The Dvorak keyboard layout was designed in the 1930s by Dr August Dvorak, a distant cousin of the Czech composer Dvorak. There are a number of variants on it, generally referred to as the Simplified Keyboard, including layouts designed for languages other than English.
In theory, the Dvorak keyboard layout should be superior because of the simplified and more logical design of the layout. In particular, 70% of strokes are made with the Home Keys, compared to 32% for the QWERTY layout.
Published research indicates that the Dvorak layout is probably superior for traditional typing, as distinct from computer keyboards, in terms of learning time, typing speed, accuracy and travel distances.
However, there is conflicting data and opinion as to the quantum of the benefits. Vested interests of typewriter designers and instructors have probably confused the conclusions (Cassingham, 1995; Navy Department, 1944; West, 1983).
In our assessment, the advantages may be valid but have not been demonstrated to be worthwhile compared to the:
- Retraining time, expected to be 20-40 hours for expert typists using typing tutor software.
- Potential difficulty of switching frequently between the two layouts in many business and education environments that would have a mixture of the two layouts.
We are not aware of any research comparing the two layouts relative to computer keyboards, as as distinct from typewriters, and we would gratefully accept any relevant data.
However, for better or worse QWERTY is the industry standard and we do not have the resources to swim against the tide. Good luck to those who do! There have been very few enquiries regarding including instruction for the Dvorak layout in eText typeSmart over recent years, and thus there is not sufficient interest to justify the investment and possible confusion it could cause in workplaces.
Our eText Method reduces the gap — real or imagined — of the Dvorak over the QWERTY keyboard by avoiding the root cause of the problem relative to computers, namely the Home Keys Technique. Dvorak studied only the layout of the keyboard and neglected to challenge the method of learning to use it, as we have done.
References
- Cassingham, R. C. (1995) The Dvorak Keyboard. Freelance Communications, California.
- Navy Department (1944) A Comparison of Typist Improvement from Training on the Standard Keyboard and Retraining on the Simplified Keyboard. Navy Department. Training Section.
- West, Leonard J. (1983) Acquisition of Typewriting Skills, Methods and Research in Teaching Typewriting and Word Processing. 2nd Edition: Bobbs-Merrill educational Publishing, Indianapolis (out of print).
Keyboard and computer injury in general is now a common cause of lost working time and an increasing number of regular computer users are experiencing symptoms. The symptoms and injuries are known as: Continue reading “What is keyboard injury?” »
In 1995-1996 META Consultants undertook market research to investigate the general effectiveness and user satisfaction of existing typing software. A sample of over 90 business and professional people completed the questionnaire Typing Software – How Was It For You? regarding existing typing tutorial software.
What were the results?
- Q. How do you feel about using existing typing tutor software?
-
Stressful, boring or indifferent 70% Enjoyable or satisfying 30% - Q. How would you rate the effectiveness of existing typing tutor software?
-
Poor or very poor 56% Satisfactory 23% Good or very good 21% - Largely ineffective at teaching professional and managerial people basic keyboard skills unless they persist for an average of 28 hours.
- Slightly effective for people who have already learned traditional typing. These people can expect to increase their skills by small to modest amounts with an average input of 12 hours.
- Q. Are you interested in hearing about an alternative method of teaching keyboard skills?
-
Definitely 75% Undecided 19% Declined to comment 6%
This research indicated that the eText Method and Software should be seriously considered as an alternative method of teaching keyboard skills. This applies particularly to professional and managerial people who have limited time but need keyboard proficiency to be creative and fully productive.
So how do people feel about conventional typing tutor software?
Examples of comments META Consultants received on conventional typing tutors between 1996 and 2001 included:
my keying skills are reprehensible and the power age has increased my email volume to 200+ pieces daily, all of which i attempt to respond to. (key word: attempt) i have tried mavis and others but still can’t ‘home row’…
J.O’G. – Philadelphia
I tried [name of product] and found it awful. I gave up after half-an-hour.
T. C. – Government official
With [well-known typing tutor package], I often just got stuck there, frozen, because of a total mental block as to where the damn letter was! …. this has not happened once since I started using typeSmart ”.
B.A. – Small Business Manager
As for my lack of success with these products … mostly, its the home row thing, I just can’t get my hands to sit on it. Both of these products use it …. TT99 [Typing Tutor 99 Platinum] uses CETM (sic) which has the same finger patterns as eText but is fixated on the home row.Another problem I have is that I’m dyslexic and the purely visual/mechanical teaching method doesn’t work well with me. Mavis recommends saying the letters as typed, which helped but then there was that darn home row thing and it beeping like crazy whenever I got off target.”
David A. – Head Information Systems
