# XPeRT keyboard layout



## JeffDelucia (May 3, 2010)

Does anyone here use XPeRT? I know a lot of you guys use dvorak and colemark but what about this? I'm thinking of learning it...


----------



## Pembo (May 3, 2010)

Any other reason than to be different to the majority?


----------



## Kirjava (May 3, 2010)

qwerty is the best layout


----------



## ianini (May 3, 2010)

Dvorak ftw!


----------



## dbax0999 (May 3, 2010)

But XPeRT has e twice!


----------



## Sir E Brum (May 3, 2010)

I considered learning XPeRT but there didn't seem to be a real advantage over colemak and I couldn't find any support for it on Ubuntu. So I am using colemak.


----------



## Toad (May 3, 2010)

Colemak is for people who are too scared to switch to DVORAK.


----------



## JeffDelucia (May 3, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> qwerty is the best layout



best for typing slow


----------



## Sir E Brum (May 3, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> Colemak is for people who are too scared to switch to DVORAK.



Lol true that. My precious shortcuts were too hard to use. ZXCV being in the same spot is handy. But Colemak also has a shorter overall distance for finger movement. Not a considerable difference, but it is there.

OT: Has anyone found actual evidence confirming that QWERTY was intentionally made to slow down speed in order to prevent mechanical jams? I hear this quite often, but I wonder about its validity.


----------



## Kirjava (May 3, 2010)

JeffDelucia said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > qwerty is the best layout
> ...




OMG MUST CHANGE ENTIRE KEYBOARD LAYOUT FOR NEGLIGIBLE INCREASE IN SPEED


----------



## Toad (May 3, 2010)

Sir E Brum said:


> randomtoad said:
> 
> 
> > Colemak is for people who are too scared to switch to DVORAK.
> ...



If you had a real computer (Mac) you could use the "DVORAK - QWERTY Command" keyboard where as soon as the cmd key is held down (for shortcuts) the keys are then back to QWERTY so all your shortcuts remain in the same place 

And I've heard that story from enough places to be 100% sure it is true.


----------



## Pembo (May 3, 2010)

It's an urban myth....


----------



## JeffDelucia (May 3, 2010)

Real computer? Mac? I think not.


----------



## Pembo (May 3, 2010)

AMG IT'S NOW BECOME A DEFEND YOUR OS/KEYBOARD OF CHOICE THREAD.

VISTA R BEST


----------



## Dene (May 3, 2010)

This is the first I've heard of XPeRT, and to be honest I think it looks hideous.



Kirjava said:


> JeffDelucia said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...



What if you never really learnt qwerty to begin with though? Dvorak is clearly the more logical choice, in terms of ease of use and logic of layout.



Sir E Brum said:


> But Colemak also has a shorter overall distance for finger movement. Not a considerable difference, but it is there.



To be honest I find this to be an irrelevant factor. I mean, the biggest movement you're going to get is reaching out to the shift keys anyway. I find that Colemak has awkward finger combinations, whereas dvorak has a nice flow in general. I think this is much more important than having to move a finger half a cm.


----------



## Kirjava (May 3, 2010)

Dene said:


> What if you never really learnt qwerty to begin with though? Dvorak is clearly the more logical choice, in terms of ease of use and logic of layout.




What if ease of use and 'layout logic' aren't as important as other things? For example, qwerty is a bit more widespread - wanna use your phone? qwerty. wanna use anyone elses computer? qwerty. don't know how to change your layout? qwerty. 

I would most definitely advise anyone who doesn't already know how to type to learn qwerty.


----------



## Escher (May 3, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> And I've heard that story from enough places to be 100% sure it is true.



Honestly Mark, you should've seen QI enough to know that 'common knowledge' =/= 'correct knowledge'


----------



## qqwref (May 4, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> If you had a real computer (Mac)


very no


Anyway qwerty was designed to reduce jams but this doesn't mean it was specifically designed to be slow; typewriter jams happened mainly because adjacent letters were pressed too quickly or simultaneously, so qwerty tried to put some of the common adjacent letters farther apart. Keep in mind that the standard before qwerty's invention was *alphabetical order* - nobody would say qwerty wasn't an improvement. They actually had competitions back in the early days among the competing key layouts, so, again, it's wrong to assume qwerty is designed to be slow, or that it significantly hinders typing speed.

