DVORAK keyboard?
Rick Miller
about it (or point me to where I can get them answered)?
1.) What's the layout? Does it differ internationally like the QWERTY does?
(You know how the symbols tend to be rearranged depending upon
what country you're in, etc.)
2.) How does it handle international characters (umlauts, accents, etc.)?
3.) What are some advantages or disadvantages of the Dvorak keyboard?
In short, why does it even exist?
Thanks in advance... and yes, I'm aware that this will post all over the
world because I cross-posted to "general". So sue me.
Rick Miller <ri...@ee.uwm.edu> | <ri...@discus.mil.wi.us> Ricxjo Muelisto
Occupation: Husband, Father, WEPCo. WAN Mgr., Discus Sys0p, and Linux fan
Jonathan Monsarrat
This is Jonathan Monsarrat writing to you from Brown University.
Guess what? We have a "local" group called "general" here, and
whenever someone anywhere else in the world posts to their
own "general" newsgroup, it leaks over here. Too bad!
I'd ask you to make your post "local only", but obviously you
intended to make it "world-wide" because you posted to comp.misc.
The layout for the Dvorak-keyboard is:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Esc| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 0 | [ | ] | <- |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Tab | / | , | . | p | y | f | g | c | r | l | ; | = | |
------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| Ctrl | a | o | e | u | i | d | h | t | n | s | - | <- |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Shift | ' | q | j | k | x | b | m | w | v | z | Shift |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm told by friends that it's worth switching to the Dvorak style.
BUT -- be ready to loose any and all typing abilities in the process.
You really have to learn from the ground up to switch.
> How does it handle international characters (umlauts, accents, etc.)?
There are no international characters on the keyboard. It's ASCII.
> What are some advantages or disadvantages of the Dvorak keyboard?
> In short, why does it even exist?
In the old days mechanical typewriters were a lot slower than
the typists. If you typed too fast, they'd get stuck. So they
intentionally designed the keyboard to slow typists down.
The Dvorak keyboard is the "speedy" one, intentionally designed
for speed with all the keys in the middle.
-Jon
Steffan O'Sullivan
>In article <1if7du...@gallium.cs.unc.edu> har...@cs.unc.edu (Trey Harris) writes:
>
>BZZT! Urban Legend Alert. The querty keyboard was _not_ designed
>to slow typists, it was designed to avoid jamming the typewriter.
>Typewriters don't jam because the typist is too fast (unless the typist
>presses one key before releasing another, which good typists didn't
>do on mechanical typewriters) - they jam when a rapid sequence of keystrokes
>activates hammers that are physically close together in the machine, wedging
>them together. To keep the mechanism as simple as possible, the hammers
>were in the same sequence as the horizontal sequence of the keys. The
>querty keyboard was designed so that common keystroke sequences, _not_
>commonly used keys, were widely distributed.
Urban legend or not, it makes more sense than your reply. LOOK at the
QWERTY layout: "e" and "r" right next to each other, "e" and "d" right
next to each other, "e" and "s" right next to each other - these are
common, VERY common key sequences. Your answer does not make sense.
Look at how many "es" "er" "ed" combos are in this post alone. . .
And, yes, I'm a devoted Dvorak user, and I've read Dvorak's book on the
psychology of typing. The major disad is when I'm at a machine that I
can't load software to reprogram the keys - otherwise, there are no
disadvantages.
--
- Steffan O'Sullivan s...@oz.plymouth.edu
Trey Harris
>Okay, I've heard of the Dvorak keyboard... Can anyone answer some questions
>about it (or point me to where I can get them answered)?
>
>1.) What's the layout? Does it differ internationally like the QWERTY does?
> (You know how the symbols tend to be rearranged depending upon
> what country you're in, etc.)
~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) [ + /____ Corresponds to the qwerty numeric
` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 ] = DEL \ line.
" < > ? { | /____ Corresponds to the QWERTY line.
' , . p y f g c r l / } \ \
_ /____ The dvorak home row.
a o e u i d h t n s - RET \
: /____ The "z-m", <, >, and ? line.
; q j k x b m w v z \
These mappings are for a Mac keyboard, and assumes that you have the
physical layout of that keyboard. In any case, the backslash/vertical
bar key always stays the same as in QWERTY. Some layouts I've seen
don't put the bracket pairs on the same keys ([/] and {/}), but I
believe that that is nonstandard.
As far as international Dvorak goes: in the Mac realm I've only seen a
keyboard called "Dvorak." In Windows, there is a standard "U.S.
Dvorak" key layout. But I haven't seen any other Windows Dvorak key
layouts. I would be very surpised if they didn't exist, though.
>2.) How does it handle international characters (umlauts, accents,
etc.)?
The same way your current keyboard does. If it's Mac, the umlaut
would be produced using the option-U key (which now happens to be
under your left index finger, but that doesn't matter) and then
pressing the key you want the umlaut to appear over. Same for tildes,
accents, and the special symbols: they've all moved with the keyboard.
Which means that if you've learned the *locations* for symbols and
commands you use frequently, rather than their modifier+letter names,
then you will have difficulty. I believe this to be the biggest
hurdle in learning a new keyboard.
>3.) What are some advantages or disadvantages of the Dvorak keyboard?
> In short, why does it even exist?
The qwerty keyboard was created with the express purpose of slowing
typists down. It was made in the days of manual typewriters, and if
one typed to fast, the hammers would jam. So the bad keyboard made
typists type slower than they could. Dvorak, on the other hand, puts
the most-used letters directly underneath your fingers, speeding up
typing greatly. And your hands and wrists will thank you for no
longer having to fly all over the keyboard for even the simplest
words.
Disadvantages: your qwerty speed will probably deteriorate rapidly
immediately upon starting to use the Dvorak board, so if you use any
keyboards where you can't change to Dvorak (such as a dumb terminal),
*don't* change! Plus, if anyone else uses your machine and does not
want to use Dvorak, you will have to change keyboard layouts (usually
just a settings change, but on some machines it requires a reboot),
which can become annoying if you switch frequently. (This point is
moot on an X workstation/terminal, for each user can decide in his or
her startup files whether to use Dvorak.)
And, unless you buy a physical Dvorak keyboard, you may not be able to
use your layouts on non-windowing applications. (And on the Mac,
there are a startling number of applications [most notably and
frustratingly, NCSA Telnet] that totally ignore keymaps of any kind in
document windows!)
You obviously also need to touch type, for the letters aren't on your
keyboard!
I hope I've given this subject enough exhaustive detail. (Sorry about
all the bandwidth here!)
And, yes, I did type this entirely with the Dvorak keyboard.
Trey Harris
Stranger in a Strange Thread!
Skip Gundlach
>about it (or point me to where I can get them answered)?
>
>1.) What's the layout? Does it differ internationally like the QWERTY does?
> (You know how the symbols tend to be rearranged depending upon
> what country you're in, etc.)
>
>2.) How does it handle international characters (umlauts, accents, etc.)?
>
>3.) What are some advantages or disadvantages of the Dvorak keyboard?
> In short, why does it even exist?
>
>Thanks in advance... and yes, I'm aware that this will post all over the
> world because I cross-posted to "general". So sue me.
>
like any other keyboard except for the layout. The original layout
was devised by the inventor of the typewriter in order to *slow down*
input since the early machines could not keep up with someone with any
skill. So, the layout was made to be about as difficult to use as
possible. The Dvorak was invented solely to take away that
difficulty, aligning the keys such that the most used were the most
convenient, and vs/vs. However, the state of the art today is that
most typing is done on something computerized, and, as such, an ascii
input (rather than mechanical) is what drives the output. A recent
article in Newsweek laid out some of the experimental alternatives
being worked on now, given the nature of the keyboard to cause carpal
tunnel syndrome, etc. Most of the alternatives aren't at all like
current keyboards, and may give the Dvorak a run for its money in
speed, or completely wipe it out. If you follow both computers and
bikes, you may be aware of a guy who cruises the US on a recumbent
bike, with an on-board computer, which he operates *under way* by
means of two hand/finger controlled pads which use "chords" (like on a
musical instrument - more than one finger needed to make a "note" - in
this case, a letter) for input...
possible.
