Typing Dvorak: Is it More Efficient?
Out of the available keyboard layouts, the Qwerty layout is used most often in the western world. But there’s always been this rumor that one of the other alternatives, the Dvorak layout, is actually more efficient. Apparently, it can make you type faster with higher accuracy.
Before we address the truth of this rumor, let’s recall what the Dvorak layout actually looks like. I found a Dvorak keyboard layout comparison with Qwerty. But the first layout pictured on the page is actually just 1 of 3 available Dvorak layouts - the two-handed layout:
Image Credit: Wikimedia
The other available layouts (the second and third image) are for one-handed use, one for lefties and another for righties (and no, I don’t mean politics).
Why do people say the Dvorak is more effective?
- According to some studies, such as this one by Stephen W. Hobday, the Dvorak layout allows you to type faster because the most widely-used letters of the alphabet are loaded in the middle-row, which is the ‘home’ row where your fingers are supposed to rest when you’re touch-typing.
- History suggests that the Qwerty keyboard was actually developed to slow down typists to prevent jamming a typewriters typebars - which is no longer applicable to today’s computer keyboards. Dvorak fans say that we’re just stuck with Qwerty out of habit, even if technology has moved on. (Also,the same paper says that typewriter manufacturers E. Remington and Sons made a few tweaks to the original Qwerty layout so that their salespeople can type the word “type writer” from the first row.)
If that’s the case, why do people still use Qwerty?
- Qwerty enthusiasts often quote a paper by Liebowitz and Margolis, where they say that the first study proving that Dvorak keyboard was more efficient (which was conducted by the US Navy) had a flawed methodology and was therefore unreliable.
- It’s just the standard. Learning how to type on the Dvorak keyboard will be time-consuming for the individual (who has likely grown up learning Qwerty all her/his life). For businesses, making the switch will cost some time and money for retraining. With that in mind, we lack in concrete studies showing a sizable rise in efficiency as the result of going Dvorak. In other words, no one is completely sure that it’s worth it.
So what’s everyone else saying?
Let’s go back to the first page I linked to, where, if you scroll down further, you’ll find a heated discussion from various readers about Qwerty vs. Dvorak. You’ll see that many people have tried it have different opinions, and the ones that really struck me I’ve summarized here:
Even if you’ve learned Dvorak, you might still be forced to use a Qwerty keyboard on some instances. When you do, you’ll have to momentarily retrain yourself to remember typing on a Qwerty keyboard if you’re so used to the Dvorak setup already.- This Dvorak vs. Qwerty discussion is generally applicable only to people who usually write in English. Other languages might have a more optimal keyboard layout, depending on what letters they use often.
- In a Dvorak setup, you spend 50% of your time on the home (middle) row, while on the Qwerty setup, you only spend roughly 27% of the time on the home (middle) row. This would make the Dvorak setup easier on your hand joints, because your fingers tend to stay on the same row half the time.
- Unlike the prevalent perception, it doesn’t cost any money for the individual to switch to Dvorak. You don’t need a new keyboard, you just need to reprogram your current one (click here for instructions). Also, it’s fairly easy to learn.
I also like this quote from Nicholas Thompson’s article over at Slate:
But to win mass approval, a new technology doesn’t have to be just better than an entrenched competitor; it has to be so much better that switching over outweighs staying put.
My personal verdict: In the end, it seems like the Dvorak layout has some important improvements over Qwerty, such as the prevention of RSI (repetitive strain injury). The numbers that the people are throwing around also show that it can make you a faster typist, but that probably depends on how good a typist you are in the first place anyway. Also, unless I can be at least 30% faster, I don’t think it’d be worth it. Besides, my current typing speed doesn’t lag that far from my thinking speed - what’s the point of typing faster than you can think?
Another important point is that technology is changing really fast. The use of handheld computers and cellphones allow people to type just by using their thumbs. The size of these gadgets alone should make a difference on what keypad layout is optimal for them. Also, I’ve been trying out Dragon Naturally Speaking, which is a pretty good voice recognition program. In fact, I’ve written a few emails and blog entries without typing anything. If this technology improves, we’ll have more options when it comes to input devices - although they won’t necessarily make keyboards obsolete.
I guess there’s really an optimal computer keyboard out there, which will give us good speed, less carpal tunnel syndrome, and higher accuracy. The Dvorak seems to come close, but I doubt it’ll be adapted by the majority of the typing market anytime soon. Personally, I might try it myself - if only because I want to take care of my typing hands.
What keyboard layout do you use? Have you tried several kinds? If you’ve only used Qwerty, have you ever thought of trying Dvorak or other alternatives?
Photo Credit: Image from Ginny Austin from stock.xchng
Related Stories
POSTED IN: General work pimps, Hardware
2 opinions for Typing Dvorak: Is it More Efficient?
Ishmael
Sep 15, 2008 at 8:08 am
It took about 2 years to acquire my current speed using the querty keyboard (about 60 words per minute), I’ve been using dvorak for a week and I’m abot 1/3 fast, not bad for a week.
“Even if you’ve learned Dvorak, you might still be forced to use a Qwerty keyboard on some instances.”
Thats true but most of the time you (or a leat I) use the same computer at home and work, and the “mental switch” takes only about 10 seconds.
“Learning how to type on the Dvorak keyboard will be time-consuming for the individual (who has likely grown up learning Qwerty all her/his life)”
Thats what the school is for, isn’t it?
And also, is not like if you where typing 100% of the time, just do something with the time you spend playng solitaire.
“No one is completely sure that it’s worth it.”
The company doesn’t care about my keyboad layot and if it may prevent me from injuring me fingers then I think it’s worth.
“what’s the point of typing faster than you can think?”
Sometimes I have to write some text from a book to the computer and I can read faster than I think.
John Wiegley
Sep 23, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I’ve been typing in Dvorak now, pretty much exclusively, for 16 years. What I can tell you is that it more efficient, although not really any faster. The reason I say it’s more efficient is that I can type for 40 hours straight, intensely, without any pain in my fingers, wrists or elbows. I’ve done the same thing with Qwerty several times, and I start developing a cramping pain near my left pinky that gets worse and worse until I have to stop. So, I believe the strain is being distributed more evenly on my hands and fingers when using the Dvorak layout. It also feels a lot more “comfortable” when typing for long periods of time continuously.
Otherwise, I haven’t found any incredible reason for people to switch who are already invested in Qwerty. Most people just don’t type quite as much as I do (the letters on my MacBook are actually getting worn away — and I use an external keyboard when I’m at home too!).
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: