Talk:Dvorak Simplified Keyboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Dvorak Simplified Keyboard:

Here are some tasks you can do:

Requests: Need more editors to bring DSK to Featured Article status.
Verify: Sources may be needed. [DSK is in "Articles lacking sources" category]
Update: Add more specific tasks in this task list.
Other: Please support by voting in ACID (aka AID; clicking this link will take you directly to the voting section for DSK)

This looks like a good page: http://web.mit.edu/jcb/www/Dvorak/ They argue that "Contrary to popular opinion, the qwerty design was not actually invented to slow typists down. Rather, the layout was intended to place common two-letter combinations on opposite sides of the keyboard. " This should be updated in the first section that there are opposing opinions regarding this.

Archives
1, 2, 3

[edit] QWERTY & DVORAK Printed On One Keyboard

Hello.

I have an idea as to how DVORAK might gain more popularity. Basically, you would have a keyboard that has the normal QWERTY characters printed on it black on the top left of each key as usual, and then, on the bottom right of each key, you have the DVORAK key characters printed in red. That way, people could try out DVORAK without much hassle, and if they didn't like it, they could just go back to QWERTY. It would also be good for people who share computers- like, if you want to use DVORAK you can, then the other user just switches back to QWERTY. What do you guys think? Doom jester 11:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a good idea, and one that is already occasionally implemented. Regardless, it is irrelevant what we think, since it is our job to tell the way things are, not dream up new ideas for ways to make it better. Also, Dvorak, being named after the designer rather than following a particular series of keys on the layout, should not be typed in block capitals. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 17:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wondering...

Can the information in this webpage be added to the wikipedia article? I wrote that post myself, and it is in my personal blog. But I think it would help Dvorak enthusiasts a lot, and may even help more people accept the layout, reducing the time required to set up Dvorak on public computer. > http://thehunk.blogspot.com/2006/10/d-of-dvorak.html

--ADTC 16:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

ADTC, I don't believe such a link would be appropriate. While the information will certainly be useful to some Dvorak typers (although I have to wonder how you propose to run the program on public terminals, most of which do not allow downloads and/or running downloaded applications), Dvorak Simplified Keyboard is an encyclopedic article about the certain phenomenon, not a collection of tips and tricks for Dvorak enthusiasts. If there is a Dvorak manual on wikibooks, your link might be appropriate there. Here, not so much.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your response. I understand it's not appropriate according to Wikipedia standards.

The program can be run on any Windows computer, provided the computer explicitely does not block downloading and running applications. This means that Windows itself should not be blocking the running of the application. Even if there are rules regarding usage of public terminals, Windows would be unaware of such rules and allow the user to run any application, unless a group policy was edited by the Admin to block it. I assume such is not possible as I've never seen a computer which automatically blocks download and running of programs. (For example, my college has rules that I am not supposed to download and run applications in the computers. But none of the computers have set Windows to not allow such. So I can run them.)

--ADTC 07:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. The computers of two public libraries I am occasionally using here are set up so they do not allow downloading and running downloaded apps. Apps on a flash USB drive are a different matter though; your little app might come in handy then. I'll certainly give it a try next time I need to use the library computer.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut Support

This discussion continues from Shortcut Support in Archive 1. To read older parts of this discussion, please view Talk:Dvorak Simplified Keyboard/Archive01#Shortcut Support

Err... this is getting nowhere. Just chuck the whole thing. It's not working in your Word, and well, I have nothing I can do to correct that. To answer your question, I modified the original Qwerty layout to create this layout. And so it's internally Qwerty, not Dvorak (referring to your last sentence above).

On a side note, the keyboard layout doesn't actually change to Qwerty when Ctrl is pressed. Every keyboard layout has two layers. One is the base and the other is the output. Base is naming of each key position. Output is what is given out when I press a key. The Base for my layout is Qwerty while the output layer is Dvorak. Ctrl key is supposed to look at the base layer, not the output layer. Anyway if this also doesn't clear things up don't bother wasting your time whacking your brain. It's not working for you and there's nothing (100% sure about that) I can do to correct it. Really sorry about it, maybe you should try for some other solution! --ADTC 07:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This probably won't be terribly helpful, but Mac OS X has a built-in layout called Dvorak-QWERTY [command], which does exactly what you're describing. However, I find that in the long run it's better to switch over to Dvorak for the command keys as well. It takes longer to change the automatic Command-S/N/X/C/V/whatever than changing layouts, but in the end it is nice not to rely on a custom layout. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 07:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about this getting nowhere! That is what I mean, about it perhaps being base Dvorak rather than base QWERTY. Ah well, it remains as a tool anyway!martianlostinspace 11:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

