this is because they don't have to move their
>> fingers such large distances in general, and thus end up hitting
>> the keys
>> more softly?
>
> More likely, they never spent a lot of time on typewriters. I
> learned on a
> manual and my early computer work was on IBM terminal keyboards. To
> this
> day, I hit every key, spacebar to tilde, like there was some
> mechanical
> linkage driving an actual impact to make the letter.

Flexowriters were interesting: hit every key hard AND at the right
moment (neither too soon nor a little too late--a lot too late just
caused slowness--early or a little late caused lockup).

   --John

At 2:54 AM -0700 8/10/07, Nigel Stanger wrote:
> > Sometimes, actually, often, people confuse "I like this" with
>"It's better".
>
>True. The thing I always notice about proficient Dvorak typists is how much
>quieter they sound than proficient QWERTY typists (at least in my
>experience). Presumably this is because they don't have to move their
>fingers such large distances in general, and thus end up hitting the keys
>more softly?

I assume that most people like the idea of being both faster and more
accurate in typing. I know I would like that. For those reasons the
idea of using a different keyboard layout that replaces a mid-18th
century era tool that was explicitly designed to slow down the act of
typing sounds fantastic. But that's really what the idea is - fantasy.

I've had to switch back and forth between QWERTY and AZERTY keyboards
often enough to know that the reality of switching - in both
directions - is more counterproductive than the presumed increase I
would get from a more logically designed Dvorak (or something else).
So I assume that it would be nice, but not better.


> > Sometimes, actually, often, people confuse "I like this" with
>"It's better".

And this is where I bring in the off-topic but always fun subject of
metric vs. SAE. In the US (the last country besides Burma to resist
switching, and I'm not so sure about Burma anymore), we are still
wholly on a system that is neither better nor nice (likable). But the
alternative system (metric) is hard for the natives to learn. So I do
my bit in helping the conversion by conveniently dropping that into
conversation whenever I can, and I do the conversion for them. "So
that 5.25 inch hard disk is about 13 centimeters." Or, "That 72
degrees F is about 22 degrees C."


[Any replies to the metric point should go to a new thread, quoting Dan's original above. -Adam]

On 11/08/2007 3:39 AM, "Kevin van Haaren" <kevinvanhaaren.net> spake thus:

> Or the higher cost of most dvorak keyboards means they can afford to use a
> higher quality key so they aren't as loud.

Nope, I've never seen anyone with an actual physical Dvorak keyboard ---
everyone I've ever seen was using physical QWERTY with a Dvorak layout in
software.

--
Nigel Stanger, Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND.
http://xri.net/=nigel.stanger

On Aug 13, 2007, at 13:46, dano wrote:
> For those reasons the idea of using a different keyboard layout
> that replaces a mid-18th century era tool that was explicitly
> designed to slow down the act of typing sounds fantastic.

Here's a very interesting article on the topic:

<http://www.reason.com/news/show/29944.html>

I highly recommend it for anyone interested in QWERTY versus DVORAK.

As for me personally, I don't use a traditional keyboard at all
(except on my PB), but a Kinesis Contour keyboard. Whatever gain
there is to be had from merely swapping the characters around is so
miniscule compared to fixing the physical key layout that it's really
a waste of time and energy to address the former without also
addressing the latter. My Kinesis directly addresses most of the
problems people are trying to solve with alternate layouts, and it
does so with far, far greater effectiveness. And yet, I see people
spending an inordinate amount of energy trying to solve problems by
simply switching layouts; it just doesn't make sense to me. It's like
trying to save gas in your car by turning off your air conditioning
while you pull out of your driveway, when instead you could take the
alternate route to work each day that happens to be 50% shorter and
lets you drive with 75% fewer stops and slowdowns.

There are worse misconceptions, though. For instance, I find it
especially amusing when someone tells me how picky they are about
their keyboards, but then proceeds to reject one because they can't
crank the front-to-back tilt as much as they'd like, when in fact
such tilt is terrible for your wrists.

The bottom line is that people would help themselves a lot if they'd
learn just a smidgen about ergonomic theory, then go out and start
buying devices that are as ergonomic as they can afford. In this
case, just about any ergonomic keyboard offers some serious gains
over just a different key layout. If you still want to switch layouts
afterward, fine, but regardless, start with the low-hanging monster
fruit instead of the tiny fruit atop the tree.