>Rick Miller <ri...@ee.uwm.edu> | <ri...@discus.mil.wi.us> Ricxjo Muelisto
>Occupation: Husband, Father, WEPCo. WAN Mgr., Discus Sys0p, and Linux fan
--
Skip Gundlach .nosig (Sorry, that's the best I could do on short
notice, and I'm not even an electrician...)
Nancy Rabinowitz
Dvorak? Isn't the physical keyboard different?
Mike
--
Mike Rabinowitz Internet address-...@itsmail1.hamilton.edu
CIS Address--70732,2072 GEnie--M.Rabinowit1
Delphi Address--Darkknite
Steffan O'Sullivan
>So, if you can't touch-type then you shouldn't think about getting a
>Dvorak? Isn't the physical keyboard different?
I've never seen a physical Dvorak keyboard, though I've heard they
exist. If you had one, of course, you wouldn't need to learn to touch
type. But you should anyway, if you do any significant amount of
computing ... in fact, not knowing how to touch type before learning
Dvorak is actually a plus, in my opinion: less to unlearn.
I wrote my first book using a QWERTY board at about 13 wpm - drove me
crazy. I took some of the royalties from it and bought a software
typing tutor program, which happened to have a Dvorak learning mode
option. I studied what this was about, and decided to go with it. I
did not touch type at the time I switched to Dvorak, so I had nothing
to lose.
Learning to touch type with the Dvorak keyboard programmed onto a
QWERTY keyboard was actually excellent for me. I probably would have
constantly looked at the keyboard if it matched at all. Since I wasn't
able to, I was forced to learn touch typing. I now type at about 60
wpm, Dvorak, where I seem to have plateaued and will probably stay.
That's fine. Sure beats 13 wpm and having to look in two or three
places at once like I did before!
John G Dobnick
> Okay, I've heard of the Dvorak keyboard... Can anyone answer some questions
> about it (or point me to where I can get them answered)?
The Milwaukee Public Museum has an excellent (and large) historical
collection of typewriters. (This probably has something to do with a
certain Christopher Sholes being a "local boy" :-).)
You might ask them your burning typewriter questions.
--
John G Dobnick ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
Computing Services Division INTERNET: j...@uwm.edu
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd
"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire
Piet van Oostrum
--
Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University,
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Telephone: +31 30 531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet
Telefax: +31 30 513791 Internet: pi...@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete')
Rick Miller
>j...@i88.isc.com (Jonathan E. Quist) writes:
>>har...@cs.unc.edu (Trey Harris) writes:
>>BZZT! Urban Legend Alert. The querty keyboard was _not_ designed
>>to slow typists, it was designed to avoid jamming the typewriter.
>>Typewriters don't jam because the typist is too fast (unless the typist
>>presses one key before releasing another, which good typists didn't
>>do on mechanical typewriters) - they jam when a rapid sequence of keystrokes
>>activates hammers that are physically close together in the machine, wedging
>>them together. To keep the mechanism as simple as possible, the hammers
>>were in the same sequence as the horizontal sequence of the keys. The
>>querty keyboard was designed so that common keystroke sequences, _not_
>>commonly used keys, were widely distributed.
>
>Urban legend or not, it makes more sense than your reply. LOOK at the
>QWERTY layout: "e" and "r" right next to each other, "e" and "d" right
>next to each other, "e" and "s" right next to each other - these are
>common, VERY common key sequences. Your answer does not make sense.
Look again... If you take a ruler (or any other straight-edge) and position
it vertically, then move it slowly from left to right over your keyboard,
you'll see the "horizontal sequence" which Mr. Quist was referring to. It
goes something like this: 1qa2zws3xed4crf5vtg6byh7nuj8mik9,ol0.p;-/['=]\
So, between the E and R are both D and 4. Between the E and S are 3 and X.
Indeed, the E and D *are* next to each other, but they're supposed to be
pressed with the *same* *finger*, so I don't think that they pose the hazard
of colliding hammers which the QWERTY keyboard (factually) was designed to
prevent.
Mr. Quist's correction of this erroneous urban legend is factual, and is
documented in several museums and libraries. And if you still have doubts...
Just think: Who would consider designing a typewriter to hinder typists?
Maybe you had a bad experience in your typing class, but
it would have been financial suicide for any company to
produce a keyboard which was inherently slower than the
many others which were available at the time.
And I don't care if Dvorak him*self* believed this myth... it just ain't so.
With the hammer-collision problem minimized, the QWERTY keyboard actually
allowed typists to type *FASTER*... and that's why it's popular today.
Rick Duggan
>Just think: Who would consider designing a typewriter to hinder typists?
> Maybe you had a bad experience in your typing class, but
> it would have been financial suicide for any company to
> produce a keyboard which was inherently slower than the
> many others which were available at the time.
Another way to think about this is the following:
How long do you think it would take before *someone* learned how
to do 90wpm on a QWERTY keyboard? Wouldn't the typewriters just
jam again as soon as people got up to speed? This would probably take at
most a month or so, at which point all those QWERTY keyboards
would again be useless.
-rick
"Random acts of violence just don't do it for me anymore. Call it
maturity. Bang! Bang! Heh, heh." - Cactus Jack, WCW Saturday Night 07/04/92
Rick Duggan | dug...@cc.gatech.edu | CS4804A-C/CS1501 TA - Section C
Office Hours: Tuesday 1:30-3:00 Managment IBM Lab
Jeffrey L. Sue
really faster. I thought I read somewhere recently that a study was
done that brought this idea into question, if not completely dispelling
it. I wish I could remember where I read this, but it seems like it was
just a smallish article (probably just filler) - which would be difficult
to track down.
Does anyone else out there remember reading this?
(NOTE: I removed "general" from the header as someone previously requested)
--
-----
Jeff Sue
- All opinions are mine - (and you can't have any, nya nya nya)
Carl Johnson
: I'm really curious about the contention that the DVORAK keyboard is
: really faster. I thought I read somewhere recently that a study was
: done that brought this idea into question, if not completely dispelling
: it. I wish I could remember where I read this, but it seems like it was
: just a smallish article (probably just filler) - which would be difficult
: to track down.
:
: Does anyone else out there remember reading this?
I remember an article that concluded the advantage of dvorak keyboards
was greatly overstated. Some studies have stated that dvorak has a 2-3
times advantage based on finger movement. This article mentioned that
they all neglected to figure the motion of the finger pressing the key,
which is the same in either case. I believe that they concluded that
dvorak had about a 15% advantage still; not enough for a touch typist to
change over.
--
Carl Johnson ca...@cv.hp.com
Lloyd P. Goldwasser
(Carl Johnson) writes:
> I remember an article that concluded the advantage of dvorak keyboards
> was greatly overstated. Some studies have stated that dvorak has a 2-3
> times advantage based on finger movement. This article mentioned that
> they all neglected to figure the motion of the finger pressing the key,
> which is the same in either case. I believe that they concluded that
> dvorak had about a 15% advantage still; not enough for a touch typist to
> change over.
I'm not sure how you can quantify the way that the Dvorak layout
feels nicer and easier to use than Qwerty, but it certainly does, and
being able to type with one's fingers relaxed counts for something.
Regardless, some numbers about letter frequencies may hint at some
differences:
(2 caveats:
1. The frequencies and rankings of the letter depend on the choice
of text, and what I cite here is calculated from what I have written.
2. The actual layout I use is a personal variant of the Dvorak layout,
which I describe below.)
The two most frequent letters, E and T, account for about 20% of
one's keypresses; in the Dvorak layout, they are under the two middle
fingers in "resting position"; in Qwerty, they both require movement
and create an awkward combination.
Question: of the 9 most frequently occurring letters, how many do
your fingers touch when they are in resting position?
Answer: Dvorak: 7; Qwerty: 2.
These letters account for more than half of one's keypresses, and if
you can do them without moving a finger away from resting position
then you *have* saved finger movement. This comparison alone should
make one skeptical of the means by which they calculated that 15%.
These numbers don't address the issue of *combinations* of keys,
which is the real strength of the Dvorak layout: many consecutive
letters lie comfortably under alternate fingers (3rd and 5th; 2nd and
4th) rather than, say, under different positions of the same finger
(e.g., Qwerty's E and D, or T and R).
Here is my variant of the Dvorak layout, which I recommend to present
and potential users:
' , . Y J F G C R L
A O E I U D H T N S
; X Z P K B M W Q V
The major differences are my switching of I and U (putting the more
frequently used I under resting position) and the shifting of Y and
P. Q seems to make more sense on the right hand, since it is always
followed by vowels with the left.
In my experience, switching over from Qwerty to Dvorak was *not*
difficult or confusing. It took basically an afternoon of
concentration. Although it took a while to get my speed up, the new
layout felt better almost immediately, and eventually my speed with
Dvorak ended up much faster than that with Qwerty.
Finally, it may be worth noting that on a NeXT, each user can specify
his or her own preferred keyboard layout, which is automatically
invoked upon login, and which applies to *all* typing one does,
within *any* program. I can send my keymapping file to any NeXT user
who is interested.
Cheers,
Lloyd Goldwasser
gol...@u.washington.edu
Mark Green
I hate posting this in general, but here goes.
Yes, it is an urban legend. The QWERTY keyboard was designed to
minimize jamming by placing common key sequence far apart. This is
a mechanical distance, not physical distance on the keyboard itself.
If you look at the 'e' 's' and 'd' keys, you will see that 'e' is on
the row above 's' and 'd', so they are mechanically far apart.
About 15 or 20 years ago there were a number of studies done on
keyboard layout (you can look at old issues of Human Factors and
Ergonomics to find them). The net result of these studies is that
keyboard layout doesn't matter that much, 5-10% difference in typing
speed at the very most. If you really want to type fast look at
a chording keyboard, or change the shape of the keyboard itself.
Mark Green
I hate posting this in general, but here goes.
Jonathan E. Quist
>In article <1ihgdg...@uwm.edu> ri...@ee.uwm.edu (Rick Miller) writes:
>>Just think: Who would consider designing a typewriter to hinder typists?
>> Maybe you had a bad experience in your typing class, but
>> it would have been financial suicide for any company to
>> produce a keyboard which was inherently slower than the
>> many others which were available at the time.
>
>Another way to think about this is the following:
>
>How long do you think it would take before *someone* learned how
>to do 90wpm on a QWERTY keyboard? Wouldn't the typewriters just
>jam again as soon as people got up to speed? This would probably take at
>most a month or so, at which point all those QWERTY keyboards
>would again be useless.
On a manual typewriter? Even the best manuals I've used had relatively
long throw keys, relative to the cheapest electrics, and the shorter
the key throw, the stronger your fingers need to be. Even back in the
days of "typing rooms", with formally trained typists doing nothing but
typing all day long (the only ones who'd be physically up to extreme
speed), the educators knew that it was more efficient to teach the typists
to pace themselves, and type at a continuous pace rather than bursts of
speed punctuated by confused pauses.
--
Jonathan E. Quist Lachman Technology, Incorporated
j...@i88.isc.com '71 CL450-K4 "Gleep", DoD #094 Naperville, IL
__ There's nothing quite like the pitter-patter of little feet,
\/ followed by the words "Daddy! Yay!"
Nancy Rabinowitz
type really quick. I know where a lot of stuff is, and therefor I don't
make many mistakes at all. I'd bet I type about 30 wpm or so. The
problem with typing tutors is you have to look at the screen to see what
letter to type, and I have to look at the keyboard.
william burchill
Any info on how fast typists are with chording keyboards? Good
but not great for QWERTY is 90 wpm.
David Karr
>s...@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
>
>>QWERTY layout: "e" and "r" right next to each other, "e" and "d" right
>
>If you had bothered reading the post you were quoting you would have
>noticed one highly relevant fact - an attempt was made to keep often
>used sequences apart *horizontally* due to the mechanical nature of
>the beasts. "es" and "ed" are thus irrelevant.
If you had bothered to read other messages, or even knew anything
about mechanical typewriters, you would know that E and D *are*
"horizontally" adjacent in the only place it counts: the hammers. The
reason the keys are "staggered" on the keyboard is so that the
mechanisms for four consecutive hammers can easily be attached to keys
on four different rows. E and S, however, are separated by 3 and X.
> "er" is perhaps proof of
>the fact that this is not a prefect world, but "er" is probably not so
>high on the `most common' list.
No, E and R are separated by D, 4, and C, so are a lot less "jammable"
than the E-D combination. They are also a lot more frequently paired
in English usage. In fact according to authority (Abraham Sinkov,
Elementary Cryptanalysis, MAA 1966) the digraphs ER and RE are the
fourth and fifth most frequent in English usage, after TH, HE, and
IN, and together are more frequent than any other such letter pair.
I would not have responded at all to your post, since others have
convincingly argued that the designed-to-be-slow theory is false,
except for the way you combined your "facts" with this supercilious
tone:
>My, my. You had better stay at that school, and hopefully learn a few
>simple facts of life, especially that if something `makes more sense'
>it is not necessarily right.
-- David Karr (ka...@cs.cornell.edu)
gary kay
>I can't touch type, so maybe I should learn the Dvorak thing. But, I
>type really quick. I know where a lot of stuff is, and therefor I don't
>make many mistakes at all. I'd bet I type about 30 wpm or so. The
>problem with typing tutors is you have to look at the screen to see what
>letter to type, and I have to look at the keyboard.
>
looking at the key board, but instead following from a hand
written draft etc. The method of training you describe (Looking at the
screen) is no different. I guess if your happy about your typing speed
(30wpm) then you should have no cause for discontent, particularly if
you compose as you type.
The only reason that good touch-typists can attain speeds in excess of
100wpm is because they are following along from a draft and as a result
are not looking at the keyboard.
Rob Hasker
>I'd bet I type about 30 wpm or so. The
>problem with typing tutors is you have to look at the screen to see what
>letter to type, and I have to look at the keyboard.
Typing speed tests are done by typing printed text, so I doubt you'd be
able to get 30 wpm without memorizing what you're typing. Test
yourself: get some text, type it in for a minute, and divide the
number of characters you've typed by 5 to get wpm. I forget the
standard deduction for each error, I think it was somewhere between 1
and 5 wpm. Of course, these penalties are more important when typing
on paper; I'm not convinced that being error-free is so important
anymore assuming you're a good proofreader.
Rob
Trey Harris
>The only reason that good touch-typists can attain speeds in excess of
>100wpm is because they are following along from a draft and as a result
>are not looking at the keyboard.
Not quite; I often talk with people using the Unix talk utility, and
then I often need a lot of speed, even though I'm not typing from a
draft. There are other interactive programs where typing speed can be
very desirable.
As far as those who have noted that changing keyboards after you know
one is very difficult, consider this: I could touch type using qwerty
before I could write in cursive script. My top speed a decade later
was no less than 60wpm. But when I changed (I hoped it could help
alleviate some hand problems, which in fact I believe it did--does
anyone know of a study on hand problems and any correlation with key
layout?), the process was astonishingly quick.
For about three days, I kept Key Caps (a desk accesory that will show
you the positions of the keys on the Mac, very handy when learning a
new layout) up. Then I took it off, and didn't need it again. It
took about a week of using Dvorak most of the time for me to abandon
qwerty even for speed-intensive tasks. After that, a month of Dvorak
exclusively and my speed was up to 60wpm, my previous qwerty maximum.
It has slowly increased ever since then.
(See how Dvorak helped Jane Ledbetter improve her marriage and her
career in the next exciting episode of--HOW DVORAK CHANGED MY LIFE!)
:-)
Trey Harris
--Stranger in a Strange Thread!
John G Dobnick
>
> I would not have responded at all to your post, since others have
>
Was "slow down the typist" the reason for QWERTY? I don't know. Was
"avoid mechanical jams" the reason? Probably. Are the two unrelated?
The Devil's Advocate in me says "No!" In fact, I'll state that
QWERTY _was_ developed to _quote_ "slow down the typist" _unquote_.
Consider. The typewriter is a mechanical device. Moving mechanical
objects requires time. Depressing a typewriter key to print a letter
requires time. Releasing the key to allow the typebar to return to the
basket also requires time. If you allow insufficient time, you get a
jam, which is undesirable.
Now, how do you avoid jams? You allow sufficient time for the typebar
of a just released key to clear the path of the next-struck key.
How do we do this? One way is to speed up the typebar return
mechanism. Recall that we are speaking of a strictly mechanical device
that is spring driven (in at least one direction). One has to consider
the mechanical characteristics of the device, one of which is that the
typebar will move at a speed proportional to the strangth of the
springs driving its return. If you make the springs stronger, the
typebars will return faster, but the mechanism will require more finger
pressure to strike a key in the first place. Make the springs too
strong, the device becomes unusable. Remember that there is no
electrical assistance allowed here -- this is a purely mechanical
device.
Another way is to (surprise) _slow down the typist_. Amazing, no? How
do you slow down the skilled typist? One way, again, is to analyze
what is being typed, and arrange the keys such that (a) typebars for
common digraphs are not adjacent, thus allowing more physical clearance
and (b) arranging the keys for the common digraphs in such a manner as
to not allow the skilled typist to hit them in too rapid succession.
How do you achieve (b)? One way is to arrange that these common
digraphs will be struck by the same finger. This appears to be the
QWERTY approach.
Anyway, I look at this as something that is subject to interpretation.
One view is what others have been expressing. Another interpretation
is that QWERTY _does_ "slow down the typist".
Net result? The skilled typist _is_ effectively slowed down
sufficiently to avoid jams, without greatly sacrificing overall typing
speed.
Point? There's more than one way to look at this. Just because
someone _says_ they are not arranging they typewriter keys to "slow
down" the typist, doesn't necessarily _mean_ that aren't doing that.
Would you _admit_ that if you were selling a product?
Now, has anyone been collecting literature citations during this
discussion? Would you please post the collection?
[I suppose it's really time for me to have a chat with the typewriter
curator at the Milwaukee Public Museum. This is turning out to be
a somewhat interesting subject. :-) ]
--
John G Dobnick [A-No.1 key-jammer] ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
John G Dobnick
> I'm really curious about the contention that the DVORAK keyboard is
> really faster. I thought I read somewhere recently that a study was
> done that brought this idea into question, if not completely dispelling
> it. I wish I could remember where I read this, but it seems like it was
> just a smallish article (probably just filler) - which would be difficult
> to track down.
I recall reading an article on this subject many years ago. Can't recall
just where -- it _might_ have been Scientific American. Anyway, I recall
that the conclusion was that Dvorak layout resulted in _faster_ typing
rates, as well as being easier on the typists.
Wish I could recall where that was.
--
John G Dobnick ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
Scott Ophof
On 7 Jan 1993 18:22:23 GMT ca...@hpcvmcdj.cv.hp.com (Carl Johnson) said:
>js...@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:
>: I'm really curious about the contention that the DVORAK keyboard is
>I remember an article that concluded the advantage of dvorak keyboards
>was greatly overstated. Some studies have stated that dvorak has a 2-3
>times advantage based on finger movement. This article mentioned that
Well.. There's this other keyboard, based on ergonomic studies,
developed, and in use in The Netherlands. It's called the Velotype
system. As to speed, accuracy, and fatigue factors, it beats both
QWERTY/QWERTZ and DVORAK, hands down!
Very roughly, the keyboard layout is something like this:
v
c c c c v c c c c The "c" keys are the consonants,
c c c c v c c c c digits, and punctuation marks.
c c c c v c c c c The "v"s indicate the vowels.
c c c c v c c c c "ns" means "No-Space".
ns st "st" means "Shift-Toggle"
(I may have forgotten some key(-placing)s)...
Note that the two areas of consonants are actually slanted at an
angle of about 15 degrees with the horizontal, in other words the
keyboard looks like a very shallow "V". The reason is one of
ergonomics; look at how your lower arms are angled towards each
other, but your hands are angled outwards again. This posture with
normal keyboards is a major cause of fatigue. The fatigue factor
for Velotype is much lower than for normal keyboards.
Also, the consonants are duplicated on each side of the central
vertical vowel column. Why follows.
The Velotype system is based on the fact that most words consist of
syllables, which in their turn contain at least one vowel prefixed
and/or suffixed with consonants.
To make this work, the thumbs are used for vowels, and the other
fingers for consonants on each side.
To "type" a word (like "pressing"), one first builds the syllable
"pres", by depressing the "r" and "p" in the left consonant area
with the fingers of the left hand, the "e" with a thumb, and the "s"
in the right consonant area with a right-hand finger. When all the
keys you want are depressed, the following will appear on a one-line
screen in front of the typist (built into the keyboard, and angled
comfortably).
Now, and only now, does one release all those keys. This release
commits the syllable to "paper". As long as at least one key is
still depressed, one can change the syllable (like using "l" and "b"
instead of "r" and "p" to get "bles").
Why doesn't one get "rpes"? Or "lbes"? Because there's this
(removable) chip built-in that is programmed for the peculiarities
of a particular language. And "rp" or "lb" just ain't normal to
English (UK or otherwise... ;-) ).
Exchange the chip, and one has another language.
Oh, the vowel of a syllable is centered on that little screen.
OK, let's finish the word. Press "s" with a left finger in the left
consonant area, "i" with a thumb, and "g" and "n" with the right
fingers in the right consonant area. *And* with your other thumb
press the "ns" (No-Space) key. Release the lot, and voila, the
syllable "sing" will be suffinxed to "pres", making "pressing".
Had one not used the "ns" key, one would've got "pres sing", since
the system assumes a space between syllables unless told otherwise.
Also, "gn" is less normal than "ng" in English, so if you want the
word/syllable "sign", you make "sig", and later append "n" to it as
a separate syllable.
Note that there is no SPACE bar; it's done automagically on a
per-syllable basis. And also no RETURN key; who needs it, when the
system contains a word processor (or is hooked up to a computer
system that has one)?
Don't ask me how to write syllables like "school"; I'd have to
follow a course to learn that. (Maybe as "scho", No-Space + "ol".)
The above I picked up from a demo on TV, a live demo at a computer
show, and some paper blurbs.
As soon as one uses a "." as last character of a "word", the system
assumes the next word is to be capitalised, ie. it will start off a
new sentence. One uses the "Shift-Toggle" key to cancel this
behaviour for this occurrance. But one also uses it to capitalise a
word that would normally be lower-cased.
Speed and accuracy:
The TV demo was on a science program back in The Netherlands, where
advertising and hype on TV are frowned upon to a much higher degree
than in North America, so IMHO rather believable.
After a bit of explanation, there was this "contest" between a
highly experienced secretary behind an electric typewriter, and a
young lady who had just had a 4-hour intro course on Velotype (and
hadn't seen one before then!). They each had the same text, and
each had (I think) 20 minutes or so.
When the "starting pistol" (not a real one ;-) ) went off, one
could see the fingers of the experienced typist tensely flying over
the keyboard, rattling away. The Velotypist was *much* more slowly
depressing groups of keys and releasing them, rather relaxed.
Net result? I don't remember exact figures on typed words & errors,
but do remember clearly that the Velotypist had typed more than
twice as many words, and that the absolute number of errors was less
than half that of the "normal" typist. Relatively, the Velotypist
had made less than a quarter of the mistakes of the other, and still
with a *much* higher output, with less fatigue. Asked about how she
felt, I think she said with a grin: "Let's do it again!".
The experienced typist looked rather tired...
Demo at the computer fair:
You males out there, picture this really *BEAUTIFUL* young lady
seated behind an odd looking keyboard. Would you give that keyboard
even a cursory glance? Oh, you would, would you? Betcha 100-1 your
Significant Other is reading this along with you, and you don't want
to upset her... >;-)
Well, my male hormones are perfectly in order, but *I* sure as heck
gave what she was doing with that keyboard much more than a cursory
glance; it was simply fascinating to see how calmly and easily she
entered what I was asking her to type! I kept upping my speed, and
she just went right along...
OK, why isn't this keyboard making an impact on the world market?
What a silly question, with all those manufacturers with vested
interests in the existing keyboards and related soft/firm/hardware.
Anyone who is more up to date re Velotype is more than welcome to
correct me; I'm drawing on a 3-year old spotty memory. Though the
photographic part sure is still fresh of that demo at the computer
fair... (*WOW*!) ;->
There's another keyboard out there somewhere, consisting of only
16 keys in a 4 x 4 matrix. Someone else mentioned something about a
cyclist here in this thread; I think this is the same thing. Figure
out how many different characters one can produce with 1-key, 2-key,
and 3-key combos. And all that with only one hand...
What I don't like about this 4x4 setup is that one needs to memorize
a lot of key-combinations.
The Velotype thing *can* be used single-handedly, btw.
Regards.
$$/
-------------------------------------
Women: Though you can neither live WITH 'em nor withOUT 'em, I'm
glad they exist; the world would be a mighty dull place without 'em.
Hopefully the Ladies agree that "Women" can be replaced by "Men"...
(IN THE ABOVE SENTENCE! >:-)
Hymie!
op...@SERVER.uwindsor.ca (Scott Ophof) writes:
>
>Very roughly, the keyboard layout is something like this:
>
> v
> c c c c v c c c c The "c" keys are the consonants,
> c c c c v c c c c digits, and punctuation marks.
> c c c c v c c c c The "v"s indicate the vowels.
> c c c c v c c c c "ns" means "No-Space".
> ns st "st" means "Shift-Toggle"
>
>fingers for consonants on each side.
hmmm... when i look at my hands, i see that my thumbs are /lower/ than
the four fingers, making them ideal for the space bar. to get my thumb
to the highest vwel would probably fracture my wrist.
>To "type" a word (like "pressing"), one first builds the syllable
>"pres", by depressing the "r" and "p" in the left consonant area
>with the fingers of the left hand, the "e" with a thumb, and the "s"
>in the right consonant area with a right-hand finger. When all the
>keys you want are depressed, the following will appear on a one-line
>screen in front of the typist (built into the keyboard, and angled
>comfortably).
>Now, and only now, does one release all those keys. This release
>commits the syllable to "paper". As long as at least one key is
>still depressed, one can change the syllable (like using "l" and "b"
>instead of "r" and "p" to get "bles").
hmmm again... as i type this, my right hand index and middle fingers
are bandaged together; and the right index finger is unusable.
the bandage also reduces the hand mobility. i don't think i could
hold down three keys with my right hand even if i wanted to.
>
>Why doesn't one get "rpes"? Or "lbes"? Because there's this
>(removable) chip built-in that is programmed for the peculiarities
>of a particular language. And "rp" or "lb" just ain't normal to
>English (UK or otherwise... ;-) ).
urp! you mean i can't write about light bulbs? or purple people eaters?
or purple light bulbs? or purple slurpees?
>OK, let's finish the word. Press "s" with a left finger in the left
>consonant area, "i" with a thumb, and "g" and "n" with the right
>fingers in the right consonant area. *And* with your other thumb
>press the "ns" (No-Space) key. Release the lot, and voila, the
>syllable "sing" will be suffinxed to "pres", making "pressing".
>Had one not used the "ns" key, one would've got "pres sing", since
>the system assumes a space between syllables unless told otherwise.
interesting assumption. too bad it's wrong for people above
a third-grade reading level.
>Also, "gn" is less normal than "ng" in English, so if you want the
>word/syllable "sign", you make "sig", and later append "n" to it as
>a separate syllable.
see above with bandaged hand proble. also - hwo do you guarantee
that the consonants will be on the correct side of each vowel?
it looked like only four consonants are repeated. which ones?
>As soon as one uses a "." as last character of a "word", the system
>assumes the next word is to be capitalised, ie. it will start off a
>new sentence. One uses the "Shift-Toggle" key to cancel this
>behaviour for this occurrance. But one also uses it to capitalise a
>word that would normally be lower-cased.
i grant you this one concession. i hate the shift key, and only
tolerate the control key.
>Anyone who is more up to date re Velotype is more than welcome to
>correct me;
i hope so. it sounds rather horrid.
>There's another keyboard out there somewhere, consisting of only
>16 keys in a 4 x 4 matrix. Someone else mentioned something about a
>cyclist here in this thread; I think this is the same thing. Figure
>out how many different characters one can produce with 1-key, 2-key,
>and 3-key combos. And all that with only one hand...
ick. it's a good thing i didn't /break/ my entire hand, or lose a finger.
(i'm told i came kinda close)
>The Velotype thing *can* be used single-handedly, btw.
oh boy - i can hardly wait to hit four keys simultaneously on differnet
ends of a keyboard with one hand. if i have my pinky on the 'a' key of
my qwerty, and the ring finger on the 's', my middle finger can't hit 'g'
and my index finger can't hit 'j'. and that's with the /good/ hand.
--hymie
hymo...@cs.jhu.edu hy...@jhuvms.bitnet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've got an answer. I'm going to fly away. What have I got to lose?
--Crosby, Stills, and Nash
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Brader
local group and a group with no dots in it is never a proper action.]
> If you had bothered to read other messages, or even knew anything
> about mechanical typewriters, you would know that E and D *are*
> "horizontally" adjacent in the only place it counts: the hammers.
Just for interest, here's the order of the type bars (hammers) on my
typewriter. It's electric, but not electronic, and I would expect the
order to be that same as is typical on a manual machine.
1! Q A 2@ Z W S 3# X E D 4$ C R F 5% V T G 6~ B Y H
7& N U J 8* M I K 9( , O L 0) . P :; -_ / ][ '" =+
(The character shown as ~ above is actually a matrix of dots, for
shading out an area. The 1! and =+ type bars came with removable
heads, in case I wanted to buy other characters like 1/2 or the cent
sign.) You can see how the QWERTY pattern relates to the sequence.
--
Mark Brader "All this government stuff, in other words,
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto is not reading matter, but prefabricated
utzoo!sq!msb, m...@sq.com parts of quarrels." -- Rudolf Flesch
This article is in the public domain.
