Economists fall for the QWERTY myth
Caren Weiner Campbell
the merits and endurance of the QWERTY keyboard (cf.
http://www.urbanlegends.com/misc/dvorak.html), there is a new
document that further supports the above-mentioned entry in the
FAQ.
This week's Economist magazine carries a story in which this
tale--the Dvorak keyboard is better than the QWERTY, but Dvorak
can't assert itself in the marketplace because everyone's already
habituated to QWERTY--is described as a favorite of economists
who want to illustrate a certain kind of failure in the markets'
functioning.
The article accuses said economists of vectoring this tale in the
same way that other people might spread a UL.
Here's the Economist URL:
http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/3-4-99/index_fn7745.html
The relevant bits:
[BEGIN QUOTE]
...a distinguished academic economist (who had better remain
nameless) cited the “QWERTY” layout of the standard typewriter
keyboard as a clear example of how markets “can make mistakes”.
It may have been the millionth such reference. Many a textbook
cites this case as proof of a certain kind of market failure—that
associated with the adoption and locking-in of a bad standard.
[snip]
The paper by Messrs Liebowitz and Margolis shows, in the first
place, that the first evidence supporting claims of Dvorak’s
superiority was extremely thin. The main study was carried out by
the United States Navy in 1944 (doubtless a time when every
second counted in the typing pools). The speed of 14 typists
retrained on Dvorak was compared with the speed of 18 given
supplementary training on QWERTY. The Dvorak typists did
better—but it is impossible to say from the official report
whether the experiment was properly controlled. There are a
variety of oddities and possible biases: all of them, it so
happens, seeming to favour Dvorak.
But then it turns out—something else the report forgot to
mention—that the experiments were conducted by one
Lieutenant-Commander August Dvorak, the navy’s top
time-and-motion man, and owner of the Dvorak layout patent.
In 1956 a carefully designed study by the General Services
Administration found that
QWERTY typists were about as fast as Dvorak typists, or faster.
Interest in Dvorak among companies and government agencies had
lately been increasing, but it came to an end with that finding.
Since then, as “The Fable of the Keys” explains, there have been
a variety of other experiments and studies. They find that
neither design of keyboard has a clear advantage over the other.
Ergonomists point out that QWERTY’s bad points (such as
unbalanced loads on left and right hand; excess loading on the
top row) are outweighed by presumably accidental benefits
(notably, that alternating hand sequences make for speedier
typing).
Which is all very interesting, but the point is this: if you have
learned to type on a QWERTY keyboard, the cost of retraining for
Dvorak (however modest) is not worth paying. This implies, in
turn, that the QWERTY standard is efficient. There is no market
failure.
Undaunted by the resilience of the QWERTY myth, Messrs Liebowitz
and Margolis devote the first chapter of a forthcoming book on
supposed market failures, technology and Microsoft to the fable
of the keys. They go on to argue that the fashion for finding new
kinds of market failure (lock in, path dependence, network
effects, and so on) in high-tech industries is misconceived:
QWERTY is just one example among many. Their views on this larger
question are for another article. For now, merely note that the
failure illustrated by the QWERTY myth has more to do with the
study of economics than with markets. For some reason, economists
seem to adopt bogus anecdotal histories and then get locked in.
[END QUOTE]
--Carrie "that new keyboard is just not my type" Weiner Campbell
Dan Hartung
<carrie...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Apropos of a recurrent discussion we have here on the froup about
>the merits and endurance of the QWERTY keyboard (cf.
>http://www.urbanlegends.com/misc/dvorak.html), there is a new
>document that further supports the above-mentioned entry in the
>FAQ.
And I will always carry with me the experience of trying out Dvorak
some years ago. Within a week I was typing as fast as in Qwerty;
within a month I was 20% faster than my fastest Qwerty time ever (and
keep in mind I'm a touch typist who spent two years working in a data
entry shop).
Another surprising lesson was that I was able to switch back and forth
between the two formats quite easily. It was more like learning a new
language than "retraining" my fingers.
--
Dan Hartung | "I believe we can fly
dhartung (at) wwa (dot) com | on the wings that we create"
http://www.wwa.com/~dhartung/ | -- M. E.
John Gilmer
Dan Hartung wrote in message <37128bd6....@news.wwa.com>...
