Are alternative keyboard layouts like Dvorak, Colemak, etc. better than QWERTY? [closed]
Asked Answered
M

4

60

There are many alternative keyboards to the standard US keyboard layout (called QWERTY).

Some examples include Dvorak, (and variants like Programmer Dvorak), Colemak, AZERTY, Workman layout, etc.

Do any of these confer a benefit to typing speed, accuracy or hand/wrist-health?

And, if so, which one of these should I choose as a touch typist if I am regularly programming?

Majoriemajority answered 15/4, 2014 at 8:42 Comment(4)
...and this is a question about coding exactly how? (Sorry, but "you need to use a keyboard to write code" doesn't cut it; by that logic questions about what type of monitor causes the least eye strain and whether coffee or Jolt cola is better at keeping you awake when you pull an all-nighter would also be on-topic.)Plaint
I am at least glad the question was asked so I could read that comment! (as I struggle to type with Dvorak!)Darice
for all the people out there wanting to learn an ergonomic layout: Colemak >> Dvorak, even programming DvorakHardfeatured
Should this be moved to superuser? superuser.comArsenopyrite
M
124

Short answer:

If you are happy with your keyboard layout, stick with it.

Long answer:

I will try and aim to make this as definitive and explanatory an answer as possible. To understand a bit where I am coming from, allow me to express my own journey through this jungle:

I am a computer science student who started out with the German QWERTZ keyboard, typing at about 100 WPM (words per minute). When that turned out to be horrendous for programming, I moved to QWERTY. Then, I got taken in by the hype and turned to Colemak. After mastering it, I discovered there was a layout optimized for programming, and switched to Programmer Dvorak. Finally, still not happy, I tried to design my own keyboard layout semi-scientifically. And finally, now, I am typing these lines on QWERTY. (To save others the trouble and pain I went through).

Therefore, I will try to argue in my answer both from personal experience as well as from scientific published data.

The main arguments for all the alternative keyboard layout hype can be summarized to three major points:

  1. The QWERTY keyboard is slow and was designed to slow typists down.
  2. Excessive use of QWERTY causes Carpal Tunnel syndrome and is bad for your health.
  3. Dvorak/Colemak/< Insert alternative layout here > was optimized to increase speed/accuracy/health

Let's go through this one by one:

First, the argument that the QWERTY keyboard was designed to slow typists down is simply not true. It was nicely debunked in this question. The QWERTY keyboard was designed to stop the keys from a certain model of typewriter to stop jamming. Rest assured, we will discuss the "QWERTY is slow" myth in a minute.

Second, the ultimate argument that advocates of alternative keyboards love to use is that QWERTY causes Carpal Tunnel syndrome, because it strains the fingers. What's amazing here is that this is actually an Urban legend which has persisted despite it being discredited. See this question here. To quote from the answer by Graeme Perrow: "It seems that using computers in general does not cause carpal tunnel syndrome, regardless of the type of keyboard."

Finally: If QWERTY wasn't made to slow typists down and doesn't cause any illness, why use another keyboard? The answer usually offered is because other layouts are faster and have the keys aligned in a "smarter" way. We are told how much faster typists can be when they use Dvorak instead of QWERTY and how the home row of colemak offers great benefits to productivity and speed. We are treated to an avalanche of impressive-looking percentages, of how much faster and accurate you can be on an alternate keyboard, rather than a humble QWERTY.

However, if you look at hard, scientific evidence, you find... nothing worth writing home about. Indeed, there are two very interesting posts here and here: It turns out that the (very hard to objectively measure) speed gains are a measly 2% to 4%.

This mimics what I myself have experienced: If you are a trained typist, then switching doesn't give much of an improvement. After I had finally finished my switch to Dvorak, I was still typing at roughly 100WPM. If you want to go beyond that, you have to type a lot during your day.

I believe that the reason people observe a speed-boost when they switch is that they have to retrain their muscle memory from scratch. Which, if they do diligently, is rewarded with a faster typing speed. The irony is: I conjecture that if they had "retrained" QWERTY from scratch, they would have obtained the same speed increase.

Additionally, my own error rate didn't go down with Dvorak or Colemak. It stayed around the same level. Which, again, is not dictated by the layout but by the accuracy with which one has trained their muscle memory.

Lastly, on the note of programming: It is true that for programming languages, on QWERTY the keys used often, such as {}, [], ', =, +, -, _, etc., are all to be reached with the right pinky, which drags performance down. This still is not worth the switch to something like Programmer Dvorak, however, since, especially in programming, the limiting factor is rarely typing speed (once you get above 60WPM, that is).

So given all this, there are also a few downsides to switching that I wish to elaborate:

  1. Dvorak suffers from the huge disadvantage that all computers use shortcuts (such as the famous CTRL+C and CTRL+V) which, on the Dvorak, are in different and hard-to-reach positions. Colemak doesn't suffer from this as much, since it kept the C, V and B key positions from QWERTY. However, even with Colemak, using programs which rely heavily on shortcut use (the most notorious of these being software like vim and emacs), has to be relearned from scratch.