It turns out that qwerty's actually pretty good - not optimal but not by any means slow. I can type as fast as I need to on it and see no reason to ever switch, especially considering how much of a standard it is (which you must weigh against the slight speed increase because, as Kirjava pointed out, its being a standard means that a qwerty user can get their full typing speed on pretty much any other computer/OS/keyboard). People who go faster on a new layout (and switched because they think their current layout was slow) tend to improve mainly because of motivation - studies have actually been done where people spend the same amount of time learning a new layout and deliberately practicing their old one, and the gain in speed from the practice exceeds the gain from switching. Typing speed is far more a matter of motivation and practice than of whether you use qwerty or something less well-known.


----------



## Sir E Brum (May 4, 2010)

Dene said:


> Sir E Brum said:
> 
> 
> > But Colemak also has a shorter overall distance for finger movement. Not a considerable difference, but it is there.
> ...



I actually found a 49,227 key entry item to test and this is what I got.

Colemak 665.0m
Dvorak 774.1m

hardly half a cm.


----------



## Forte (May 4, 2010)

Sir E Brum said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Sir E Brum said:
> ...



Yeah, but isn't that a bit like saying that Petrus is better than Fridrich because after a couple hundred solves you will have saved a couple hundred moves?


----------



## Edmund (May 4, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > What if you never really learnt qwerty to begin with though? Dvorak is clearly the more logical choice, in terms of ease of use and logic of layout.
> ...



Totally agree. Every keyboard cellphone is in qwerty (at least that I've seen) and it is so universal. 
Question: How are other layouts faster than others? I don't get it, so why not just get what everyone uses so you're not confused at friends, libraries, and anywhere else you'd be using computers.


----------



## JeffDelucia (May 4, 2010)

Just because you type with a different layout in your spare time to be efficient doesnt mean you would completely clueless when faced with a qwerty situation. By that logic you might as well never learn another language because it could hinder your ability to speak your native language.


----------



## Kirjava (May 4, 2010)

JeffDelucia said:


> Just because you type with a different layout in your spare time to be efficient doesnt mean you would completely clueless when faced with a qwerty situation. By that logic you might as well never learn another language because it could hinder your ability to speak your native language.




We were responding to Dene talking about someone who didn't know how to type with either layout.

Keep up, gawd.


----------



## Googlrr (May 4, 2010)

I know Colemak, Dvorak, and Qwerty (although my Dvorak is terribly slow, learning full Colemak now). I prefer Colemak quite a bit. Dvorak messed with my punctuation, and I find that hardest to adjust to, especially with Computer Programming classes everyday, it was a speed reduction that I couldn't take. Colemak feels more natural to me. That said, I can't remember the top row of Colemak unless I'm staring at a layout diagram, whereas Dvorak I find much easier to remember for some reason. I think Colemaks similarities to Qwerty throw me off a bit.

I've never heard of this XPeRT layout before though. After reading about it briefly, I really don't like the idea of having two 'e' keys, that seems a tad unnecessary.



Edmund said:


> .
> Totally agree. Every keyboard cellphone is in qwerty (at least that I've seen) and it is so universal.
> Question: How are other layouts faster than others? I don't get it, so why not just get what everyone uses so you're not confused at friends, libraries, and anywhere else you'd be using computers.



After typing with qwerty for MANY many years, it's not that easy to forget. Plus, there are solutions for using public computers. For one, Dvorak is supported officially on windows, so that isn't hard to use. If you get an AutoHotKey script, you can easily use and layout on any computer as long as you have access to a flash drive to store it on. It requires no install and makes using Colemak, Dvorak, or any other layout completely doable in public.


----------



## Innocence (May 4, 2010)

I've used all three, and I'm back to Dvorak because it's the most comfortable. While QWERTY can be as fast, I hate typing with it, there's just too much movement going on. Although, does anyone know of any modifications that get the F out of its annoying spot?

On topic: I looked at XPeRT. WTH? Why is Q in the home row?


----------



## Lucas Garron (May 4, 2010)

I recommend QBF:






(But, seriously, Dvorak is nice, just annoying in a QWERTY world.)


----------



## Ranzha (May 4, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> I recommend QBF:
> 
> 
> Spoiler



It's QUICK and LAZY.