>On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 15:13:57 -0400, Caren Weiner Campbell
><carrie...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Apropos of a recurrent discussion we have here on the froup about
>>the merits and endurance of the QWERTY keyboard (cf.
>>http://www.urbanlegends.com/misc/dvorak.html), there is a new
>>document that further supports the above-mentioned entry in the
>>FAQ.
>
>And I will always carry with me the experience of trying out Dvorak
>some years ago. Within a week I was typing as fast as in Qwerty;
>within a month I was 20% faster than my fastest Qwerty time ever (and
>keep in mind I'm a touch typist who spent two years working in a data
>entry shop).
>
>Another surprising lesson was that I was able to switch back and forth
>between the two formats quite easily. It was more like learning a new
>language than "retraining" my fingers.
I had a variation of your experience: When I was in Vietnam, I an occasion
to use a typewriter in the office of a Vietnamese priest. Apparently the
key arrangement was that used from the French. Most of the keys (as I
remember) were the same but I think the Q and A keys were different (it's
been over 25 years). Anyway, after only a few minutes I was able to touch
type on this guy's typewriter. When I returned to my own office I, of
course, had no problem using my "merican" typewriter.
It is likely that touch typing skills are a subset of piano playing skills.
A good keyboard person can change keys without even thinking hard.
The trouble is that keyboard entry becomes less important every year. Most
data is entered once and transferred from application to application. Most
high volumn data entry is done by people composing. I doubt whether there
is a critical mass anymore of volumn data entry folks to justify a
systematic study into the "best" system and the follow up transition.
_______________________
President Clinton is a Rapist! -- But, that's OK.
John Gil...@Crosslink.net
Paul Herzberg
<some stuff about the french azerty keyboard>
I had a similar experience when I had to work in France last year. Also
working in Austria now I am quite used to the German qwertz keyboard (though
I am no touch typist).
I think DOS used to come with an illustrated list of some of the different
keyboards.
There are usually some minor changes to what characters are above the
numbers too.
Cheers
Paul "Heryberg" Herzberg
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
<carrie...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Apropos of a recurrent discussion we have here on the froup about
>the merits and endurance of the QWERTY keyboard (cf.
>http://www.urbanlegends.com/misc/dvorak.html), there is a new
>document that further supports the above-mentioned entry in the
>FAQ.
The FAQ is on VERY weak grounds with this article. It may not state
anything that is unambiguously untrue, but it certainly insinuates such
things. I guess the poster here picked up on a recent *editorial* in
_The Economist_ relating to this.
The basic fact is that the primary "debunkers" of the Dvorak keyboard's
superiority are a pair of slightly lunatic Hayekians[1] called Liebowitz
and Margolis. Much like the ideology of _The Economist_, their only
goal is to prove that absolute and complete rationality of markets in
everything they do. As such, none of the batch much likes this
well-worn example of market's ability to fix in place inefficiencies.
The free-marketeers are apoplectic at the example, naturally.
There are a few minor methodological errors that can be pointed to in
the original Dvorak studies. But the simple fact is that the Dvorak
keyboard *is* better, even if not all that much better. The best even
the free-marketeers can really bring themselves to claim is that "Dvorak
is not ENOUGH better than QWERTY to warrant the cost of retraining
typists." Well, maybe. I know that personally it was not worth the
extra hassle of sticking with Dvorak after trying it *because I had to
use keyboards I was not in control of* (and could not reconfigure
conveniently). In other words, I found myself determined in my choices
by established inefficiencies. Sure QWERTY is not, ALL THAT BAD; but it
*is* a little bit bad.
On the other hand, I will confess that the most extreme form of the
anti-QWERTY story is clearly false. A certain version of the story says
that QWERTY was designed specifically to slow down typists (to
accomodate the physical mechanism). That is not true. The design WAS
to accomodate the arrangement of the hammers, but only insofar as it
tended to balance pair of hammers that were fairly far from each other.
Anyone who has used an old manual typewriter (or some electrics) knows
that striking two keys whose hammers are adjacent is likely to cause a
jam in the hammers. This is obviously undesirable, and QWERTY does a
good job of solving this. But the intention was never to slow down
typists per se.
If anything really merits debunking, it is Liebowitz and Margolis. That
counter-meme (so to speak) has become much more of an urban legend than
was the Dvorak-meme to start with.
Yours, Lulu...
[1] I guess the phrase 'lunatic Hayekians' is a bit redundant. I
apologize.
--
quilty _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY:_/_/_/_/ v i
@ibm. _/_/ Postmodern Enterprises _/_/ s r
net _/_/ MAKERS OF CHAOS.... _/_/ i u
_/_/_/_/_/ LOOK FOR IT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU_/_/_/_/_/ g s
David Hatunen
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <me...@gnosis.cx> wrote:
>The FAQ is on VERY weak grounds with this article. It may not state
>anything that is unambiguously untrue, but it certainly insinuates such
>things. I guess the poster here picked up on a recent *editorial* in
>_The Economist_ relating to this.
It's a sidebar, not an editorial. But that may be a fine
distinction.
>The basic fact is that the primary "debunkers" of the Dvorak
>keyboard's superiority are a pair of slightly lunatic Hayekians[1]
>called Liebowitz and Margolis.
Now THAT'S interesting. How do you know they are "slightly
lunatic"? Other than the fact that you don't agree. Have their
shrinks violated confidentiality and sent your their findings? Do
you know them personally and this is your own psychiatric
evaluation?
In fact, the Economist article cites a 1956 "carefully designed
study by the General Services Administration". Is the GSA also run
by the slightly lunatic? Did you actually read the Economist
article?
>There are a few minor methodological errors that can be pointed to in
>the original Dvorak studies.
Is the Economist correct? Did Dvorak himself administer the
origianl studies? I would consider that more than "minor".
>But the simple fact is that the Dvorak keyboard *is* better, even
>if not all that much better.
>The best even the free-marketeers can really bring themselves to
>claim is that "Dvorak is not ENOUGH better than QWERTY to warrant
>the cost of retraining typists."
That's petty much what the article says.
>Well, maybe. I know that personally it was not worth the extra
>hassle of sticking with Dvorak after trying it *because I had to
>use keyboards I was not in control of* (and could not reconfigure
>conveniently). In other words, I found myself determined in my
>choices by established inefficiencies. Sure QWERTY is not, ALL
>THAT BAD; but it *is* a little bit bad.
That's pretty much what the article says.
>On the other hand, I will confess that the most extreme form of
>the anti-QWERTY story is clearly false. A certain version of the
>story says that QWERTY was designed specifically to slow down
>typists (to accomodate the physical mechanism).
That's NOT what the article says.
>That is not true.
>The design WAS to accomodate the arrangement of the hammers, but
>only insofar as it tended to balance pair of hammers that were
>fairly far from each other. Anyone who has used an old manual
>typewriter (or some electrics) knows that striking two keys whose
>hammers are adjacent is likely to cause a jam in the hammers.
>This is obviously undesirable, and QWERTY does a good job of
>solving this. But the intention was never to slow down typists
>per se.
Thgat's pretty much what the article says.
>If anything really merits debunking, it is Liebowitz and Margolis. That
>counter-meme (so to speak) has become much more of an urban legend than
>was the Dvorak-meme to start with.
How about the GSA?
You've just slammed the Economist for the article it published, and
then proceeded to inidcate that it is in agreement with you. What
was your point?
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
******* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *******
Deacon B.
wrote:
>>On the other hand, I will confess that the most extreme form of
>>the anti-QWERTY story is clearly false. A certain version of the
>>story says that QWERTY was designed specifically to slow down
>>typists (to accomodate the physical mechanism).
>That's NOT what the article says.
I'm not sure it matters what the story said; that's a common enough
explanation. If Remington didn't switch from an alphabetical-order
keyboard to QWERTY in order to slow typists who were mashing the keys
together, why *do* we have a QWERTY keyboard instead of an ABCDEF
keyboard.
Deacon "And what's wrong with ETAOIN SHRDLU, anyhow?" B.
David DeLaney
>The trouble is that keyboard entry becomes less important every year. Most
>data is entered once and transferred from application to application. Most
>high volumn data entry is done by people composing. I doubt whether there
>is a critical mass anymore of volumn data entry folks to justify a
>systematic study into the "best" system and the follow up transition.
...I know many people in the health-care system alone who would very much
disagree with your conclusions as presented here. I'm fairly sure the
hotel-reservations business is also quite full of data-enterers, for another,
and that there are many many others also. [Any business that takes orders
over the phone; any business that gets information handwritten on forms; etc.
Granted, _some_ of them could conceivably convert to net-based entry... but
most never will, I believe.]
Dave "PHP/TennCare data-entry survivor" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Brian Yeoh
> On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 15:13:57 -0400, Caren Weiner Campbell
> <carrie...@mindspring.com> quoted the Economist thus:
> >For now, merely note that the
> >failure illustrated by the QWERTY myth has more to do with the
> >study of economics than with markets. For some reason, economists
> >seem to adopt bogus anecdotal histories and then get locked in.
> Cute, very cute.
> Phil "_the Economist_ is of course guided exclusively by pure reason"
> Edwards
But of course it is. What else would it be guided by? What else would any
economist be guided by?
Brian "for sufficient values of pure" Yeoh
Reduc to absurd
My matras of tenuous hope
She will Brook no more.
-- 21/03/1999
Phil Edwards
<carrie...@mindspring.com> quoted the Economist thus:
>Ergonomists point out that QWERTY’s bad points (such as
>unbalanced loads on left and right hand; excess loading on the
>top row) are outweighed by presumably accidental benefits
^^^^^^^^^^
>(notably, that alternating hand sequences make for speedier
>typing).
I've never seen *this* claim, and I've seen quite a bit of the
pro-QWERTY literature.
>Which is all very interesting, but the point is this: if you have
>learned to type on a QWERTY keyboard, the cost of retraining for
>Dvorak (however modest) is not worth paying. This implies, in
>turn, that the QWERTY standard is efficient. There is no market
>failure.
Note the definition of 'efficient'. It's my impression that the Dvorak
keyboard layout, while it has a couple of ergonomic oddities of its
own, is considerably more typist-friendly than QWERTY: the fingers
spend a lot more time on their home keys and a lot less time
stretching up and down. Even if it doesn't enable a significant number
of fast typists to type even faster, I'd be surprised if the Dvorak
layout didn't have longer-term health benefits - but of course those
are a bit difficult to identify in a short-term study.
>For now, merely note that the
>failure illustrated by the QWERTY myth has more to do with the
>study of economics than with markets. For some reason, economists
>seem to adopt bogus anecdotal histories and then get locked in.
Cute, very cute.
Phil "_the Economist_ is of course guided exclusively by pure reason"
Edwards
--
Phil Edwards http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/amroth/
"Everything you know is wrong is something you know, you know"
- Paraic O'Donnell
John Gilmer
particularly fast; likewise making reservations. now there are businesses
that transcribe lawyer and doctor notes. These transcription services can
always use faster methods. Since this are low cost businesses (the desk
and chair probably cost as much as the computer) entry is easy and there is
little incentive to make large operations. Only a large operation (or,
perversely, a one man shop) can afford the research and training necessary
to convert to a slightly better system.
During WWII, I understand, copies were made by giving the original to a fast
typist. A good typist could make a perfect copy in a few minutes.
David DeLaney wrote in message
JLG
<7edqti$i4e$1...@gaia.ns.utk.edu>...
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|Is the Economist correct? Did Dvorak himself administer the
|origianl studies? I would consider that more than "minor".
Yeah, of course Dvorak administers many of the studies around the
efficiency of different keyboard layouts. That is what led him to
redesign efforts and so on.
I cannot see why this is a problem, even a minor one. In probably the
VAST majority of ALL scientific study, the person doing the first
studies is the same person advancing the theory it is intended to test.
Rather than a methodological horror, the Dvorak situation is the norm in
science (well... maybe the norm is also a methodological horror, I
wouldn't rule that out). After all, why would anyone BOTHER to design
and perform a study if she did not have ideas she wanted to demonstrate?
Yours, Lulu...
--
_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
_/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[qui...@ibm.net]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/
_/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/
David Hatunen
>|Is the Economist correct? Did Dvorak himself administer the
>|origianl studies? I would consider that more than "minor".
>
>Yeah, of course Dvorak administers many of the studies around the
>efficiency of different keyboard layouts. That is what led him to
>redesign efforts and so on.
>
>I cannot see why this is a problem, even a minor one. In probably
>the VAST majority of ALL scientific study, the person doing the
>first studies is the same person advancing the theory it is
>intended to test. Rather than a methodological horror, the Dvorak
>situation is the norm in science (well... maybe the norm is also a
>methodological horror, I wouldn't rule that out). After all, why
>would anyone BOTHER to design and perform a study if she did not
>have ideas she wanted to demonstrate?
