Is the Dvorak keyboard layout faster than QWERTY?

I can do about 120 WPM, but it takes 6 hrs to fix the spelling mistakes

And the debate goes on.... :) Ten years ago, in high school, I was able to touch type on a QWERTY keyboard at 97 wpm... After graduating college and working at a keyboard for 8 hours a day, five days a week I began to develop pains in my wrists after short periods of fast typing. My typing speed fell to about 50 or 60 wpm on average - though I could still get up into the 80's it was painful to do so, so I avoided doing it.

Two years ago, I switched to the Dvorak keyboard (actually the dvorak layout for QWERTY keyboards which is slightly different) because I had read many many accounts of the layout relieving carpal tunnel pain. After two years of using it, I can say that I regained my former speed of 90+wpm, and I can do so without pain.

Will everyone type faster on a dvorak keyboard than QWERTY? Probably not, but if you've lost a bit of your speed over the years due to pain, I recommend trying the dvorak layout for 6 months and see how much more comfortable it is to use.

If you do decide to make the switch, you should know that it won't be easy. In fact it is crippling for a month or two until you've adjusted to the switch. You can expect to start regaining your speed after about 6 or 8 months of continual use (i.e. not switching back and forth between QWERTY and dvorak but simply going cold turkey on QWERTY). After a year or a year and a half, I think that you will find that you are typing faster with less effort than you would on QWERTY - but that doesn't mean that you'll type faster overall.

ALSO, don't let people tell you its not good for programming.... while it is VERY awkward at first, after you get used to it, it is just as easy as QWERTY.

I'm pretty convinced that QWERTY is actually the most optimal layout for speed because it was designed to alternate strokes between hands evenly to optimize typing speed for mechanical typewriters

There is some confusion here: it is not QWERTY that was designed to alternate strokes between hands, it is Dvorak (the two-handed variety obviously). QWERTY was designed solely to move apart the type-hammers of common combinations of letters in an early model of typewriter - to prevent the keys jamming if those letters were typed too quickly in sequence.

Because of this, typing in QWERTY tends to be "all over the keyboard". Yes, QWERTY is fairly good with respect to hand alternation, but that is more by luck than by design. Don't forget that when the QWERTY layout was invented in 1868, there was no such thing as touch-typing; and high speed typing was not possible - the early typewriters simply couldn't keep up.

However the Dvorak layout was specifically designed to alternate between hands as much as possible (in addition to several other design goals). That is why all the vowels are under the left hand, and all the common consonants are under the right hand. This results in much better hand alternation than with QWERTY - you only have to look at the figures:

The overall left-right keystroke balance is somewhat better on Dvorak (47-53) than on QWERTY (57-43), although neither is very far from 50-50.

But just look at the numbers of "one-handed words". There are hundreds of common English words that can be typed one-handed in QWERTY, many of them quite long. Here are just a few examples: addresses, database, defeated, exaggerate, killjoy, opinion, pumpkin, recess, street, stewardesses.

By contrast, there are only a handful of one-handed words in (two-handed) Dvorak - and most of those are no longer than four letters. They are all "high scrabble score" kind of words with relatively unusual letters - a few examples: apex, jeep, opaque, pipe, queue.

I'm pretty convinced that QWERTY is actually the most optimal layout for speed

Just think about this for a moment... if QWERTY really were the "most optimal layout for speed" it would be nothing less than astonishing. Consider the odds: there are over a million billion billion possible keyboard layouts (and that's just counting the letters); what are the chances of Christopher Sholes (the inventor of QWERTY) stumbling across the single most optimal layout more or less by chance? Even if he had designed his layout with the express intention of aiding high-speed typing (which he didn't) the odds against actually finding the very best one on the first go would be astronomical.

For a two-handed typist, the left- and right-handed Dvorak layouts can't possibly be faster than QWERTY, because there's not enough alternation between hands.

Well of course. Left and right handed Dvorak are intended for one-handed typists. The idea is to allow people with the use of only one hand to achieve a resonable typing speed (which would not be possible with either QWERTY or two-handed Dvorak). There is no sense in a two-handed typist using a one-handed layout.

So, compare the two-handed Dvorak layout to QWERTY and I'm still betting that QWERTY is marginally faster at the upper end.

Well the worlds fastest typist uses Dvorak. The "International Commercial Schools Contest", a typing contest, tried to bar the use of the Dvorak layout in 1937 because it was "unfair competition". Plus, as far as I know, every study that has ever been done to compare the speed of QWERTY and Dvorak layouts has found that Dvorak is faster (the only disagreement is how much faster).

"[...] what are the chances of Christopher Sholes (the inventor of QWERTY) stumbling across the single most optimal layout more or less by chance?"

What are the chances of life existing here on Earth? The answer is "100%" ... because, there is.

Even without intent for optimality, Sholes's layout was the most natural given his constraints: the physical typewriter's limitations, but also, the human factor of usability. If his layout was unusable, it wouldn't have met his physical constraints (the typewriter basket would still jam) as well as his human ones (it would be difficult to type with).

Statistically, could there be a more optimal layout? Sure. But, that approach ignores the human factor. Could there be a statistically superior layout that is still pleasant to use? Possibly, but, how much more superior? If only negligibly so, then it's not really worth pursuing, in my opinion.

Again, this could all be my internal bias because I've managed to learn QWERTY sufficiently well that it's all muscle-memory now. If I'd started learning on Dvorak, I'm sure I'd feel differently. The interesting question would be, if I did learn Dvorak first, how much faster would I be able to type?

I ask the question: did any part of the success of the QWERTY layout have to do with the way the majority of human brains are "wired" in terms of what's most natural? A similar question might be: why is the common 6-string guitar tuning the way it is? Is it optimal? If not, why has it lasted so long?

Thanks for the very enlightening response, Tom.

I used to be an average QWERTY typer at around 60WPM not touch typed. I eventually decided to switch to Dvorak, and it really changed my typing speed. Right before the switch, I was trying to get touch typing on QWERTY. Once I switched to Dvorak, I was able to type in both but not nearly as efficiently on QWERTY.

I think I've rewired my brain for Dvorak. Although I can remember to touch type certain words in QWERTY I still have to sit there and use QWERTY for about five minutes. I find that typing in Dvorak is definantly more pleasant. Typing becomes easier if you're typing with two hands. My WPM shot up to 90-130 after switching. The only complaint I have is the difficulty of typing with just one hand on a two handed Dvorak keyboard. For that I switch it to QWERTY and type like that.

Programming on the Dvorak keyboard, is a bit awkward, but you eventually get used to it.

I switched te dvorak not many years ago. Only after a moth I was typing faster than I did on qwerty before,
but I switched back because I had to type on qwerty when I was competing in programming (we couldn't bring our own keyboards).

This summer I switched back do dvorak again, because I worked a lot with answering emails, and my hands really took some damage. But the pain disapeared after the switch back to dvorak.

And, fact: the world record in typing was made on a dvorak keyboard.

yeah, my peak is also 120-ish on a QWERTY keyboard, i haven't "touched" a DVORAK keyboard tho :)

In high school I typed 85 wpm on a manual Royal.

15 years ago I was tested and was at 154 wpm on both an electric Panasonic and IBM typewriter.
I have been typing 8-10 hours a day since then and have no idea what my speed is. I'm on a QWERTY.

Does anybody know what the top speed is on a QWERTY?

Just to let you know, my speed did dramatically increase when I switched to Dvorak. Sure, it took some time, but I currently type twice my Qwerty speed in Dvorak. I could never learn to touch type Qwerty. I tried endlessly, but it was like those stupid wall sits (you know, where you sit with your back against a wall and your quads kill you): sooner or later my hands would cramp, and the whole time it was uncomferatable. Everything changed with Dvorak. To this day I cannot teach myself how to touch type Qwerty (though I've thoroughly memorized the layout) and my Dvorak speed is double my Qwerty speed. In case you're wondering, neither speed is any where near impressive. On Qwerty I max out at about 27 WPM, and on Dvorak I can reach about 55 WPM. I haven't tried much to improve my speeed, mostly just accuracy.