/pun


----------



## miniGOINGS (May 4, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> It's QUICK and LAZY.
> 
> /pun



ASK THE BOY!


----------



## Andreas737 (May 4, 2010)

What's everyone's typing speeds?


----------



## Googlrr (May 4, 2010)

Andreas737 said:


> What's everyone's typing speeds?



I type relatively slow, 70-80 WPM Qwerty, got lazy on the touchtyping and pretty much use only 3 fingers on each hand.

~40 WPM Dvorak, that might be pretty generous though since I haven't practiced that in a loooong time.

~20 WPM Colemak, still learning this one currently.


----------



## Dene (May 4, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> wanna use your phone? qwerty.


Lol.



Kirjava said:


> wanna use anyone elses computer? qwerty.


Lol.



Kirjava said:


> don't know how to change your layout? qwerty.


LOL.

Ya such good reasons.


----------



## blade740 (May 4, 2010)

I use dvorak at home and qwerty at work (and on my phone, I suppose). I have no problem switch back and forth and can touch type on either. The only mistakes I ever make are right as I start typing and forget which layout I'm using. Once I start, though, I know what I'm doing.

I like dvorak because it's easier on the fingers. My hands hurt after a long day of typing with qwerty, but dvorak's finger rolls for common combinations make things a breeze. 

As for speed, it's not an issue to me. I averaged >100 wpm on qwerty before I switched, and now I average 70-80 on dvorak. But I don't care. That's more than enough for my purposes.


----------



## Sir E Brum (May 4, 2010)

blade740 said:


> I like dvorak because it's *easier on the fingers*. My hands hurt after a long day of typing with qwerty, but dvorak's finger rolls for common combinations make things a breeze.



This is the reason I use Colemak. It is easier on my fingers. And my speeds on Colemak and QWERTY are pretty much the same.


----------



## Kirjava (May 4, 2010)

Dene said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > wanna use your phone? qwerty.
> ...




You're telling me that someone with no typing (and therefore computer) experience will not run into these problems?


----------



## Toad (May 4, 2010)

Escher said:


> randomtoad said:
> 
> 
> > And I've heard that story from enough places to be 100% sure it is true.
> ...



This is a very good point. But it hasn't stopped me believing the QWERTY story


----------



## HASH-CUBE (May 4, 2010)

i don't really get the point?? i use QWERTY, and i don't think this makes different is typing speed


----------



## Dene (May 4, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...



You don't have to get a phone with a full keyboard (nor would I recommend it).

How would learning qwerty instead of dvorak help someone with no typing experience when confronted with a qwerty keyboard? Clearly the problem would arise no matter what keyboard they were confronted with because they have no typing experience to start with. If they do have typing experience with dvorak then changing is not going to be too bad. I have to use a qwerty keyboard at work and I'm a hell of a lot faster than the average person that I see (fellow workers/external company workers etc.), despite my not actually being able to touch type (I simply have the finger speed).

Of course if you don't know how to change your layout you're going to learn qwerty. But in such a case, dvorak isn't even an _option_. If it was, you would do the smart thing and google how to change it (just like I had to).


Try again.


----------



## Kirjava (May 4, 2010)

Dene said:


> You don't have to get a phone with a full keyboard (nor would I recommend it).




I would, keyboard phones are awesome.



Dene said:


> How would learning qwerty instead of dvorak help someone with no typing experience when confronted with a qwerty keyboard?




They would know the layout as opposed to not knowing it.



Dene said:


> Try again.




Grow up? I'm not trying to 1up you, merely discussing.


----------



## Dene (May 4, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > You don't have to get a phone with a full keyboard (nor would I recommend it).
> ...



Oh well, then we agree that the possibility is there to get a non-keyboard layout phone if you don't know the keyboard layout. Problem solved.



Kirjava said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > How would learning qwerty instead of dvorak help someone with no typing experience when confronted with a qwerty keyboard?
> ...



But you said they have no experience with a keyboard. Please make up your mind.


----------



## Kirjava (May 4, 2010)

Dene said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...




What if you want a keyboard layout phone? Advantage qwerty.



Dene said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...




They used to have none. They're learning qwerty, remember?


----------



## Pembo (May 4, 2010)

Actually, I have a keyboard phone, and using Dvorak doesn't hinder it...

You don't touch type on it, and you pretty much just use thumbs so proficiency with QWERTY means nothing.


----------



## Kirjava (May 4, 2010)

You know dvorak and qwerty, the situation we are contemplating is when someone learns only one of these two layouts.

Sure, you use all thumbs, but qwerty proficiency lets me know what to type without looking at the keyboard - the knowledge obviously makes me faster.


----------



## mazei (May 4, 2010)

What happen to discussion on XPeRT?

I'm comfortable with Colemak. Use it on my desktop and laptop. But in public and other peoples houses, I don't mind having to use QWERTY. Never did learn to touch-type with QWERTY anyway.

I think its better to discuss the person already having experience with typing. Wouldn't it be weird if someone who never touched a keyboard before suddenly wanted to learn how to touch-type? And with them having no experience with keyboards, how is he/she to know about the layouts. For all he/she knows, its just keys being put in random. So if I were to give that person a QWERTY keyboard and a DVORAK keyboard, not like that person is going to touch-type on it. He/She will look at the keys and type.

On the other hand, if you were to say discuss about someone who has a considerable amount of experience, lets say he/she knows how to touch-type at a considerable speed on QWERTY. Would it be beneficial for that person to learn an alternative keyboard setup? A better topic to discuss IMO.

Also, I think partly the reason to change layouts is more towards ergonomics rather than just the speed. Also to me, it doesn't really matter at the end of the day, because if you do decide to learn a new layout, he gains some and doesn't really lose much. I learnt Colemak, now it feels more comfortable to type at home. Outside, I can still type on QWERTY at more or less the same speed before I learnt Colemak. So what do I lose actually? Heck, setting my desktop to Colemak actually helps me keep away my annoying cousins who don't know how to change the layout back to QWERTY from using my computer to do crap. Its kind of a security measure. Only the people I let can use my computer since I do know how to change back to QWERTY.

TL : DR
- Discuss about someone who has experience instead
- You don't lose anything from learning a new set up.


----------



## Edward (May 4, 2010)

I'm not that fast with qwerty ATM (only like, 40 wpm lol) so would I benefit from a layout switch? I don't plan to keep qwerty long anyway, as I feel it's time to try something new.


----------



## Kirjava (May 4, 2010)

mazei said:


> - Discuss about someone who has experience instead




I shall discuss what I like.


----------



## Sir E Brum (May 4, 2010)

Edward said:


> I'm not that fast with qwerty ATM (only like, 40 wpm lol) so would I benefit from a layout switch? I don't plan to keep qwerty long anyway, as I feel it's time to try something new.



A different layout does not affect speed so much as it affects how much effort you have to put into typing. Go ahead and try a new layout and see how it feels to you. I actually tried Dvorak before settling on Colemak. It's like a method for cubing, pick one you like.


----------



## Dene (May 4, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...



I guess all I could say to that is "cry me a river".



Kirjava said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...



In this case, being in the process of learning qwerty would be better.
But then again, as I already said, even though I don't know qwerty I still type fast enough on it. If someone is learning any keyboard, the main thing to learn is not the positions of the keys but how to move ones fingers fast enough. The positions of the keys is just how it happens to be.
I guess what I'm trying to say is having to hunt and peck is hardly a major disadvantage to a learner. They would be slow in the first place so they don't have to worry about that. Once they are fast enough, they will be able to hunt and peck a lot faster anyway (just as in my earlier example).


----------



## Kirjava (May 4, 2010)

Dene said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...




So my point is perfectly valid.



Dene said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...




I'm glad you concede.


----------



## Dene (May 4, 2010)

Lol if that's how you want it to be  then well done, I conceded to an inane point.


----------



## Kirjava (May 4, 2010)

If you think it's inane why did you disagree so intently?


----------



## DavidWoner (May 5, 2010)

mazei said:


> - You don't lose anything from learning a new set up.



lol. Yes because learning a new keyboard layout DOESN'T TAKE ANY TIME AT ALL. IIRC Dene spent months practicing Dvorak before he got back to the speed he was at with qwerty. I can think of much better ways to spend my time other than trying to make marginal increases in my typing speed.

I think dvorak vs qwerty is like color nuetral vs not- sure it's nice if you started that way, but if you're already good with qwerty/fixedcolor then trying to switch is in no way worth the time.