  2. Switching takes a very long time. Let nobody fool you. If you were typing at >80WPM, I can tell you from personal experience that it takes months to achieve this speed again. Even if you swap only a few keys (like Colemak), it is still a painful and long process.

  3. When you successfully switch, you will be unable to type fast on regular QWERTY keyboards anymore (take my word for it). You will still be faster than someone who doesn't use touch typing, but if you ever have to type on a QWERTY computer as an alternative typist, you will be in for some embarrassment. This can get especially hairy if it is work related.

  4. Many alternative layouts are not nearly as standardized as QWERTY. In other words: If you use an older machine, for instance, you may find your preferred layout not installed. This is a further hassle, because then you have to get around that problem by downloading and installing the layout you chose, meanwhile having to work in a layout you can no longer use.

Thus, in conclusion, my advice is: If you are happy with your current layout, keep it. The benefits of changing are much too small to consider. Especially if you are a QWERTY typist, I recommend staying with it. It will save you a lot of hassle and annoyances.

Majoriemajority answered 15/4, 2014 at 8:42 Comment(10)
Thanks for sharing your experience. Personally tho, I wouldn't even think to switch if I could type even 70-80WPM. Having said that, Dvorak's home row is very tempting.Kelikeligot
I type about 90 WPM on average using standard Qwerty layout with momentary boosts up to 110 WPM. When I tried to teach myself Dvorak it took about a week to get to 60 WPM training 1 hour a day. I don't think getting to 80 WPM would take a very long time. I continued Dvorak adventure for about a month only to discover that even though the comfort was great I actually needed to use other people's computers from time to time. Also, I was tired of never-ending remappings of keys in all kinds of programs to make them intuitive.Catlaina
Rebuttal: 1-Shortcuts are a problem, but if you can't get over that there are programs to switch back to QWERTY when you press Ctrl or Alt. 2-YMMV, but when I switched to Dvorak in college I got back to my then max speed of 50wpm in about 2 weeks of random practice + daily use. I top out at about 80-90 now. 3-This is 100% true, but unless you pair program, you probably won't be typing long texts on others' computers. 4-Also true, see #3.Privatdocent
Regarding the debunking of qwerty, I think your answer here is misleading as you omit the important phrase "would be far apart on the keyboard." from your answer. Quoted entirely from your source: "Specifically, the QWERTY arrangement was selected so that letters frequently occurring together would be far apart on the keyboard, reducing the tendency to jam, and thus allowing faster typing."Wyrick
Oh, designed to prevent jams (and to slow down touch typists is not intended, because there was no touch typist). No, it is not the worst of possible layouts -- at least Z is not under my index finger. It put T in the top row, N in the bottom row and K in the home row so the keys no longer jammed -- How clever! Now I have a good keyboard that no longer jams, should I continue using this time-tested layout because it was not designed to slow me down (that was totally a side effect)?Aerugo
You mention "scientific evidence". FYI: Fingers of typist on QWERTY travels more than Dvorak/Colemak, thus you're more likely to get RSI on QWERTY than Dvorak/Colemak. And the world fastest typist is "Barbara Blackburn" (212 wpm) using Dvorak.Thermion
Your argument on shortcut is invalid. Shortcut in dvorak is easy. Cut: RShift+Del / Menu+T, Copy: RCtrl+Insert, Paste: RShift+Insert, Undo: RCtlr+Z, Save: RCtlr+S, Close Browser Tab: RCtlr+WThermion
While it is true that if you can already touch type you will not benefit (by any significant amount) by switching. There is still the majority that are incapable of learning to touch type on querty, but could learn on a nicer layout. I tried to learn on querty. I could learn the layout, but at the time I had carpel tunnel problems, and the training aggravated it. I could not do more than 1 minute, without my hands doing in to spasm. I then tried dvorak. It was much more pleasant on the hands. I learnt easily, I only have problems if it try to race.Arsenopyrite
While querty was not designed to slow us down, some people see that is slows them down (by not being able to learn to touch type on it: by having pain, that leads to long rests). They mistakenly assume that this must be caused by un-intelligent design. It is not. It was just an accident. Some good designs were prohibited, by the mechanics, but this does not make the bad design intentional. Like wise, the non-intentionallity, does not may it become a good design.Arsenopyrite
The solution I use is a gamer mouse for the most common keyboard shorcuts.Rollandrollaway
A
37

Long story short: QWERTY was not designed for touch typing. When compared with nine other layouts, QWERTY comes in dead last in typing effort. Give other layouts a try and experience the difference.