This probably isn't the best place to explain to you how a
well-designed experiment would take account of this, especially
since both you and the Economist have said it really wasn't a
well-designed experiment.
David DeLaney
>NO. Someone order taking over the telephone doesn't have to type
>particularly fast; likewise making reservations.
Have you ever worked at either one? Can you tell me the minimum WPM speed
they want?
> now there are businesses
>that transcribe lawyer and doctor notes. These transcription services can
>always use faster methods.
Optical Character Recognition is, as far as I _know_, not yet Up To
Recognizing Handwriting It Wasn't Trained On. I'm not sure what your "faster
methods" would _be_, if they aren't "person sitting there typing things in".
And I assure you that such businesses would want people who can type _both_
quickly _and_ accurately. There are people in data-entry who are accurate
but not too swift; they tend not to stay in that temp job very long.
>During WWII, I understand, copies were made by giving the original to a fast
>typist. A good typist could make a perfect copy in a few minutes.
Which disproves my point _how_? Re-refer to the below-appended pleeze...
And "a few minutes" is generally "one page worth". Data-entry these days
is concerned with a _great_ deal more than one page a day; if your business
is only generating that much need for input, your _secretary_ can do it
on her Windows75 box.
>>...I know many people in the health-care system alone who would very much
>>disagree with your conclusions as presented here. I'm fairly sure the
>>hotel-reservations business is also quite full of data-enterers, for another,
>>and that there are many many others also. [Any business that takes orders
>>over the phone; any business that gets information handwritten on forms; etc.
>>Granted, _some_ of them could conceivably convert to net-based entry... but
>>most never will, I believe.]
Dave "can you please be more vague about the points you're arguing for?" DeLaney
Doug Landauer
> with Dvorak after trying it *because I had to use keyboards I was
> not in control of* (and could not reconfigure conveniently).
Just another data point (i.e., anecdote): for me, the "extra
hassle" lasted about two months, in 1982 or so. I often for the
next two or three years had to switch back and forth, but since
about 1984 I've been using Dvorak about 99.9% of the time.
Still, some 15 years later, I have to use a QWERTY keyboard for
a short while, maybe once every month or two. I notice, but it's
not like a major hassle. I probably type QWERTY slower now than
I did in 1981, but not by a whole lot.
For me, the switch had less to do with speed and more to do with
my wrists feeling better (less tired) after a day of using a Dvorak
layout than after a day of typing QWERTY.
Yeah, the switch probably was also related to why I like
Lojban, Python, obscure "folk" and "world" music, and Tolkien's
Elvish languages -- I still write notes to myself on my office
whiteboard using Tengwar, when I don't want passersby to be able
to read them.
Besides, this way no one can do much damage if they sneak into
my office. I mean, without a hammer.
--
Doug Landauer land...@apple.com (work)
land...@scruznet.com (not-work)
John Gilmer
some organization has to make investments in reasearch, training, &
equipment.
Unless these expenditures give the organization a competitive advantage, the
money will NOT be spent.
If a big shop (which doesn't exist) made the investment much of the benefit
would go to smaller competitors and the comparative advantage would be
small. This means that have to have an even bigger base to justify the
investment.
When I have talked to order taker types the biggest problem is makng sure
they understand. The actual number of characters transferred is small.
So, all I am saying is that shifting keyboard layouts would only be
accomplished by large organizations that don't have competition but to have
to make money (like the post office) or very small organization which can
keep their research results away from the competion (like a mom & pop data
entry shop).
JLG
David DeLaney wrote in message <7egglq$frc$1...@gaia.ns.utk.edu>...
Terry Smith
> Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 15:13:57 -0400
> can't assert itself in the marketplace because everyone's already
> habituated to QWERTY--is described as a favorite of economists who
> want to illustrate a certain kind of failure in the markets'
> functioning.
Scientific disciplines would consider the failure one of the model.
Terry
--
A question to the Pangea con^Hmpany:
Will you assist Europe and the U.S to take back any ash from exported coal?
Mitcho
> Yeah, the switch probably was also related to why I like
> Lojban, Python, obscure "folk" and "world" music, and Tolkien's
> Elvish languages -- I still write notes to myself on my office
> whiteboard using Tengwar, when I don't want passersby to be able
> to read them.