----------



## Dene (May 5, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> If you think it's inane why did you disagree so intently?



I disagreed to a different point.


----------



## Dene (May 5, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> mazei said:
> 
> 
> > - You don't lose anything from learning a new set up.
> ...



Sorry, you don't recall correctly. However I'm probably not the best example because I never really learnt qwerty. I'm sure that Tyson spent a long time getting back to his qwerty speeds when he first learnt dvorak.


----------



## DavidWoner (May 5, 2010)

Dene said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > mazei said:
> ...



Oh sorry, I just remembered that you seemed to be practicing all the time and it still took a while to get to a reasonable speed (70-100)


----------



## Kirjava (May 5, 2010)

Dene said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > If you think it's inane why did you disagree so intently?
> ...




Only because you were confused as to what the actual point was.


----------



## Dene (May 5, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...



So from the very start the point was "In the case where someone has no keyboard experience at all, they would be _very slightly_ better off learning qwerty just in the off chance that they will find themselves at another computer with a qwerty layout that can't be changed to dvorak"?

I have to admit, I don't think anyone would have picked up on that, but well done to anyone that did.


----------



## xFear of Napalm (May 5, 2010)

If alternate layouts are efficient, you'll only be efficient on that layout, and it will usually only be your keyboard. QWERTY is the most common, so you'll be realistically more efficient with QWERTY


----------



## Kirjava (May 5, 2010)

That was one specific point made along the way.

I'm done here though, when I note valid problems for dvorak users and all you have to say is "cry me a river" I can't help but feel you're being a little childish. I don't play with children.

Unless they're cute :3


----------



## Dene (May 6, 2010)

So "I want to use a full keyboard layout cellphone therefore qwerty is better" is a valid point?

I don't actually expect you to answer that question.


----------



## Kirjava (May 6, 2010)

I don't know why you asked it.


----------



## Innocence (May 6, 2010)

You're BOTH being childish, IMO. "Your argument is more silly than mine." "No, yours is!"

The bottom line:

QWERTY is good for average keyboard users, those with a full layout cell phone, and those that enjoy having RSI. I can't really remember other benefits, mainly because I'm biased. Ironically, I'm typing in qwerty now, because I'm too addicted to fast typing with no practise.

Other layouts are good for efficiency freaks like me, those who get OOS/RSI, those that like jumping on the bandwagon, and those that want to be different. And those aiming for fast typing speeds. Oh, and those that can't cope with how utterly stupid qwerty is. I mean, come on, it was obsolete before it was released! That's what annoys me.


----------



## incessantcheese (May 6, 2010)

fully have to side with kirjava here - i never really got the big deal about dvorak. qwerty is already universally adopted; you can use it everywhere.

it seems to me every case i hear of people gaining any speed from dvorak were people who already typed pretty slow - maybe 40-60 wpm. i imagine that if they put the same amount of work into learning qwerty better they'd get a much better speed boost than learning a new layout from scratch. 

the only person i've heard of who was already over 100 wpm and got a little faster with dvorak put in an insane amount of effort, so is it really worth it? if you're well under 100 then i'm sure you can reach higher speeds on qwerty with a bit of touch-typing practice, there's no need to switch layouts.

and to the point about cell phones - we're moving more towards smart phones, iphones, ipods, etc, all with touchscreen keyboards or full keyboards on the phone. it would never make sense for these to be anything but qwerty, too, since alternate keyboard layouts are designed to be efficient for touch typing, not for a mini thumbs keyboard. qwerty's here, it's not that bad, don't switch unless you're supremely bored (and dude, you're on a cubing forum, put that energy into getting faster at cubing instead!)


----------



## Kirjava (May 6, 2010)

At least your post was ignorant enough that hopefully people will ignore you. (@Innocence)


----------



## qqwref (May 6, 2010)

Innocence said:


> QWERTY is good for ... those that enjoy having RSI.
> Other layouts are good for ... those aiming for fast typing speeds.
> qwerty ... was obsolete before it was released!





Innocence said:


> I'm biased.


Ya think?


----------



## riffz (May 6, 2010)

JeffDelucia said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > qwerty is the best layout
> ...



best for standardization and being able type fast on other people's keyboards as well as your own

EDIT: I barely read the thread when I posted this, but I agree with QQ and Kirjava on this.