Regards,
Bob

On 10-Aug-2007, at 09:39, John C. Welch wrote:
> On 8/10/07 04:43 AM, "Dan Frakes" <frakesmac.com> wrote:
>> (For what it's worth, I have no position on the actual superiority
>> of QWERTY
>> or Dvorak; I just think it's a mistake to conclude that Dvorak
>> offers no
>> significant advantages over QWERTY based on the fact that the
>> former hasn't
>> been able to overcome the latter's overwhelming pervasiveness.)
>
> Actually, I think that for all the DVORAK supporter's noise, the
> best they
> can come up with is "somewhat better", not "better enough to switch".

Well, the 'famous' tests in the 1940's were rigged and the fastest
DVORAK typists are not significantly faster than the fastest QWERTY
typist and the fact is that 100-110 wpm is perfectly achievable on a
QWERTY keyboard and is twice as fast as most people can ever hope to
achieve.

Why switch?

On 13-Aug-2007, at 14:46, dano wrote:
> I assume that most people like the idea of being both faster and more
> accurate in typing. I know I would like that. For those reasons the
> idea of using a different keyboard layout that replaces a mid-18th
> century era tool that was explicitly designed to slow down the act of
> typing sounds fantastic. But that's really what the idea is - fantasy.

First off, 19th century. Second off all, this is flat out untrue.

The design of the QWERTY keyboard was not to 'slow you down' but to
space the frequently used keys out in such a way that the fastest
possible typing was possible without constant jamming of the
mechanism by a collection of frequent keys all rushing to hit the
paper at the same time.

Saying QWERTY was designed to slow you down is exactly the opposite
of what it was designed to do.

I'd LOVE to see someone try and type a dvorak layout on a manual-
linkage typewriter, their wpm would drop through the floor as they
had to clear jams every 3 or 4 keystrokes.

On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Google Kreme wrote:

>> Actually, I think that for all the DVORAK supporter's noise, the
>> best they
>> can come up with is "somewhat better", not "better enough to switch".
>
> Well, the 'famous' tests in the 1940's were rigged and the fastest
> DVORAK typists are not significantly faster than the fastest QWERTY
> typist and the fact is that 100-110 wpm is perfectly achievable on a
> QWERTY keyboard and is twice as fast as most people can ever hope to
> achieve.
>
> Why switch?

Less chance of RSI; more logical arrangement that makes typing less
of a cognitive task.


Kirk

> Why switch?

Carpel tunnel and other issues. The current keyboard requires LOTS of finger and wrist movement compared to the DVORAK. Not that it will happen. :)

The best device I ever heard of for typing was in a computer mag from the 70s. I think I have the article somewhere. It was a hockey puck sized lump with a button for each finger. Each button could move "away and near" and also be pushed. I think the thumb was the shift, control, etc... Folks could type and never move their hand. And it was one handed. You just had to learn the cords. Not faster than the standard keyboard but much easier on the arm and you could put it anywhere. This was not an actual product but an article about how you could build it yourself.

David Ross

On 20/08/2007 11:10 PM, "Google Kreme" <gkremegmail.com> spake thus:

> Why switch?

It can act as a simple security mechanism :) One of my colleagues uses
Dvorak, and any time someone else tries to use his machine they get
gibberish. Of course, it's trivial to get around if you know what you're
doing, but a lot of people don't even know that there *is* such a thing as
different keyboard layouts.

--
Nigel Stanger, Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND.
http://xri.net/=nigel.stanger

On 8/21/07 04:00 AM, "Kirk McElhearn" <kirkmcelhearn.com> wrote:

>>> Actually, I think that for all the DVORAK supporter's noise, the
>>> best they
>>> can come up with is "somewhat better", not "better enough to switch".
>>
>> Well, the 'famous' tests in the 1940's were rigged and the fastest
>> DVORAK typists are not significantly faster than the fastest QWERTY
>> typist and the fact is that 100-110 wpm is perfectly achievable on a
>> QWERTY keyboard and is twice as fast as most people can ever hope to
>> achieve.
>>
>> Why switch?
>
> Less chance of RSI; more logical arrangement that makes typing less
> of a cognitive task.

RSI has nothing to do with QWERTY, and everything to do with hand/wrist
position, posture, workstation, etc. If QWERTY alone was a major factor in
RSI, then everyone who ever touched a typewriter would be a cripple.

As well, the logical arrangement is a fallacy. It's all in what you're
trained in. I can type in the dark while talking to someone in the next
cube. There's very little active thought about typing with proper training
and 30 years of experience.