Erwan David
|> Just for interest, here's the order of the type bars (hammers) on my
|> typewriter. It's electric, but not electronic, and I would expect the
|> order to be that same as is typical on a manual machine.
|>
|> 1! Q A 2@ Z W S 3# X E D 4$ C R F 5% V T G 6~ B Y H
|>
|> 7& N U J 8* M I K 9( , O L 0) . P :; -_ / ][ '" =+
|>
|> (The character shown as ~ above is actually a matrix of dots, for
|> shading out an area. The 1! and =+ type bars came with removable
|> heads, in case I wanted to buy other characters like 1/2 or the cent
|> sign.) You can see how the QWERTY pattern relates to the sequence.
Yes it is: Look at your keyboard, imagine the keys are extremely
and put them down on a single line: You'll get this pattern.
Erwan
--
Erwan DAVID LRI (Orsay) eda...@lri.fr
Ecole Normale Superieure (Paris) eda...@ens.fr
LIVE (Evry) eda...@univ-evry.fr
ri...@ee.uwm.edu
I switched my keyboard to Dvorak, and *boy* am I typing SLOW!!
G. Ng
>From article <1993Jan7.1...@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, by js...@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue):
>> I'm really curious about the contention that the DVORAK keyboard is
>> really faster. I thought I read somewhere recently that a study was
>I recall reading an article on this subject many years ago. Can't recall
>just where -- it _might_ have been Scientific American. Anyway, I recall
>that the conclusion was that Dvorak layout resulted in _faster_ typing
In addition, I remember glancing at the Guinness book of records a while back
where it mentioned that the fastest typist (200+ wpm) was on a Dvorak
keyboard of a computer (probably a PC or an Apple).
David Vanderbyl
>Was "slow down the typist" the reason for QWERTY? I don't know. Was
>"avoid mechanical jams" the reason? Probably. Are the two unrelated?
>The Devil's Advocate in me says "No!" In fact, I'll state that
>QWERTY _was_ developed to _quote_ "slow down the typist" _unquote_.
bzzzzt. Wrongo.
[long, meaningless argument deleted]
>Point? There's more than one way to look at this. Just because
>someone _says_ they are not arranging they typewriter keys to "slow
>down" the typist, doesn't necessarily _mean_ that aren't doing that.
>Would you _admit_ that if you were selling a product?
You are completely missing the point here. No one is arguing that
QWERTY is not inherently slower than DVORAK. The fact is, QWERTY
was designed to prevent jams. Period. That it is slower on today's
electronic keyboards is just an unfortunate side effect.
You argument is similar to this:
Cars are designed to go fast. Going fast in a car often kills people.
Therefore, cars were designed to kill people.
Bruce Krawetz
# In article <C0HsJ...@shrdlu.kwnet.on.ca> g...@shrdlu.kwnet.on.ca (Giles D Malet) writes:
(stuff deleted)
# If you had bothered to read other messages, or even knew anything
# about mechanical typewriters, you would know that E and D *are*
# "horizontally" adjacent in the only place it counts: the hammers. The
(more stuff deleted)
I dont think hammer placement is the ONLY place it counts. I find it
difficult to jam the E & D hammers because the same finger is used to
strike those keys (and my finger doesn't move _that_ fast!)
Dwivian Unterschreiber
j...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick) writes:
>>Was "slow down the typist" the reason for QWERTY? I don't know. Was
>>"avoid mechanical jams" the reason? Probably. Are the two unrelated?
>>The Devil's Advocate in me says "No!" In fact, I'll state that
>>QWERTY _was_ developed to _quote_ "slow down the typist" _unquote_.
In article <1993Jan8.1...@mprgate.mpr.ca>
vand...@mprgate.mpr.ca (David Vanderbyl) writes:
>bzzzzt. Wrongo.
Bzzzzt. Wrongo.
The method to reduce jams was twofold - move common type combinations
apart so the typeheads couldn't strike too quickly behind one another,
and place them so that they were difficult to type together at all
(primarily by making same-finger keystroke usage required).
>>someone _says_ they are not arranging they typewriter keys to "slow
>>down" the typist, doesn't necessarily _mean_ that aren't doing that.
>>Would you _admit_ that if you were selling a product?
>You are completely missing the point here. No one is arguing that
>QWERTY is not inherently slower than DVORAK. The fact is, QWERTY
>was designed to prevent jams. Period. That it is slower on today's
>electronic keyboards is just an unfortunate side effect.
Nobody said this was for electronic keyboards. The METHOD USED TO
PREVENT THE JAMS IS SIGNIFICANT. Once we had progressed beyond the
common jam problem, be it by better mechanicals, or by complex
electrics, or with word-processors and dot-matrix/inkjet/laser
technology, they layout of the keyboard became a matter of convention
and tradition.
>You argument is similar to this:
>Cars are designed to go fast. Going fast in a car often kills people.
>Therefore, cars were designed to kill people.
That is silly, and inherently incorrect. It is better to say that:
Cars were designed to provide a more efficient and speedy travel from
point to point.
A side effect of the condition of the roadways was the common problem
of cars flipping over or otherwise having to stop forward progress.
This side effect was directly related to the speed of the driver
(as well as the road surface, abilities of the driver, etc.)
One way to prevent the driver from having these problems was the
regulator, a speed limiting device. This method was employed for
some time.
Another method to reduce the problems was infrastructure improvement.
This is a costly and time consuming project, but made a reasonable
amount of sense.
Once roadways were important enough to be placed under reasonable
repair, the regulator was no longer required.
As the desire for speed was strong, the regulator was quickly discarded
and people were allowed to drive as fast as they wanted.
In like manner, now the the problem of mechanical failure has been
sidestepped by changes in technology and the work environment, the
need for a speed reduction system has been mitigated. Of course,
one can continue to drive their Mazerati with a 30KPH regulator, but
I doubt they'd want to. Thus many of us are switching to DVORAK.
I could extend your argument this way, if you like:
Cars were designed to go fast. An unfortunate (matter of point of
view) side effect is that people die. To prevent this laws were
passed limiting the speed of cars to 55MPH, as the speed of impact
was proven to be a leading cause of automotive fatalities. Once
safety measures were in place (airbags, automatic seatbelts, dot-
matrix printers..er...scratch that) that speed was relaxed to
65MPH. Should safety measures be put in place that PREVENT
automotive deaths, there would be no need for a speed limit.
--
Dwivian Unterschreiber | dwi...@marie.stat.uga.edu
(
I'm a stealth .signature virus! Copy me into your .sig quietly!
)
Doug Landauer
>
> I remember an article that concluded the advantage of dvorak keyboards
> was greatly overstated.
(The *speed* advantage, that is.)
> Some studies have stated that dvorak has a 2-3
> times advantage based on finger movement. This article mentioned that
> they all neglected to figure the motion of the finger pressing the key,
> which is the same in either case. I believe that they concluded that
> dvorak had about a 15% advantage still; not enough for a touch typist to
> change over.
*IF* speed were the only factor. What I wonder is whether any studies
have been done on Dvorak versus QWERTY keyboards with respect to Carpal
Tunnel Syndrome. (I would guess that these are much harder/more expensive
studies to carry out.)
More open questions:
--> I have read that Dvorak's layout is designed to be "better" than
QWERTY, but is there any evidence that it's optimal? I.e., now
that computer time is cheaper than it was in Dvorak's day :-),
has anyone done exhaustive analysis of similar layouts to find
one even a bit better than Dvorak's? [I've used a slightly
modified Dvorak layout for about 5 years now.]
--> Have similar wrist damage studies been done on the "altogether
different" kinds of keyboard designs like the Dutch Velotype
mentioned in a recent post?