----------



## Dene (May 6, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> it seems to me every case i hear of people gaining any speed from dvorak were people who already typed pretty slow - maybe 40-60 wpm. i imagine that if they put the same amount of work into learning qwerty better they'd get a much better speed boost than learning a new layout from scratch.
> 
> the only person i've heard of who was already over 100 wpm and got a little faster with dvorak put in an insane amount of effort, so is it really worth it? if you're well under 100 then i'm sure you can reach higher speeds on qwerty with a bit of touch-typing practice, there's no need to switch layouts.



What does gaining speed have to do with changing keyboards? If you change keyboard layout to type faster, then you are wasting your time.


----------



## incessantcheese (May 6, 2010)

Dene said:


> What does gaining speed have to do with changing keyboards? If you change keyboard layout to type faster, then you are wasting your time.



well... tell that to all the people who want to change keyboard layouts to type faster. a lot of people choose alternate keyboard layouts because they think it will increase their typing speed - i would go so far as to say the majority of people try new keyboard layouts to try to increase their typing speed. so... gaining speed has everything to do with changing keyboards? you can't discount a major point in the argument just because it doesn't apply to you personally.


----------



## Innocence (May 6, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > QWERTY is good for ... those that enjoy having RSI.
> ...



How is the third one biased rather than fact? And you know better than I do that all of that is out of context. I just threw together a bunch of pros and cons from out of my head. It's a given that putting the same amount of work in both qwerty and dvorak will result in dvorak being faster, so don't say I'm not right on the second one.

And on the RSI part, I'm serious. I'm typing this message on the fly right here, and qwerty is seriously an extremely uncomfortable layout. I can't even keep the hand position on the home row properly.

@Kirjava: How is what I just said ignorant? You didn't even give me something that was. State a part of my post that isn't true.


----------



## Kirjava (May 6, 2010)

Innocence said:


> QWERTY is good for ... those that enjoy having RSI.




>Implying RSI inducement is a trait unique to qwerty.



Innocence said:


> Other layouts are good for ... those aiming for fast typing speeds.




>Implying qwerty isn't



Innocence said:


> qwerty ... was obsolete before it was released!




Sounds like someone doesn't know the origins of the layout.


----------



## Dene (May 6, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > What does gaining speed have to do with changing keyboards? If you change keyboard layout to type faster, then you are wasting your time.
> ...



I don't know anyone that changed layouts with the sole reason being that they thought that changing the layout would make them faster. They would have to be pretty stupid if you ask me.


----------



## Innocence (May 7, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > QWERTY is good for ... those that enjoy having RSI.
> ...


*http://www.dvzine.org/zine/02-03.html*


----------



## JeffDelucia (May 7, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...



lol this is great...


----------



## Kirjava (May 7, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...




I think you're confusing the words 'greatly' and 'negligibly'. And yes, your sentence implies exactly what I suggested.



Innocence said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...




I don't think you know what the word 'imply' means. My sentence was a statement with no underlying implication.



Innocence said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...




So you do know. It's a shame that the link you posted fails to back up your original point. Read this article carefully. QWERTY will fail to be obsolete as long as it is the dominant layout.


----------



## qqwref (May 7, 2010)

Innocence said:


> How is the third one biased rather than fact? And you know better than I do that all of that is out of context. I just threw together a bunch of pros and cons from out of my head.


It's biased because you're saying the layout is obsolete just because you don't like it. It's clearly not obsolete in the sense that it shouldn't be or isn't used; I'm sure you realize that even for a theoretical perfect keyboard the improvement over qwerty would be insignificant for all but the fastest typewriters. And I'm not even sure about that.



Innocence said:


> It's a given that putting the same amount of work in both qwerty and dvorak will result in dvorak being faster, so don't say I'm not right on the second one.


I disagree; prove it. I honestly think there is only any difference at all for the fastest typists (at least people who are proficient at touch-typing to the point where they can unconsciously and quickly type any key they want without looking) because in any layout but the most obvious (alphabetical) you will need to spend a lot of time teaching yourself where the letters are. I would suspect that most of the studies that 'prove' dvorak is faster either use people who are already somewhat experienced at typing, or give training in dvorak but compare it to no extra training (as opposed to an equivalent amount of extra training) in qwerty.