Also, the world's fastest typist achieved her speed (212 WPM) on a Dvorak and types only on Dvorak. I think that says something about the fact that Dvorak is designed for faster typing than Qwerty.

Altay: The Peters, Cortez Peters Sr. and his son Cortez Peters Jr., have made quite a name for themselves in the typing world. Allegedly, Cortez Peters Jr. may have beat Barbara Blackburn's 212 WPM record, with 225 WPM on QWERTY.

I say "allgedly" because the Wikipedia article cites no sources and I can't find any source other than Wikipedia itself, so this may be false. But, it raises questions: is Barbara the world's fastest typist, or just the fastest typist that's been verified by the Guiness Book folks?

I don't believe what I am reading? Dossy, you have missed the boat...hopefully you can catch the next one once I bring you up-to-date. This is not a slam or intended to make you feel bad, but rather I am dissapointed in many that bash the gift Dr. August Dvorak had designed for humanity that ended up falling on so many deaf ears.

To get the true scoop on Dvorak, read the comic (zine) on http://dvzine.org

Also watch the following old video clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPfevKbJRmQ & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkMB5Q27nQI

If you want to learn how to type Dvorak, goto http://www.gigliwood.com/abcd/

There are 3 versions of the Dvorak. Simplified, left-hand, right-hand. Unless you are missing or have an extreme disability in either hand, do not use the left or right hand versions as they were primarily disigned for those with handicaps and/or disabilities (that is why there are not hand alternations). Dr Dvorak got the idea when a soldier came back from WWII missing an arm. That soldier was then able to type on the one-hand version at about 60 wpm.

I typed on the QWERTY knuckle-buster, finger-tangler for over 20 years and developed hand stresses. Last July, I was fed-up and self-taught myself the Dvorak layout and have been typing it ever since http://www.gigliwood.com/abcd/ . It only took me 2 weeks to learn it and beat my QWERTY speeds in about a month or two http://www.powertyping.com/dvorak/typing.html. My hands immediately thanked me and have no desire to go back.

For the QWERTY users… go ahead an continue to type on the ilogical, obsolete, Standard Keyboard of the 1870s as it obviously isn’t going anywhere anytime soon (even the inventor, Chris Sholes, even tried to change it), but don’t thrash an alteranative effective layout you know nothing about. Did you know that you can spell the word “typewriter” on the top row of Qwerty… how’s that for a marketing stunt?

Common letter pairs were intentionally placed in awkward positions on the Qwerty as to prevent keys from jamming. The earliest typewriters did not have springs on the hammers and were gravity fed back in place. The original typewriters had no typists to slow down as it was only intended to be "hunt and pecked" on.

Do we and our children want to continue learning the random unbalanced positions that were created in the 1870s or do we want to get with the times and type in a method that is more logical for the information age that is faster, more accurate, less fatiguing, and lessens RSI and other hand stresses such as corperral tunnel?

There is no need to run out and buy a Dvorak keyboard as the first rule of typing is to not look at your fingers and to learn by touch. It is as simple as changing a setting in your operating system. Dvorak gained enough popularity in the 1980's that it was officially recognized by ANSI (American National Standards Institute) an is in every computer... you just need to turn it ON!

Hope this helps and is informative,

Jim

Jim:

Every time I hear a claim of "I used to type QWERTY, but now I use Dvorak, and now I can type faster," it's never quantified by the actual typing speeds before-and-after.

I agree that folks who have a hard time learning to type fast on QWERTY--that is, 90+ WPM--can probably learn to type faster on Dvorak. But, if you're like me and already type 120+ WPM on QWERTY, switching to Dvorak is not likely to give me much. There's a physical limitation to how fast your hands can press keys, regardless of where they're positioned.

I would like to hear even anecdotal evidence that someone who can type 120+ WPM on QWERTY switched to Dvorak and could exceed, say, 150+ WPM. I'm almost willing to bet that it never happens.

Dossy,

Interesting points.. but I do have the proof to back it up. I hope you did view the youtube links I provided (yes, I realize they are a bit dated). But the ultimate proof: Have you heard of Barbara Blackburn? She FAILED her high school Qwerty typing class. She then learned Dvorak a little later and types 170 wpm and she peaked at 212 wpm, placing her in the Guiness Book of World Records.

After reading the DV Zine, viewing the video clips, and learning about Barbara Blackburn; if you are still not convinced, you are a tough sell.

However, I will warn you that Dvorak may not be a smooth transition for a high speed keyer of your caliper and I do envy you regarding your speed. If you were to change, it would be a drastic change for the worse for awhile.

If you did decide to change I would highly recommend doing it on a long vacation from work. At about week 2 or 3 your Qwerty speed would drop drastically and your Dvorak speed will not be that high. If you managed to tough it out and kept with Dvorak, you would probably meet and beat your speed and accuracy in about 2 to 3 months.

With a high speed keyer like yourself, if you did transition, I think you would be able to achieve approx 160 wpm.

However, with your speed as high as it is, if you decided not to switch, I would not blame you and respect your decision and would only aspire to achieve your rate of speed.

As far as myself, with Dvorak I have gained 15 wpm over my Qwerty speed and am still climbing.

Jim

I just recently starting being an assistant coach to a college student, James Stone, who is currently transitioning from Qwerty to Dvorak. He is doing this as part of course project. He used to key 77-85 wpm in Qwerty 4 weeks ago. He is charting his progress on http://dma.sjsu.edu/~art106/jstone/dvorak/index.html and has been providing a documentary on his progress on youtube under the handle of JamesManOfStone. This is only a 10 week project and his results are quite interesting thus far. I am sure he will continue to improve long after his project is done.

Jim

Jim:

The YouTube videos compare someone who can type 90 WPM QWERTY to an entirely different person who can type 157 WPM Dvorak. That's not entirely fair: you can always find two people of differing skill levels--say, on the piano--is it fair to compare them?

You can take the best left-footed surfer and compare them to the best right-footed surfer. Does it really make sense to say that whomever is the better surfer indicates that people of that foot orientation are likely to be better than the other? No, the only thing it really tells us is that between those two people, one is better than the other. Arguing that their particular foot-orientation or their style is what makes one inherently better than the other is a stretch.

Regarding Barbara Blackburn, I can accept that she is an extremely capable typist on the Dvorak layout, however she's an exception, not the rule. What would we say if a person who could type 180 WPM on QWERTY turned up at some point? Would that invalidate all the pro-Dvorak propaganda? There are talented people that the world hasn't discovered and may never discover. Barbara is just fortunate in that she was discovered.

Now, understand that I'm not blindly arguing in favor of QWERTY; ten years ago, I learned the two-handed Dvorak layout and had used it for roughly three months. I had reached a speed of close to 70 WPM using the Dvorak layout, which wasn't better than my 90 WPM top speed on QWERTY at the time. I did stop using the layout because it just didn't "feel right" for me. That could very well be the muscle memory in my hands creating a bias due to my years of QWERTY typing. Whatever the cause, I chose to go back to QWERTY and continued to gain speed until I peaked at 120 WPM.

I can believe that there are people out there who the Dvorak layout feels "more natural" or "more comfortable" and enables them to ultimately type faster than if they'd continued with QWERTY. I also suspect that there are people for whom the opposite holds true.

While the "science" behind why the Dvorak layout indicates that it "should" be superior to QWERTY, there's a natural element of design where what is scientifically superior may not win in the marketplace or be attractive to people. Perhaps this is one of those cases.

Dossy,

I would like to thank you for allowing me to have this friendly debate with you. I think we have probably learned some positive things from each other and wish there were better documented cases out there. One point that seems to have come out of this is that it appears that one way of doing and learning things may not work for someone else and that some of us are wired differently to include thought process, retention, etc.

I cannot help but wonder something though and would be hard to prove as we cannot turn back the clock and that is could it be possible that someone that types 125wpm on Qwerty be compared to someone that types 160wpm on Dvorak? Let me ask this a slightly a different way... If the above avg Qwerty typist that types 120wpm were able to turn back the clock and learn Dvorak, could it be possible they could achieve a 160wpm speed? Or vice-versa for that matter? Maybe the wpm may not be an effective way as to categorize an equal since there is another factor that is not common and that is the keyboard mapping layout.