To clear things up:

Base Layer	Output Layer	Description
QWERTY	QWERTY	The standard Qwerty layout
QWERTY	Dvorak	The custom layout I have here (Shortcuts are supposed to follow Qwerty)
Dvorak	QWERTY	No use! Normal typing will yield characters according to Qwerty layout (Shortcuts are supposed to follow Dvorak!)
Dvorak	Dvorak	The standard Dvorak layout

IntrigueBlue, that's better and that's what I'm doing. I no longer use Qwerty even for shortcuts. The only reason I would use Qwerty is when I need to type with one hand (while the other hand is doing something else). Another reason why I have Qwerty installed is when my friends want to use my laptop, they can.--ADTC 20:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if you do a lot of cutting, copying and pasting but no typing, you can temporarily switch to Qwerty layout for doing so. Please don't be confused, this suggestion has nothing to do with my custom layout.--ADTC 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You probably realise this already, but if you use QWERTY for typing with one hand, you could do that on Dk single handed.martianlostinspace 14:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wastage of time. I don't always type with one hand. Just once in a while. So learning a new layout altogether will be inefficient in my case. It will help someone who regularly types with one hand or is handicapped. For me, I'd just brush up on QWERTY once in a while, since I already know. For 50 sentences typed in Dvorak, I may type one sentence in Qwerty. So what's the point in learning the one-handed layout for just typing one sentence? --ADTC 22:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QWERTY to Dvorak converter

There is a JavaScript-based QWERTY to Dvorak converter on my website which I believe works significantly better than the one linked in the article. Since it's my site I don't want to change the link (self-promotion and the rest), but I thought I'd point it out. If you agree with me go ahead and change the link. Compare the linked converter to mine. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you list the advantages of your page as compared to the one linked? Also, check out "Dvorak Assistant" and "Quicker Access to Dvorak Assistant" in External Links section. Thank you! --ADTC 08:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The linked version bugs quite badly with the use of the backspace key (it will only backspace once, and arbitrarily inserts spaces after you resume typing). Also, it is not possible to move the insertion point from the end of the typed text. However, it does have the benefit of not showing the gibberish QWERTY that is inputted. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 17:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese and Dvorak

Poor OS integration with foreign languages. For example, on Windows XP, one can use the Japanese IME to type Japanese, but only in QWERTY, even if Dvorak is otherwise specified as the default keyboard layout.

It is possible to use the Japanese IME with a Dvorak layout in Windows but only by means of a registry edit. This probably is of no interest to the vast majority reading this article so I don't really see a need to change anything but I thought I'd just mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.255.239 (talk • contribs)

This is because Japanese has absolutely nothing to do with QWERTY. But it is mapped to a QWERTY keyboard so that all the people in Japan will have a fixed standard to type Japanese in. QWERTY, Dvorak and Japanese are all three unrelated keyboard layouts. You can remap Japanese to Dvorak, but there is absolutely no point in doing so. This is because Dvorak layout is based on English, not Japanese. All the Japanese letters will still be in random position, and would therefore not have any advantage over the QWERTY-based Japanese layout. I hope you understand what I mean to say.--ADTC 08:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Corrected your {{unsigned|86.29.255.239}}--ADTC 08:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Vandalism

Can anyone who deletes vandalism, check if the vandal replaced good text with vandalism, if so, revert to a previous, good version rather than just removing the vandalism

The current problem is that vandals are replacing the "overview" section with vandalism, and so when it's deleted/"fixed" the overview section remains missing -- Lee Carré 02:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

By default, vandalism is always reverted. This is because it's easier to revert than to go to Edit page and remove it manually. Also it ensures that the page returns to its previous state with 100% assurance. So, don't worry about it. If you find that a vandalism has been removed, but not reverted, feel free to revert to a version before the vandalism occured. Just make sure you include any legitimate edits which happened after vandalism was removed (not reverted).--ADTC 03:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough :)

I do my best to include any legitimate edits made after the vandalism, i believe in doing a through and proper job ;)