Innocence said:


> And on the RSI part, I'm serious. I'm typing this message on the fly right here, and qwerty is seriously an extremely uncomfortable layout. I can't even keep the hand position on the home row properly.


Then don't. If keeping your hands over the home row is uncomfortable - and it might very well be if you have small or unflexible hands - then don't do it! Do you see everyone using exactly the same fingertricks and algs in cubing? I mean, hey, I don't keep my hands on the home row and I type >120wpm, so clearly you don't need to do that to be fast.


----------



## Innocence (May 7, 2010)

@Kirjava: 1: Just look at the finger distance statistics and usage distribution stats. I'd say that if your fingers hurt after about 1 hour using qwerty, they would take around 2 with dvorak. That being arbitrary figures.
2: Yeah, you're right-ish there. 3: Maybe redundant would be a better word. Or it should've been, anyway.

@qqwref: 1: See kirjava 3. 2&3: The main point I'm trying to get across to you is that Dvorak is an intelligently designed layout. QWERTY is intelligently designed - to lengthen the amount of time between key presses. Unless the inventor of QWERTY was hopeless at designing keyboard layouts, Dvorak(Just as an example) is destined to be more efficient and comfortable than QWERTY. The only thing QWERTY has going for it is that it's almost universal.


----------



## qqwref (May 7, 2010)

Innocence said:


> The main point I'm trying to get across to you is that Dvorak is an intelligently designed layout. QWERTY is intelligently designed - to lengthen the amount of time between key presses. Unless the inventor of QWERTY was hopeless at designing keyboard layouts, Dvorak(Just as an example) is destined to be more efficient and comfortable than QWERTY. The only thing QWERTY has going for it is that it's almost universal.



Except, no? I mean, do you have any statistics to back this up except for "distances between key presses is bigger" (which doesn't matter because, hey, I've got ten different fingers)? Just because something was designed to be an improvement doesn't mean it's much of an improvement (and also doesn't mean that an improvement would actually cause faster/easier typing). I think you're just falling for all the propaganda out there. If qwerty was so bad, why would there be fast typists who use it?


----------



## Kirjava (May 7, 2010)

Innocence said:


> @Kirjava: 1: Just look at the finger distance statistics and usage distribution stats. I'd say that if your fingers hurt after about 1 hour using qwerty, they would take around 2 with dvorak. That being arbitrary figures.




You mean **** you just made up?



Innocence said:


> 2: Yeah, you're right-ish there.




Right-ish? Or simply right?



Innocence said:


> 3: Maybe redundant would be a better word. Or it should've been, anyway.




Actually, dvorak would be the redundant one.


----------



## kunz (May 7, 2010)

i personally have only ever used qwerty (ironically not using a keybord now) and i think it would be stupid to learn another one unless your simply interested in learning a new format

i have been interested in learning another for a while now but ihave 2 questions
do i have to buy new keyboard, and for games that use wasd to move does that change?


----------



## Dene (May 7, 2010)

kunz said:


> i personally have only ever used qwerty (ironically not using a keybord now) and i think it would be stupid to learn another one unless your simply interested in learning a new format
> 
> i have been interested in learning another for a while now but ihave 2 questions
> do i have to buy new keyboard, and for games that use wasd to move does that change?



How is it stupid? Might I refer you to blade740's post earlier.


----------



## Innocence (May 7, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > @Kirjava: 1: Just look at the finger distance statistics and usage distribution stats. I'd say that if your fingers hurt after about 1 hour using qwerty, they would take around 2 with dvorak. That being arbitrary figures.
> ...



Those figures, yes. I was trying to make the point that it would improve by x amount.

Oh, and qqwref, what I'm saying is, if Dvorak was just designed to be faster than QWERTY, then there would be negligible difference. Also, if QWERTY was just designed to stop the keys from jamming, there would be negligible difference. But the two together, IMO, make enough of a difference for me to want to change.