I can't speak for others, but this was way more than I would have ever
wanted to know about anyone.
Mitcho
--
The Urban Redneck o ozy...@employees.org o Goat Hill, California
http://www.employees.org/~ozyman
Caren Weiner Campbell
>
> hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen) wrote previously:
> |Is the Economist correct? Did Dvorak himself administer the
> |origianl studies? I would consider that more than "minor".
>
> Yeah, of course Dvorak administers many of the studies around the
> efficiency of different keyboard layouts. That is what led him to
> redesign efforts and so on.
>
> I cannot see why this is a problem, even a minor one. In probably the
> VAST majority of ALL scientific study, the person doing the first
> studies is the same person advancing the theory it is intended to test.
Maybe so, but then other people are supposed to be able to
replicate it, no?
Has anyone ever tried to replicate Dvorak's results? I'd be
interested to
know the outcome of *those* studies.
> Rather than a methodological horror, the Dvorak situation is the norm in
> science (well... maybe the norm is also a methodological horror, I
> wouldn't rule that out). After all, why would anyone BOTHER to design
> and perform a study if she did not have ideas she wanted to demonstrate?
In this case, I do believe, Dvorak had a patent and a product he
wanted to sell
(please correct me if I'm wrong about that). Consequently, his
"scientific" study
was tainted by a desire for one particular outcome.
In other words, demonstrating an idea is different from testing
an idea.
David Hatunen
>>
>> hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen) wrote previously:
>> |Is the Economist correct? Did Dvorak himself administer the
>> |origianl studies? I would consider that more than "minor".
>>
>> Yeah, of course Dvorak administers many of the studies around the
>> efficiency of different keyboard layouts. That is what led him to
>> redesign efforts and so on.
>>
>> I cannot see why this is a problem, even a minor one. In probably the
>> VAST majority of ALL scientific study, the person doing the first
>> studies is the same person advancing the theory it is intended to test.
>
>Maybe so, but then other people are supposed to be able to
>replicate it, no? Has anyone ever tried to replicate Dvorak's
>results? I'd be interested to know the outcome of *those* studies.
According to the Economist articel, the GSA did in the 1950s and
found little advantage to the Dvorak keyboard.
[...]
David DeLaney
>Wait. My main point was/is that to convert to a faster keyboard layout
>some organization has to make investments in reasearch, training, &
>equipment.
>
>Unless these expenditures give the organization a competitive advantage, the
>money will NOT be spent.
Oh, I quite agree.
But if that was what you were trying to have as your main point, you somehow
totally missed it in the post I first replied to.
>So, all I am saying is that shifting keyboard layouts would only be
>accomplished by large organizations that don't have competition but to have
>to make money (like the post office) or very small organization which can
>keep their research results away from the competion (like a mom & pop data
>entry shop).
I can see that, yes. (But what got me originally was a post stating something
like "we are steadily moving away from having people type in reams of data,
in this Paperless e-World of the Future", not anything like "it would take
time and money to convert from QWERTY keyboards to Dvorak layout".)
If that wasn't you that posted the original thing I replied to then it's
not you I was arguing at. If it was...
Dave "and I quote" DeLaney
Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)
|Caren Weiner Campbell <carrie...@mindspring.com> wrote:
|>Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wrote:
|>> hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen) wrote previously:
|>> |Is the Economist correct? Did Dvorak himself administer the
|>> |origianl studies? I would consider that more than "minor".
|>Maybe so, but then other people are supposed to be able to
|>replicate it, no? Has anyone ever tried to replicate Dvorak's
|>results? I'd be interested to know the outcome of *those* studies.
I wrote an applet that compares the two keyboards. What makes it
special is that YOU provide the text. You can see how using dvorak
benefits you, personally, on text you've written.
http://www.acm.vt.edu/~jmaxwell/dvorak/compare.html
It shows distance, % of keys on the rows, % of keys for each finger,
and some other stats. The source code is available so you can modify
it for other keyboards and other statistics, or just look for bugs.
Results on normal text are very similar to the studies showing real
benefits over qwerty. Try it and give me feedback on it!
I was thinking letting the user change the keyboard would be nice,
and a feature to calculate a 'best' keyboard for text would be cool
too.
| According to the Economist articel, the GSA did in the 1950s and
| found little advantage to the Dvorak keyboard.
Jam (address rot13 encoded)