--> I used to have a photocopy of part of an article from an old
(mid-70's, I think) issue of IEEE Computer. The article described a
very interesting design of an IBM-patented Chord keyboard that had a
total of 12 switches in it -- 10 of them had keys with dimpled keycaps
to allow each single finger-press to activate 1, 2, or 4 switches;
the other two allowed 3 thumb-shifts. So you could get something
like 4000 different combinations with one hand. They claimed that
one-handed typists on this thing could match the speed of fast
two-handed typists on "normal" keyboards.
Does anyone have the exact citation, or a copy of the article
in question?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Doug.L...@sun.com | "Wow, look at the grass stains on my skin. I say, if
SUNW[STE]->SunPro:: | your knees aren't green by the end of the day, you
Languages.IPE(C++); | ought to seriously re-examine your life." -- Calvin
John G Dobnick
>
> You are completely missing the point here. No one is arguing that
> QWERTY is not inherently slower than DVORAK. The fact is, QWERTY
> was designed to prevent jams. Period. That it is slower on today's
> electronic keyboards is just an unfortunate side effect.
Have I missed something here? I thought we were discussing
MECHANICAL typewriters, not modern electrically driven, or
electronically simulated, devices. There has certainly
been sufficient HISTORY discussed -- PRE-electrical era history
at that.
John G Dobnick
> You argument is similar to this:
> Cars are designed to go fast. Going fast in a car often kills people.
> Therefore, cars were designed to kill people.
Say what?!! Non sequitur! Faulty analogy.
"Going fast" never killed anyone. Coming to a sudden stop, however,
_can_ be extremely detrimental to longevity.
Jonathan Monsarrat
keyboard successfully? I'm told it's very difficult, so
I'm not sure if I should try.
-Jon
Niels Elgaard Larsen
>nrab...@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Nancy Rabinowitz) writes:
>>So, if you can't touch-type then you shouldn't think about getting a
>>Dvorak? Isn't the physical keyboard different?
>I've never seen a physical Dvorak keyboard, though I've heard they
>exist. If you had one, of course, you wouldn't need to learn to touch
>type. But you should anyway, if you do any significant amount of
>computing ... in fact, not knowing how to touch type before learning
>Dvorak is actually a plus, in my opinion: less to unlearn.
Couldn't you just rearrage the keys?
--
Niels Elgaard Larsen
Institute of Computer Science,
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
E-mail: elg...@diku.dk
George White
PC Mag, Dec. 22, 1992. There's a little routine in there that will turn your
console to a Dvorak keyboard. Be careful not to jam the keys while you're loading
it. ;)
--
George M. White | Telephone: (613) 564-2940
Dept. of Computer Science | Fax: (613) 564-9486
University of Ottawa | E-mail: GM...@acadvm1.uottawa.ca
Ottawa K1N 6N5 Canada | wh...@csi.uottawa.ca
Scott Ophof
On 8 Jan 1993 15:04:27 GMT ri...@ee.uwm.edu said:
>Yow! What have I done?!?
>I switched my keyboard to Dvorak, and *boy* am I typing SLOW!!
Did you expect differently? A miracle like forgetting your current
typing habits in a split second, and relearning new ones just as
fast? (grin)
Regards.
$$/
Scott Ophof
On 8 Jan 1993 07:21:56 GMT hymo...@circle.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!) said:
>and lo, there was much rejoicing among the people, as
> op...@SERVER.uwindsor.ca (Scott Ophof) writes:
Hey, I'm just passing on what I heard/saw back then! :-))
>>Very roughly, the keyboard layout is something like this:
>> v
>> c c c c v c c c c The "c" keys are the consonants,
>> c c c c v c c c c digits, and punctuation marks.
>> c c c c v c c c c The "v"s indicate the vowels.
>> c c c c v c c c c "ns" means "No-Space".
>> ns st "st" means "Shift-Toggle"
>>To make this work, the thumbs are used for vowels, and the other
>>fingers for consonants on each side.
>hmmm... when i look at my hands, i see that my thumbs are /lower/ than
>the four fingers, making them ideal for the space bar. to get my thumb
>to the highest vwel would probably fracture my wrist.
Not "space bar", but "NOspace key". A space is automatically
inserted before each new syllable, unless explicitely requested NOT
to be inserted (by pressing the NOspace key).
And my examples are just that, a few of the many ways to do it.
You seem to have read the item, so you'll also have come across a
line which said one could even type single-handedly.
From what I remember of the Velotype keyboard layout, the keys were
spaced so that they could EASILY be reached, *much* easier and with
less finger-movement than with the usual mechanical/electrical/
electronic keyboards.
And yes, the NOspace and ShiftToggle keys are meant to be pressed
with ones thumbs in normal use.
>>To "type" a word (like "pressing"), one first builds the syllable
>>"pres", by depressing the "r" and "p" in the left consonant area
>>with the fingers of the left hand, the "e" with a thumb, and the "s"
>>in the right consonant area with a right-hand finger. When all the
>>keys you want are depressed, the following will appear on a one-line
>>...
>hmmm again... as i type this, my right hand index and middle fingers
>are bandaged together; and the right index finger is unusable.
>the bandage also reduces the hand mobility. i don't think i could
>hold down three keys with my right hand even if i wanted to.
No problem; use what you can, and make up for what you can't by
typing those keys later... Nobody says one MUST type the whole
syllable in one shot. There are words in many languages where 4 or
even more consonants preceed a vowel (or follow it)...
>>Why doesn't one get "rpes"? Or "lbes"? Because there's this
>>(removable) chip built-in that is programmed for the peculiarities
>>of a particular language. And "rp" or "lb" just ain't normal to
>>English (UK or otherwise... ;-) ).
>urp! you mean i can't write about light bulbs? or purple people eaters?
>or purple light bulbs? or purple slurpees?
Oh yes, easily! See the following quotes as "syllables", where
"_" means use the NOspace key to suppress the automatic space:
"lig _ht bul _bs" (2nd and 4th syllables are without vowels)
"pur _p _le pe _op _le e _at _er _s"
There's probably an easier way to do things like "ee". I don't know
the details, not having followed a Velotype course. (sigh)
>>...
>>press the "ns" (No-Space) key. Release the lot, and voila, the
>>syllable "sing" will be suffinxed to "pres", making "pressing".
>>Had one not used the "ns" key, one would've got "pres sing", since
>>the system assumes a space between syllables unless told otherwise.
>interesting assumption. too bad it's wrong for people above
>a third-grade reading level.
Expand please? Again, I don't know the details, and wish someone
more knowledgeable with Velotype would "come to the rescue". :-)
>>Also, "gn" is less normal than "ng" in English, so if you want the
>>word/syllable "sign", you make "sig", and later append "n" to it as
>>a separate syllable.
>see above with bandaged hand proble. also - hwo do you guarantee
>that the consonants will be on the correct side of each vowel?
>it looked like only four consonants are repeated. which ones?
The left set of consonant keys are the same as the set on the right.
Though not necessarily symmetrical. I vaguely remember something
about character location being dependant on the language in the
keyboard's chip. Maybe each key contains a lighted display of the
character it represents?
>>As soon as one uses a "." as last character of a "word", the system
>>assumes the next word is to be capitalised, ie. it will start off a
>>new sentence. One uses the "Shift-Toggle" key to cancel this
>>behaviour for this occurrance. But one also uses it to capitalise a
>>word that would normally be lower-cased.
>i grant you this one concession. i hate the shift key, and only
>tolerate the control key.
Your feelings re the Shift key are clear, yes. ;-)
But I've been told that using only lowercase in email may mean that
the author couldn't care less about what the reader thinks or feels.