  1. Whether the QWERTY layout was intentionally designed to slow typists is irrelevant. QWERTY is inherently slow by design.
  2. The ultimate argument made by alternative keyboard advocates is that QWERTY is an inefficient, sub-optimal keyboard layout and that better layouts exist that suit modern touch typing technique. Whether one subscribes to the belief that QWERTY is a contributor to carpal tunnel is another story, yet many anecdotal stories exist of people who have reduced RSI by switching.
  3. You should use a non-QWERTY keyboard layout because a non-QWERTY keyboard layout is easier to use. Switching to Dvorak or Colemak reduces distance traveled, reduces same finger typing, increases hand alternation, increases hand balance, and optimizes performance according to finger strength. Switching to Dvorak alone reduces effort by 30% (i.e not 4% as suggested, see first link). Note that these benefits accrue over time with use. The idea that there is no benefit to switching is simply untrue. And with newer layouts such as Colemak, typists don’t have to relearn to type. 48% of the Colemak keyboard layout is identical to QWERTY. Even if one’s error rate doesn’t fall (highly unlikely), alternative keyboard layouts like Colemak remap backspace to an easier to reach spot.

Regarding said downsides:

  1. Windows and Mac offer the ability to use familiar QWERTY shortcuts while pressing Ctrl/Cmd. Many people have devised ways for using emacs/vim while switching.
  2. Switching can be very painless and easy considering there are websites such as keybr.com that teach how to master touch typing using Dvorak or Colemak.
  3. Whether you can type as fast with QWERTY after switching is irrelevant. Once you switch, you are set and won't have to go back to QWERTY on your own device. Dvorak and Colemak are standards or can be easily installed on to all major operating platforms. If you are going to use others keyboards and aren’t able to switch the layouts, there are numerous online keyboard simulators.
  4. The hassle of switching the layout on the computer is very minimal if nonexistent compared to the hassle of typing on QWERTY.

Advice: The benefits of switching are too large not to consider. You have nothing to lose by trying; if it doesn’t work out, you will always have QWERTY to fall back on. Let your keyboard work for you, not the other way around.

Absorptance answered 26/4, 2014 at 7:45 Comment(1)
the link you gave mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?popular_alternatives says "Carpalx optimizes keyboard layouts to create ones that require less effort and significantly reduced carpal strain!" seems like it's advertising.. a link to a scientific study in a recognised journal would be betterArrington
G
22

My two cents worth...

I switched from QWERTY to Colemak a few years back, mostly because I like to try out new things but also because I was getting a bit of RSI from all the typing I do.

I found the transition took a few months, with the first few weeks being most painful -- I took a lot of handwritten notes in meetings in this period! But perseverance paid off, I'm now typing at about 60-70 wpm, which is faster than my old QWERTY speed, and I can touch type properly, plus I don't get the RSI pains any more.

Now, much of this might be because I learned to type properly in Colemak (using programs such as GNU Typist) whereas I don't recall ever learning QWERTY properly. But I would say that Colemak definitely feels nicer on the fingers, with less movement around the keyboard for most words.

I'd also add that Colemak is supported as part of the base OS on Mac and popular GNU/Linuxs (e.g. Debian and Ubuntu), and easy to install on Windows, so would consider it fairly mainstream.

Goldschmidt answered 22/4, 2014 at 16:43 Comment(2)
I've yet to see native support for Colemak on Windows. Still have to install the keyboard from colemak.com/WindowsAttune
@sean.net: Thanks for the heads up, let me change my answer to reflect this.Goldschmidt
E
7

I agree with @mark-anderson I am typing on dvorak and the worst part is that shortcut keys are a pain - I use a tool for that (see my answer at https://mcmap.net/q/330172/-dvorak-typers-how-do-you-handle-shortcuts-like-ctrl-c). Using someone else's keyboard is also a pain.

On the plus side, I can touch type and never have to look at the keyboard. actually if I look at the keyboard I get confused since the keys are in the wrong place.

Was it worth it? Not really sure. I like that I can touch type. I like that I can use qwerty shortcuts but my hand still hurts and I think I might be faster - not really sure. But I am considering switching back to qwerty - I have been dvorak for 2+ years now, so I don't really have a good reason to switch back other than to "conform" :)

Emmert answered 16/4, 2014 at 16:47 Comment(4)
In a sense, I think this pretty much reflects why I went back to QWERTY even after going through the trouble of learning Dvorak. I was touch-typing in any case (my keyboard doesn't even have labels on it, much to the chagrin of people who visit me and want to type something on my computer). If you were touch-typing QWERTY before, I might recommend switching. From my own experience, QWERTY "lies dormant", but is reawakend if you spend a couple days typing in it again. Otherwise, you will have to decide whether learning a "new" layout for several months is worth it to you.Majoriemajority
Your argument on shortcut is invalid. Shortcut in dvorak is easy. Cut: RShift+Del / Menu+T, Copy: RCtrl+Insert, Paste: RShift+Insert, Undo: RCtlr+Z, Save: RCtlr+S, Close Browser Tab: RCtlr+WThermion
On Mac Os, the layout Dvorak-Qwerty exists, when you press Command, the keyboard behaves like a Qwerty, meaning that the shortcuts are the same with Qwerty keyboards :)Devitt
It’s been 10+ years and here is an update to my comment above. I just regular Dvorak. No issues with shortcuts anymore. I just got used to them. I can now say it was the best decision I ever made for my carpel tunnel. I love it and never want to go back. As an added bonus my kids think I am a magician because I am typing stuff that doesn’t match what’s on the keys 😂Emmert

© 2022 - 2024 — McMap. All rights reserved.