imnerdy
Date: 2006-06-28 00:35:40
[reply]
|
Hi there! I was just wondering if any of you guys out there have tried both layouts and had a preference of either QWERTY or Dvorak. I hear Dvorak is much easier to learn and faster once you get the hang of it. Is this true? I can type about 90 WPM in QWERTY and looking to improve, but can't seem to get any better. I'm thinking about switching to Dvorak... would it be worth it?
|
Anonymous
Date: 2006-07-01 05:38:41
[reply]
|
According to an article by Reason Magazine, no, it's not worth it. The full article is available online here: http://www.reason.com/9606/Fe.QWERTY.shtml
|
dromiceius
Date: 2006-07-07 10:08:54
[reply]
|
imnerdy wrote:
I don't type much faster with Dvorak than I did with QWERTY, but I enjoy typing with Dvorak a lot more. Using QWERTY generates a lot more stress in the joints than it's more ergonomic counterpart. And it's ridiculously inefficient... I mean the J is right-index on the home row!
That's just stupid.
I could type 500kpm in QWERTY, and quit cold turkey one day. A month later, I was typing around 380 in Dvorak. Two years later, I can push my Dvorak speed to about 550 if I really want... but my brain just doesn't work that quickly. ;)
My QWERTY dropped to about 100kpm within a few months of switching. I found it impossible to use DOS, and it was a pain in the ass if I had to use someone else's computer. After much work with some DOS-based programs, my QWERTY is back up to about 400kpm.
If you can spare a few weeks to a month to get up to speed, and remember that QWERTY is still the layout everybody else uses, (er, in North America, that is) then go for it.
|
Anonymous
Date: 2006-07-17 02:33:36
[reply]
|
http://www.acm.vt.edu/~jmaxwell/dvorak/compare.html
I guess this lil. applet will demonstrate the difference.
Logically, move less=less error.
|
ztrom
Date: 2006-07-23 23:01:55
[reply]
|
One of the reasons I switched to dvorak a few years ago was that I thought it'd make me type faster, and while I do type faster now than I did with qwerty back then, it's not a very big difference. Dvorak is much more comfortable, though, so I don't regret switching anyways. :)
Got my personal best of 564 kpm (112 wpm) on Swedish words today. Don't remember what my old best score was before I switched from qwerty, but it was somewhere over 500, at least, so I'd say the difference in typing speed is small.
|
Anonymous
Date: 2006-08-11 09:08:06
[reply]
|
imnerdy wrote:
| Hi there! I was just wondering if any of you guys out there have tried both layouts and had a preference of either QWERTY or Dvorak. I hear Dvorak is much easier to learn and faster once you get the hang of it. Is this true? I can type about 90 WPM in QWERTY and looking to improve, but can't seem to get any better. I'm thinking about switching to Dvorak... would it be worth it? |
My two cents:
I switched to Dvorak awhile back. My typing speed improved considerably, but keep in mind that the switch coincided with an effort to improve my typing skills. So I honestly have no room to say, "yes, your skills will improve if you switch," simply based on that.
On the other hand, typing in Dvorak is much more...comfortable than QWERTY ever was for me. Words are simply easier to create.
The big issue you need to consider, though, is where you will be doing your typing. If you can't ensure that you will be able to use Dvorak at home/work/school (etc.), then there is no point in switching.
|
jamesgordon
Date: 2006-09-08 21:09:54
[reply]
|
I've never tried Dvorak...but unless it becomes the standard, I wouldn't recommend buying a Dvorak keyboard. You'll always be having to use keyboards/computers which are not your own, and especially if you have a laptop, there's really no simple solution to typing with Dvorak. Plus, why switch over for maybe 5-10 wpm increase in speed, if you're lucky? I can type average of about 105-125 (all time best is 128) and I've always used Qwerty. I think the main thing about Dvorak is that it's more logically laid out, so it's more comfortable and efficient for constructing words, when considering the shape of your hand. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with having to use weaker fingers like your ring and pinky more often--it's good for finger independence and carries over into other activities, like playing a musical instrument.
|
sorenk
Date: 2006-10-21 07:04:53
[reply]
|
I tried Dvorak a few years ago. It was easy to learn and fun. Your can type many words with just the home row so drills are not as annoying as qwerty drills. Note they top row is designed for a sales person to type qwerty type writer...that shows how we got our standard. Anyway I'm back to qwerty because it is more convenient. Though I do miss the laughs I got when a friend, relative or coworker would say "what the #$@#% wrong with my computer." Sometimes I forgot to switch the layout back to qwerty after using a computer.
Special keyboards are not necessary because most current operating systems are designed to remap keyboards. Windows XP (I think ME,2000 and NT too)and MAC OSX come with the Dvorak map included, so as long as you can access preferences then your good to go. Lynx also has Dvorak maps. But it is less convenient. That's why I switched by to qwerty.
I can't speak much for top speed (I type at a whopping 35-45wpm). But Dvorak is MUCH more comfortable to type in. Especially when you're typing as fast as you can. And it only took me about two months to gain a Dvorak speed equivalent to my qwerty speed.
It's worth trying out. You can always switch back. The speed loss isn't permanent ('lay my, speed wasn't that fast, but I used Dvorak for over a year and it only took a few weeks to regain qwerty).
If I typed more, I'd probably switch back to Dvorak for comforts sake.
Personally, I'm waiting for shorthand recognition. Shorthand recognition would make 90+wmp easy and 160+wmp attainable and 300+wmp possible (I think the speed record for shorthand is 350wpm).
Oh! And don't play TyperA too much---it BLINDS!
|
mc
Date: 2007-05-03 13:02:45
[reply]
|
DVORAK its definatly worth it
i swithced a while bak and my typigns sky rocketed
im neva going bak now- no way!
thanks guys
tru frends
foreva
|
Amun
Date: 2010-09-14 02:47:49
[reply]
|
Dvorak is infinitely better.
|
DanaA
Date: 2011-10-12 01:01:38
[reply]
|
I have read that article and totally disagree with it. It was written by economists, not efficiency experts, and focuses on whether it's fiscally practical to retrain people. I refute the article at great length here:
http://www.albertnet.us/2009/06/defendants-i-type-lot.html
I switched to Dvorak and am very glad I did. I type faster, and more importantly my hands don't hurt anymore.
Dana
|
Amun
Date: 2011-10-12 23:40:10
[reply]
|
Yeah lol I remember how much my hands/fingers used to hurt when I was typing on QWERTY, but they don't hurt at all. The only thing two things that stop me from typing are when my hands/fingers get cold (can't type with cold hands/fingers AT-ALL . . .), or my fingers just get bored of typing hehe
So far I'm feelin' really good about having switched from QWERTY to Dvorak . . . I've already surpassed by QWERTY speed (2 min test|126 wpm|4 years) on this site, and on hi-games.net. Only took a little over 1 year . . . I still feel like I can improve too, which is different from how I felt about QWERTY (I hit the speed plateau).
But I suppose if they were considering choosing a new "standard," and were concerned about the "retraining," they could go with Colemak, because it's almost the same (but better than QWERTY), and the transition is a lot smoother, thus taking less time to get back up to speed . . .
|