When vandalism occurs, what's the standard/default procedure for placing a notice on the user/IP page of the editor? I've just reverted another act of vandalism on this article, but don't know the accepted way to notify the user. -- Lee Carré 13:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out WP:TUSER and pick the template that seems the most appropriate. Remember to subst: it as explained on that page. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, great :) thanks -- Lee Carré 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English-based typing versus Multiple languages as reason of not beating QUERTY

Strange, in this article I don't see nothing about different languages as reason to DSK not catching up. I mean, different languages have very different requirements to a "optimized" keyboard typing. However, Dvorak common (roman) letters are ONLY arranged for ENGLISH typing. Even in other language implementation, the common Roman letters remain in the same position, clearly ignoring the other language requirements. Also this article is very POV, the whole article is just a big propaganda telling how wonderful Dvorak is. SSPecter ^talk ♠ _{05:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)}.

That is because the only evidence against the ergonomic superiority of Dvorak is extremely biased itself. And, let's face it, who reads this article that doesn't already use the layout?

As for your point about other languages, it is true that Dvorak is optimized for English. However, all romance languages use similar word structure, so Dvorak in French would still be more ergonomically correct than QWERTY. Besides, how is QWERTY any more optimized for a completely different language than Dvorak is? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. For example: Words in Portuguese and Spanish are very similar, but are quite different from English. Indo-European languages rules ARE very similar, but word structure can be very different. For example: English use k, y and w as normal letters. However Portuguese abolish these letters in portuguese words (although it still use these letters in foreign words). Other letters can be poorly used (z, x and h in Portuguese, for example). There are many other word differences, like the usual th English sequence (see the H - T together in Dvorak?), which is not used in Spanish or Portuguese at all. I agree QWERTY dont have any optimization in key positions, but it is wrong implying Dvorak is globally better than QWERTY, and not just English-specific. And its foolish say Dvorak should be used instead of QWERTY without considering global needs (and not just American/British needs). SSPecter ^talk ♠ _{15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)}.

I think that there's very little to disagree about. Dvorak is likely to be better than Qwerty (or Azerty, or...) for most European languages. However, Dvorak is not optimized for any language other than English. The Dvorak keyboard for Spanish would have to include accents, the ñ letter, and so forth. According to [one comparison page], the 23d Psalm in Spanish was still 33% better in Dvorak than Qwerty. (I don't know how that applet handled accented characters or ñ.) Chip Unicorn 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also really, is that quite that big a deal? it seems like a nonissue to me. somehow, on my computer, theres this little red line that pops up underneath misspelled words. I have no idea where it came from and I cant stand this little red squiggly. so i took the liberty of spell checking your post. Thejakeman 04:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a big deal to people in jobs involving typing. And a big POV unproven propaganda-like article praising one thing (Dvorak) and condemning other (Qwerty) is simply wrong. Thanks for fixing my letters, by the way. ;) SSPecter ^talk ♠ _{15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)}.

[edit] Page protection

Because of a resumption in the spam-blanking by an anonymous vandal, I have re-protected the page from any editing by anonymous users. I'm not sure why they are targeting this page in particular and hope that we won't have to keep the protection on for long but I do think that we need to drive off this vandal. Rossami (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

Why is this tag in here? I read the article and I didn't see any blatant weasel words. Can anyone elaborate on this? Also, this page should be archived again. I'd do it, but I haven't learned how.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 21:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links section

Please review Wikipedia:External_links before re-adding any of the huge number of external links I deleted from this article. Wikipedia is not a link farm or a link directory. (Even after deleting more links than I can count, there are 15 external links. That's more than enough for any article.) Rray 00:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think we ought to cut it back to a manageable size of say six links at most. I would suggest the following:

DvZine.org - A website advocating the Dvorak layout with a webcomic zine
Step by Step Guide to Switching to Dvorak - How to switch to Dvorak with minimal disruption to your work/life
A Basic Course in Dvorak - by Dan Wood
Dvorak vs QWERTY Tool - Comparison site that allows to calculate statistics of the different layout.
The Fable of the Keys - Article by Liebowitz and Margolis questioning the Dvorak keyboard’s superiority.
The Fable of the Fable - Web page questioning the credibility of "Fable of the Keys".

This would give us a good, manageable sample to start with. If anyone wants to add any more, we can discuss them on a case by case basis one at a time. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 16:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have Doomtech's guide to learning Dvorak added again? It might not be perfectly written, but it is a good method for learning Dvorak anyway. The less people who need to rearrange the keys the better. Best wishes, 62.16.207.52 06:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Nicho.

I'd be inclined to give a weak no, I'm afraid. There are a lot of high quality resources out there on switching to Dvorak, and we need to draw the line somewhere. One or two of the links in the list may be a little bit arbitrary, but the main idea is to just have a small representative selection. On the other hand, if other people think it is worth adding then I won't object. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 11:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this typing tutor: http://dvorak.nl/learn.plp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.100.113 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flaws with Dvorak

Yu frg ypf yr yfl. cb ',.pyf gocbi a ekrpat t.fxrapew yd. p.ognyo ,cnn oyprbiny p.o.mxn. brbo.bo.v [ Abrbfmrgo

Alh ,jt ,sfph tsf ,gppglupt ,alk ks hs kjak{ :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I give up. Translation, please? --Pendant 21:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. I don't exactly remember what this was about, but basically the text above is what you get when you try to type Dvorak on a QWERTY layout.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it might be, although I tried to 'translate' it and failed (I didn't try very hard, honest). If this is supposed to illustrate one of the 'flaws with Dvorak,' as the topic suggests, I don't see this as a 'flaw' at all. If it were, then a 'flaw with QWERTY', or indeed any layout, would be the ability to accidentally toggle to a different langage layout (as many systems allow) and continue typing using that, producing similar gibberish. --Pendant 15:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary fact tags

I just happened across this article and found some very unnecessary {{fact}} tags. For example, on the statement that most UNIX variants can be configured to use Dvorak. I don't think it's necessary to cite the existence of keyboard maps (and the xmodmap utility) to prove this -- every modern OS can manage keyboard layouts, it's not a fact that needs citing. Similarly, the fact that typing on a Dvorak keyboard when expecting QWERTY can lead to gibberish -- this is also obvious, when you hit the wrong keys, you'll get gibberish output. No citation needed. There are a lot more such tags which could be removed by someone with the desire to clean this up. -- dcclark (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resistance to change section too long?

This section seems a bit over-long and rambling -- is it possible to prune it a bit? — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microswitch?

The article refers to installing a microswitch in the back panel of an Apple. I've always heard that term used to refer to a snap-action momentary switch with a lever on it, as in the linked article. Surely it's a toggle or a push-on/push-off? --Yuubi 21:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Stan Liebowitz & Stephen E. Margolis: SHOULD TECHNOLOGY CHOICE BE A CONCERN OF ANTITRUST POLICY? should be added. —Zorro CX 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The argument against the DSK given by Liebowitz & Margolis is a strawman stuffed with wrong data, bad history and poor logic. More to the point, the central theme of the position they continue to maintain (despite such debunking as put forward so succinctly by Marcus Brooks in The Fable of the Fable) is totally irrelevant to the DSK, and would, in my opinion, serve only to rekindle tangential debate.--Pendant 19:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Developer Dvorak

http://www.siteuri.ro/dvorak/ddvorak.php The idea is based on Programmer Dvorak. Sorry my english.

[edit] tricky

God, has anyone ever tried typing "wikipedia" in Dvorak? I'm not that good overall yet, but it's the most excruciating word I've yet come across--worse that "puppyish", don't ask me why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.147.73 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A conspiracy!

[edit] Where's the tilde

On a standard US-Dvorak keyboard? I can't sign my edits at home without switching back to qwerty! Tar7arus 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's to the left of 1 in the top (number) row (you have to hold SHIFT when typing it).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Tar7arus 18:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for references

A section is marked references requested. Here is a reference: http://web.syr.edu/~rcranger/blackburn.htm. It seems to verify that Apple produced a DSK in the early days. I found it by chasing the link in this article to the world typing speed record holder and my reference came off that Wikipedia page.

However, I must apologize that I have never submitted anything before and it looks a bit like 30 minutes to do the required reading to make proper updates, which is a barrier to me. So I did not update the article nor do I expect to be back here again, so use this or not as you see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.0.103 (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The World's Fastest Typist

Barbara Blackburn, cited in the 'Notable users' section of the article as being "world typing speed record holder", no longer holds this record.

1. Mark Kislingbury of Houston, Texas, USA holds the Guinness World Record for using a stenotype machine(a). The National Court Reporters Association speed and real-time champion achieved 360 words per minute with 97.23% accuracy, at the NCRA 2004 summer convention on 30 July 2004.

2. Gregory Arakelian (USA), of Herndon, Virginia, holds the Guinness World Record for a standard keyboard(b). He set a speed record of 158 wpm, with two errors, on a personal computer in the Key Tronic World Invitational Type-Off. He recorded this speed in the semi-final, in a three-minute test, on 24 September 1991.

(a) confirmed (to me by email) by National Court Reporters Association Director of Communications Marshall Jorpeland

(b) Note that I have so far been unable to determine which 'standard keyboard' Mr. Arakelian was using! I've written to Guinness World Records Limited for confirmation (18th October 2007) - no response as yet... --Pendant 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've just today had a (very terse) letter signed by Sarah Wagner at Guinness World Records, London, stating that 'George Arakelian was using a QWERTY keyboard when he achieved his record typing speed.' Sadly, no references were cited in the letter at all. The reference to Barbara Blackburn as "world typing speed record holder" needs to be removed. --Pendant 15:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this published in a publicly available reliable source anywhere? If so, the article can be updated to say she was the former world record holder, but in any case the statement needs to stay in one form or another, because she is a notable user and was in fact instrumental in popularising the layout through her status as a world record holder. However, you do need to cite your sources. Snthdiueoa (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Escape Key

It seems like this article needs some discussion of the missing escape or 'esc' key. 76.24.213.203 20:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the Escape key, as well as of the function keys (F1 through F12), is not affected by the keyboard layout, hence there is no point of discussing them in this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments why QWERTY is better than Dvorak

I have learnt Dvorak and I find QWERTY definitely better. 1) I have a weak right hand pinkie and Dvorak demands that this finger is highly active in jumping from L to S in any plural ending in LS and any word with the very common cluster SL.

2) In Dvorak, your fingers are locked up for lots of combinations 'digraphs', while in QWERTY, you use one finger from each hand. An example of this is GH - a tremendously common digraph in English (and Dutch) and the qwerty solution is far superior to Dvorak - the forefinger of each hand like tapping a drum. Dvorak has the same finger jump from G to H which is less satisfactory.

3) QWERTY has some brilliant/neat solutions like the WERT - so that the word WERE WE SWERVE etc (Nothng in Dvorak matches the speed of WERE on QWERTY. And backwards REW FOR REWIND, FLOWER, POWER, FEWER, LOWER etc.

Then QWERTY uses the pinkie and the forefinger of the same hand in combination as in PH and AT. That gives stability to the hand as a whole similar to using the pinkie and thumb in piano playing. The fingers don't work, the larger muscles of the arm do. Using a Chinese brush to do calligraphy, the fingers do not work so much as the larger muscles of the arm and this is less tiring. The same principle is used in QWERTY with PH and AT ST. This is exactly the opposite of how Mr Dvorak explained it in his book - that the greater distances between two keys makes things difficult as if you had to go a long way on a journey to the shops. Nonsense.

Dvorak did not design his own keyboard. There were lots of typewriters with all the vowels on one side.

Sholes, who invented the typewriter from the beginning did not arrange the layout to slow people down so the keys would not stick. Dvorak sold typewriters and needed to increase sales.

Sholes had a journalist use his machine who made switches in qwerty that we have today. The military or air force test (the only one)where typists learn Dvorak from scratch and increased their speed above their old QWERTY speeds was conducted by Dvorak himself.

For my own part I did the following experiment. Having learnt QWERTY and Dvorak I took a keyboard and starting from the Dvorak layout, started to improve Dvorak by switching keys around. Although the new combinations you create are faster, you lose other quick combinations - nothng beats WERE in qwerty for speed and it is really your own frustration with your typing technique - especially if you do not play a musical instrument.

A pair of philosophers wrote an article that questioned all of Dvorak's and Dvorak's present day advocates putting some of the above points.

However, Dvorak was asked to design a one-handed layout for someone who lost the use of one hand, and there are Dvorak layouts for one-handed use for the right and left hand in Mac and in Windows.

Changing from QWERTY to Dvorak frees the hand up because the layout is different, but while particular stresses in QWERTY are solved, other stresses (LS and SL) are introduced.

As for people claiming that it is easy to switch back and forth between the two systems, this is not true. Unlike a musical instrument, you do not have a sound - audible feedback that puts you on the right track and you inevitably mix the one up with the other.

Why putting the vowels bunched together on one hand is better is not explained logically anywhere, and IE and EI combination is easier if you the middle finger of each hand used alternately.