You had mentioned that you suspect there could be a threshold on how fast the above avg typer is able to press the keys, but if there is less finger reaches on a layout, could one conceivably press the keys faster?

James Stone's project should prove to be interesting. He has been experiencing similar situations I had encountered when I converted, but he and I have also encountered differences as well. Our methods of learning have been slightly different as well as our baseline Qwerty speeds. I also had a break from work and he had not. Some people also retain their Qwerty keystrokes and can easily switch and type between the two layouts. Others like myself (and so far James Stone so far) have forgotten, however, I suspect that it still is in our subconscience to change back if we really tried and wanted to go back.

I suspect the two of us have very similar thoughts and questions. However, we both seem to be biased on our own preferred layouts.

I, like yourself, would love to see quantitative unbiased research study report data between many individuals that have learned one layout vs. the other...or for that manner, those have switched from the one layout to the other.

Here is something else you may find interesting http://www.typematrix.com/download/TypeMatrix-morph-promo-640.mpeg it will take awhile to download and is found on http://www.typematrix.com/ I have one of these and love it, but I dislike the imbedded 10 key.

Thanks again for allowing me to have this friendly debate with you and the share of our knowledge with each other. I think overall our discussions have been productive.

Jim

There is a company out there by the name of keytime.com that is based in Seattle. The have been teaching and educating thousands to type for many years. They have all the documented evidence one would ever need and they can be contacted very easily. http://www.keytime.com/

Jim

"I'm pretty convinced that QWERTY is actually the most optimal layout for speed because it was designed to alternate strokes between hands evenly to optimize typing speed for mechanical typewriters."

Have you ever considered the home row of qwerty, like at all?
a_dfghjkl;

I mean, it's just alphabetical order. With a spot reserved for the essential semicolon. As far as I can tell, the creator of qwerty just lay out a board in alphabetical order, and moved a few letters to the top row. (The bottom row is largely alphabetical order too, although it does contain about half the rejects from the home row). Which is fine, for the first typewriters. I mean, touch typing wasn't even going to be invented for another 15 years.

Now, do you really mean to say, that a board designed that crudely could possibly be better then a board designed with the english language and touch typing in mind?

Alex: As I pointed out, I don't position my hands in the traditional home row--I use "awefjio;" which fits most naturally to me. I have 4 of the 5 vowels in _my_ home row, two on each hand. I have "r" and "t" under my left pointer finger, quite common letters. "s" under my left ring finger also keeps it close. "n" is under my right ring finger.

I have a very hard time accepting the _coincidence_ that the Sholes QWERTY layout has effectively dominated common typewriter layout for over 130 years by mere coincidence. There were other typewriter manufacturers at the time and alternative keyboard layouts. There have been alternative keyboard layouts since. Sholes's QWERTY layout won, both against his contemporary competitors and all others throughout time.

This can't be mere coincidence. If there were an alternative layout that could be proven--through real science, not the hyperbole and rhetoric we only have today--to be superior to the QWERTY layout, someone would publish such findings.

For the record, I've always been a qwerty typist, and have only just started dvorak this week as I was beginning to get the impression qwerty was holding me back (I am quite average at around 85-90wpm - with fixing errors as they appear). Started dvorak on monday, and am up to an embarrassing 38wpm, but enjoying the learning experience. (Probably a little bit above average for 5 days, but I've been using it almost continuously). At least the board layout is easy to memorise, if nothing else (easily memorised in 1-2 hours... qwerty took me a lifetime).

I came across this page trying to decide if I should continue learning, and I have to say I did find your finger positioning an interesting point when read it. But I know it doesn't apply to my own fingers. They fit quite comfortable in a line on the home row, and having a few cross a row vertically just feels awkward. Perhaps that the secret to mastering qwerty, I don't know. But for myself it's not at all natural, and would have to be learnt. Although that might just be my keyboard and/or fingers.

Furthermore, if it is true that most fast qwerty typists are similar, then the layout is far from optimal. Keeping v, m and b on the bottom row is a large oversight, as no one is ever going to argue that a row jump is efficient (I hope). If this is the finger norm, then the top row should most definitely have letters in the middle.