(grinning, and disclaiming any other meaning than exactly what is
said in the previous sentence)
>>Anyone who is more up to date re Velotype is more than welcome to
>>correct me;
>i hope so. it sounds rather horrid.
C'mon, you Velotype enthousiasts! You're out there, I know!
Not afraid big bad IBM/AT&T/Apple will eat you?
>>There's another keyboard out there somewhere, consisting of only
>>16 keys in a 4 x 4 matrix. Someone else mentioned something about a
>>cyclist here in this thread; I think this is the same thing. Figure
>>out how many different characters one can produce with 1-key, 2-key,
>>and 3-key combos. And all that with only one hand...
>ick. it's a good thing i didn't /break/ my entire hand, or lose a finger.
>(i'm told i came kinda close)
Use your LEFT hand then! :-)
>>The Velotype thing *can* be used single-handedly, btw.
>oh boy - i can hardly wait to hit four keys simultaneously on differnet
>ends of a keyboard with one hand. if i have my pinky on the 'a' key of
>my qwerty, and the ring finger on the 's', my middle finger can't hit 'g'
>and my index finger can't hit 'j'. and that's with the /good/ hand.
I didn't say the Velotype consonants are grouped like the QWERTY/Z
or DVORAK keyboards. And again, you don't HAVE to build a whole
syllable in one single shot. Temporarily reconfigure your way of
typing till either the bandage (or the HAND) falls off... >;-)
Reminds me of when I couldn't use my right foot. So I pressed the
loud pedal in my manual 4-speed Simca with my left foot, learned to
shift without the clutch, and ease away slowly from standstill using
the manual choke. It worked really fine! The manual choke made it
all possible. That's one reason why I hate automatic chokes... :-)
And you don't want to know my alternative method of easing away from
a stop. >;-)
Regards.
$$/
D'Arcy J.M. Cain
>I hate posting this in general, but here goes.
Then why did you? You could at least have set the Followup-To line like I
did. Please people DON'T CROSSPOST TO GENERAL!
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain (da...@druid.com) |
D'Arcy Cain Consulting | There's no government
Toronto, Ontario, Canada | like no government!
+1 416 424 2871 DoD#0082 |
David Karr
>I dont think hammer placement is the ONLY place it counts. I find it
>difficult to jam the E & D hammers because the same finger is used to
>strike those keys (and my finger doesn't move _that_ fast!)
I got curious enough about this to try it out. I have a decent manual
office typewriter. I tried typing "ghghghghg..." as fast as I
comfortably could with alternating index fingers. I typed a whole
line with no jams. (Of course that just shows I have a relatively
modern machine :-).) I did find it difficult to alternate
"dededed..." as quickly. But I found that if I struck "E" and
immediately "bounced" down to the "D" key I could jam the typewriter,
and I could do this trick repeatedly. Remember, this is a typewriter
that is relatively very *difficult* to jam.
My conclusion: Keyboard layout does not cause or prevent jams.
Poor typing causes them.
Of course I could easily be wrong, but it will take a study with more
scientific design than the one I just conducted to convince me.
-- David Karr (ka...@cs.cornell.edu)
John De Vries
>
> Any info on how fast typists are with chording keyboards? Good
>but not great for QWERTY is 90 wpm.
If you are willing to use the machines that are common in courtrooms
(which is to say, using a phonetic system) I've heard that speeds up
to 250 wpm are NOT uncommon. The really spiffy thing is that
supposedly they've got hardware & software to convert the tapes to "normal"
text...
The quote for the speed came from a court recorder who could go that fast.
John Atwood
---
| From the productions of Twentieth Century Vole! 1993 (c)opyright ZtF Press
| ... a division of Ipsum Lorit, Ink.
---
Max Stern 310-524-6152
[...]
>
>I could extend your argument this way, if you like:
>Cars were designed to go fast. An unfortunate (matter of point of
>view) side effect is that people die. To prevent this laws were
>passed limiting the speed of cars to 55MPH, as the speed of impact
>was proven to be a leading cause of automotive fatalities[...]
>
Sorry, it's your turn to get the "bzzzt." The 55MPH speed limit was
introduced for the primary and very specific reason of SAVING FUEL
(i.e., energy). The saving of lives turned out to be a salutary
side-effect. BTW, I would guess that this saving was more related to
a reduction in the NUMBER of accidents than to their severity.
Followups to comp.misc.
--
|\/| /_\ \/
| | / \ /\ Max....@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com
David K. Black
>
>>Was "slow down the typist" the reason for QWERTY? I don't know. Was
>>"avoid mechanical jams" the reason? Probably. Are the two unrelated?
>>The Devil's Advocate in me says "No!" In fact, I'll state that
>>QWERTY _was_ developed to _quote_ "slow down the typist" _unquote_.
>
>bzzzzt. Wrongo.
>
>[long, meaningless argument deleted]
>
>>Point? There's more than one way to look at this. Just because
>>someone _says_ they are not arranging they typewriter keys to "slow
>>down" the typist, doesn't necessarily _mean_ that aren't doing that.
>>Would you _admit_ that if you were selling a product?
>
>You are completely missing the point here. No one is arguing that
>QWERTY is not inherently slower than DVORAK. The fact is, QWERTY
>was designed to prevent jams. Period. That it is slower on today's
>electronic keyboards is just an unfortunate side effect.
>
You're all wrong. The QWERTY keyboard was designed so that all the
Dick Dawson
>
>Sorry, it's your turn to get the "bzzzt." The 55MPH speed limit was
>introduced for the primary and very specific reason of SAVING FUEL
>(i.e., energy). The saving of lives turned out to be a salutary
>side-effect. BTW, I would guess that this saving was more related to
>a reduction in the NUMBER of accidents than to their severity.
Care to get together with Ralph and tell my BMW 1600 and 2002 that
they are not getting ~25mpg at 55mph and 32mpg at 80mph? Internal
combustion gasoline engines produce their best specific fuel economy
at ~75% bmep. It requires the air and road drag of about 80mph to
make a moderate power car run at 75%bmep. A big engine type, 5 liter
V8, might require => 100mph to produce good economy. I ran a 55 Chev
wagon, 265ci V8, for several years. Typically ~20mpg in local and
long range trips under 60mph, more like 25mpg on long runs involving
sustained stretches over 80mph.
Zip strips are designed for speeds over 100mph.
American drivers are designed for speeds of 0mph and legislation to
protect them from themselves.
Ralph for god.
Ryan Mitchell
on BOTH keyboards? I'd be interested in learning DVORAK but I
don't want to give up QUERTY because of the instances when I'm
on school terminals and the like.
Ryan
--
===============================/ /============================*
========/ Ryan /======/ / r...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu |
======/ Mitchell /======/ / rmit...@en.ecn.purdue.edu |
=========================/ /==================================*
Scott Ophof
On 14 Jan 1993 06:08:07 GMT dda...@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Dick Dawson) said:
...
>American drivers are designed for speeds of 0mph and legislation to
>protect them from themselves.
I wish I could say "you're wrong", and honestly *mean* it... ;-/
>Ralph for god.
OK, this is *way* off the subject, but if people can vote for Bush
or Clinton, then they might as well vote for Ralph Nader or Jane
Mansfield. Better yet, Elvis Presley (he's been seen in Wash. DC
recently, I heard...).
Regards.
$$/
The Polymath
As an aside to the conversation, it's my understanding that all the typing
speed records for the past upmty-ump years have been set with DVORAK
keyboards. At one time the world record (212 wpm!) was set on an Apple II
configured as DVORAK.
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: holl...@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp "If you can't stand solitude,
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (310) 450-9111, x2483 perhaps others find you boring
Santa Monica, CA 90405 as well." -- Mark Twain