Dvorak explains that it is an advantage to have the vowels on one side as most words are consanant/vowel alternately. This is not true in English which does not have accents over letters like Ö and Å and instead uses vowel combinations - as saint, pea, thought ai, ea, ou, ai etc.

And yet, in vowel pairs: ea ae ie ei etc, ie and ei are on QWERTY typed with alternate middle fingers, whch is a good thing. So the argument that English is composed of consonant/vowel/comsonant combinations falls apart - and the argument for having all the vowels on one side with it.

Dvorak was essentially a salesman for his own products and distinguished himself by sticking to the outmoded layout of having vowels on one side that he did not invent himself. He used enthusiasm and arguments that do not hold together as few people used both systems perfectly, and most of those who used typewriters were women and they were not supposed to out-argue men in an office environment.

I do have a problem with Dvorak with this L and S thing. QWERTY has Q and A on the little finger which is not an active combination except in Arabic words like Qatar.

Dvorak is ok, but QWERTY is better.

Most languages use QWERTY with only very slight changes, such as the French AZERTY (they have a frequent combination EZ. But there is a Canadian keyboard keeping QWERTY.

Most languages have more than five vowels, and the requirement to keep the vowels on one side of the keyboard - which is the only thing that identifies Dvorak cannot be met in any case.

Dvorak users do not, in practice, show higher speeds than the fastest QWERTY typists.

In any case the basic layout of the keyboard with two free vertical rows in the middle - TY, GH and BN in QWERTY is the same. Because Dvorak gives less chance to relax the fingers, I find that at fast speeds it causes me more pain than QWERTY.

Dvorak argues that it is better to make the right hand do more work, while on QWERTY the left hand is too busy. This argument does not hold water either. most string instrument players - who are right handed - use the right hand for plucking or bowing and the difficult delicate fingering is done by the left hand. The left hand is more active in those who play wind instruments, the right hand coming in for the lower notes only. Most left-handed people do not play stringed instruments the other way around in any case, although it is possible. RPSM (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Original Dvorak Layout

If anyone were to click on the link in this article that leads to the patent of dvorak, they would get stuck and need to download a tiff alternatiff, therefore I would like to inform you what is hiding there. The original layout indeed had the keys for "pyfgcrl" in the top row but... The letter Z is on the wrong side of the image in this article. In this article's diagram Z appears to the far right while in reality dvorak's patent has Z on the far left. The symbols are positioned differently too. The hyphen is on the far right of the home row in this article's diagram whereas the layout Dvorak patented has the hyphen in the bottom row. In this article's diagram the semicolon is in the bottom row on the left while the layout dvorak patented has it in the top row. I indulge you with a diagram of the patent. >>>Please include this diagram in the article.

    ;   ,   .   P Y F G C R L 
    A   O   E   U I D H T N S
    Z   Q   J   K X B M W V -

24.44.79.177 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)ben

[edit] Pronunciation?

Is the IPA right? I read the listed as dv oo r ahk. I think it should be dv ore ahk. In other words, should the oɹ instead be ɔr, ɔər, or ʊəɹ? 199.46.200.233 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I was never good with the IPA format, but I thought it would be something like: dvɔɹʒɑk as "duh-vore-~~bei~~ge-ack -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some clarity on this. In fact, it is the reason I came to this page: to get an accurate pronunciation. I would guess that I am not alone in this. I have heard it both duh-vore-ack and duh-vore-~~bei~~ge-ack . My understanding is the first is the correct. In other words, it is not like the composer's name. 199.46.199.233 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I say it the way I suggested because that's how my father taught me, and he's British, so maybe it's a British thing? -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, on the Dvorak wikitionary talk page, someone made a similar comment:

Is there also a pronunciation like /ˈdvɔː(r)ʒɑːk/? That would work for the Czech composer spelled "Dvořák" but maybe the name of the keyboard is further anglicized/americanized...

--MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antonin Dvorak, lol, ...

...is the composer, August Dvorak the ed psych and inventor of the kb. I've changed it accordingly --Mongreilf (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Typewriter caused interest

I'm not sure and I don't have any sources, but I think "Improvements in typewriter design made key jams less of a problem, but the introduction of the electric typewriter in the 1930s made typist fatigue more of a problem. This caused an increase in interest in the Dvorak layout.[citation needed]" is false. There wasn't an increase in interest in Dvorak because it hadn't been invented yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanperson0 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge in Svorak

Does Svorak really need a separate page? Pretty much everything there is reproduced in this article. Vquex (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: To do

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.