Finally, I don't believe you'll be able to find -anyone- that says it's simply a coincidence we use qwerty. It's really not that complicated. It was used on the first popularised typewriters. What corporation is going to buy more typewriters that have different layouts to their existing ones; any staff using the new typewriters would have to relearn, and for what reason? Remembering that dvorak, the first real alternative layout wasn't designed til 75 years later gives qwerty a massive market penetration.

And then it goes on. The designers of the first computers and word processors are hardly going to consider it their job to design a better keyboard, or cut off their market by pushing an alternative layout. I mean, no one is going to make money out of that. If the public wants to learn a different layout, they will. But no organization/government in its right mind would push people to change when what they're using is fully functional. And now think to average joe. Or any computer illiterate friends or family you may have. If dvorak was -proven- that anyone using it will see exactly a 15% increase in speed and comfort, do you think that anyone that uses their computer once a week to send an email is going to be interested? I know my mother wouldn't be, she dreaded every minute learning 2 finger typing on qwerty the first time through. To change the layout on her would be cruel.

And realistically, I doubt the gains will be that high. Definitely not worth the push.

Anyway, it happens all the time. Many great inventions and innovations never make it, simply because they're not -that- much better. Sure, they might get a group of followers that'll love the improvements, and preach about them to their friends. But it takes more then that to convince the majority of casual users who's day job is not typing at a keyboard.

Just to emphasis that penetration is key, and whilst we're on computers, consider x86-64, a 64 bit extension on a 32 bit extension on a 16 bit architecture based on an 8 bit cpu. Even modern quad core cpus still have to support archaic segmented memory addressing, string operations at the cpu level, etc. Yet the majority of computers by far run on it. And again, that's not because they happened to hit it right in 1978 when it was designed. Just simple market penetration.

As for tests: how would you conduct a completely fair survey? It's nearly impossible. You either need to take a qwerty typist, who's likely been using it for years, and train them up on dvorak... or you find a group of dvorak typists and compare them to a group of qwerty typists. Both methods are inherently flawed. eg, Dvorak typists are self-selected as dedicated typists, as they at some point decided to change layouts to attempt to improve (whether or not they did is irrelevant). Again, most people wouldn't bother. Considering that to do a proper statistical survey, particularly when double blind etc is impossible, you'd need thousands of people to draw any kind of conclusion. No one's going to fund that.

Oh well, sorry for the novel there. All good practice typing at least ;), consider that my 4c.

- Alex

I am actually surprised this debate is still going on in this blog. Anyway, I think this will answer and resolve this once and for all.

When it comes to documented proof. Dr. Earl Strong destroyed all the documents from the U.S. Naval study because he hated Dr. August Dvorak.

However, there is new documented unbiased proof of many thousands of individuals that have learned Qwerty and Dvorak (as well as one hand disabled people that have learned the Dvorak left and right handed versions). As stated in my prior post, KEYTIME IN SEATTLE HAS ALL THE DOCUMENTED PROOF YOU NEED! You just have to request it.

As far as books go, Randy Cassingham's book "The Dvorak Keyboard" and Dr. Dvorak's "Typewriting Behavior" are really written well.

Still ignorant individuals still like to refer to the REASON Magazine article and also "The Fable of the Keys"... "Fable of the Fable" as I call it. Both of those publications aren't worth the paper they are written on because they were Dr. Strong supporters that were shooting from the hip.

As far as those that attempt to convert to Dvorak... you have to give it a minimum of 6 months before it gives you bragging rights to bash it.

Q. So where's the proof?
A. Contact Keytime in Seattle, WA.

Jim: I understand you believe that there's "proof" out there, but unless it meets scientific rigor and has been peer reviewed, it's not "proof" - it's just marketing hyperbole by some interested party.

I found the Navy Experiment Report, it is obtainable from Randy Cassingham himself for $9. You can order it from him at http://www.dvorak-keyboard.com/dv-order.html He is going to make it available for purchase soon on Amazon.com in the near future.

Thought you would find this of value. I personally have purchased it for myself. I guess Dr. Strong did not destroy everything.