--
John C. Welch

On 8/21/07 04:00 AM, "David Ross" <drdavidrossconsultant.com> wrote:

>> Why switch?
>
> Carpel tunnel and other issues. The current keyboard requires LOTS of finger
> and wrist movement compared to the DVORAK. Not that it will happen. :)

Then all the people who used typewriters should be cripples. Funny, that
didn't happen, and typewriters, esp. pre-selectric era, had a LOT of finger
and wrist movement.

--
John C. Welch

On Aug 21, 2007, at 2:00, Kirk McElhearn wrote:
>> Why switch?
>
> Less chance of RSI; more logical arrangement that makes typing less
> of a cognitive task.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, to reduce the chance of RSI, you
really need to make physical changes to the keyboard. Making logical
changes will help, but just a tiny amount by comparison.

As for the cognitive claim, I doubt typing is much of a cognitive
exercise for any touch typist. I suspect it's quite the contrary, in
fact, which is why I can go on typing at 80+ wpm even as I'm looking
around the room and thinking about what I'm seeing. The real
hinderance in typing is finger coordination, with only a relatively
small portion of the population able to top the 50 wpm mark just
because they're unable to coordinate the movements of their fingers
at such a rapid pace. I don't see how any particular layout would
reduce this problem. It may reduce certain types of movements, but
you still need to coordinate the movement of fingers to a different
position for each character.


Regards,
Bob

On Aug 21, 2007, at 2:00, David Ross wrote:
> It was a hockey puck sized lump with a button for each finger. Each
> button could move "away and near" and also be pushed. I think the
> thumb was the shift, control, etc... Folks could type and never
> move their hand. And it was one handed. You just had to learn the
> cords.

There are real products like this on the market now. For example, the
BAT keyboard.

<http://www.infogrip.com/product_view.asp?RecordNumber=12>

See also:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorded_keyboard>


Regards,
Bob

Bob Williams wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2007, at 2:00, David Ross wrote:
>> It was a hockey puck sized lump with a button for each finger. Each
>> button could move "away and near" and also be pushed. I think the
>> thumb was the shift, control, etc... Folks could type and never
>> move their hand. And it was one handed. You just had to learn the
>> cords.
>
> There are real products like this on the market now. For example, the
> BAT keyboard.
>
> <http://www.infogrip.com/product_view.asp?RecordNumber=12>
>
> See also:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorded_keyboard>


[I've used and written about the BAT - ages ago. See <http://db.tidbits.com/search/BAT%20keyboard>. It's conceptual, but not a realistic option for most people, based on what I remember. -Adam>]


Similar concept but this one was unique in that if you hold you hand like you're hold say 1/2 of a medium to medium large orange then turn that over you'll get the basic concept. Almost everything I see on the market seems stuck in the "keys on a surface or lump" concept and ignore the natural grip of the hand.

David

On 22-Aug-2007, at 05:13, John C. Welch wrote:
> On 8/21/07 04:00 AM, "David Ross" <drdavidrossconsultant.com> wrote:
>>> Why switch?
>>
>> Carpel tunnel and other issues. The current keyboard requires LOTS
>> of finger
>> and wrist movement compared to the DVORAK. Not that it will
>> happen. :)
>
> Then all the people who used typewriters should be cripples. Funny,
> that didn't happen, and typewriters, esp. pre-selectric era, had a LOT
> of finger and wrist movement.

In fact, the increased finger and wrist movements associated with a
manual typewriter appear to sharply diminish the incidence of RSI,
which occurs far more often with people who touch type on
'electronic' keyboards, especially the modern computer keybaords with
there very short action range and their very low resistance. Of
course, having your wrist bent back makes it all that much worse. On
a manual typewriter your hands perched well above the keys to give
you acceleration room to ram each key down with sufficient force.

On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Google Kreme wrote:

> On
> a manual typewriter your hands perched well above the keys to give
> you acceleration room to ram each key down with sufficient force.

And the left hand made a large movement up and left, then well to the
right, then back down to the keyboard once a line (at the next space
after the "ding"). For the left hand, that nicely interrupted the
"repetitive" part of typing RSI.

But mostly, I agree, the difference was the larger effort and better
position required (I cringe whenever anyone writes about a "wrist
rest" in connection with typing.)

   --John (who is typing on a keyboard located at the edge of his table)