----------



## incessantcheese (May 7, 2010)

okay a lot happened since i last visited this thread but:
the fact is, a common argument for dvorak (as innocence demonstrates) is that it is faster because it was designed to be faster, whereas qwerty was designed to slow people down (which is wrong, it was designed not to jam by having certain key combinations next to each other; this doesn't mean it was designed to be slow). regardless, i haven't done any training or practice, i'v just typed whatever i needed to over the past 21 years of my life and i can clock over 120 wpm on typing tests. i'm curious how many people posting in this thread are over 100 wpm and use dvorak, vs how many are over 100 and use qwerty. on top of that, how much time and energy did the people in the former group spend practicing the layout with software or typing meaningless passages just to get to that speed? i'm guessing if i put a few months time into practicing qwerty i could add 10-20 wpm to my speed. 

what i'm trying to say is, i see no merit in the argument that the qwerty format is destined to be slow, while other formats are destined to be quick. i've never had any problems with my typing style in terms of hurting my hands either, but that's just me.


----------



## Innocence (May 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> okay a lot happened since i last visited this thread but:
> the fact is, a common argument for dvorak (as innocence demonstrates) is that it is faster because it was designed to be faster, whereas qwerty was designed to slow people down (which is wrong, it was designed not to jam by having certain key combinations next to each other; this doesn't mean it was designed to be slow). regardless, i haven't done any "training" or "practice", i'v just typed whatever i needed to over the past 21 years of my life and i can clock over 120 wpm on typing tests. i'm curious how many people posting in this thread are over 100 wpm and use dvorak, vs how many are over 100 and use qwerty. on top of that, how much time and energy did the people in the former group spend practicing the layout with software or typing meaningless passages just to get to that speed? i'm guessing if i put a few months time into practicing qwerty i could add 10-20 wpm to my speed.
> 
> what i'm trying to say is, i see no merit in the argument that the qwerty format is destined to be slow, while other formats are destined to be quick. i've never had any problems with my typing style in terms of hurting my hands either, but that's just me.



It's destined to be slower, not slow.

The point of what I'm saying is, is that QWERTY is a FALLACY! That alone is enough to switch, in my opinion. It was designed to fix a problem that is *not there anymore.*


----------



## Dene (May 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> the fact is, a common argument for dvorak (as innocence demonstrates) is that it is faster because it was designed to be faster, whereas qwerty was designed to slow people down (which is wrong, it was designed not to jam by having certain key combinations next to each other; this doesn't mean it was designed to be slow).



But innocence isn't the smartest person around.



incessantcheese said:


> i'm curious how many people posting in this thread are over 100 wpm and use dvorak, vs how many are over 100 and use qwerty.



You may as well ask how many people here run in sneakers rather than super-high tech running shoes. Of course the answer is that most people here would run in normal sneakers, but that doesn't make them better.



incessantcheese said:


> on top of that, how much time and energy did the people in the former group spend practicing the layout with software or typing meaningless passages just to get to that speed?



May I ask why exactly you want to know this fact? Tell me what it will prove, and I will tell you why it is stupid.


----------



## incessantcheese (May 7, 2010)

Dene said:


> incessantcheese said:
> 
> 
> > i'm curious how many people posting in this thread are over 100 wpm and use dvorak, vs how many are over 100 and use qwerty.
> ...



no, i'm asking how many people use an alternate keyboard in a thread about alternate keyboards. there is a higher percentage of people using alternate keyboard layouts in this thread than any other thread on these forums. most likely, most of the people who have even clicked into this thread had some interest in alternate keyboards or have tried alternate keyboards in the past.
also, your analogy doesn't make sense. i'm asking how many people running in "high-tech sneakers" run quickly and since they're "high-tech sneakers" i'd expect a higher percentage of people to be running quickly, since that's what they're designed for. i'm not asking how many people use it (although i'm willing to bet it'd be a pretty sizeable portion of the people in this thread).

my point in the second paragraph was that it takes a LOT of effort to switch and get to a comparable speed to what can already be attained with the current layout. so yeah, again, no real reason to switch unless you're really bored. although i'm glad you admit that you're already so entrenched in your viewpoint that you're willing to state my point is stupid without understanding what it is. 

and i'm assuming you agreed with kirjava's and my point that dvorak is never used on non-computer devices, since you stopped bringing it up.


----------



## blade740 (May 7, 2010)

Innocence said:


> The point of what I'm saying is, is that QWERTY is a FALLACY!





wiktionary said:


> Noun
> fallacy (plural fallacies)
> Deceptive or false appearance; deceitfulness; that which misleads the eye or the mind; deception.
> (logic) An argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at issue, while in reality it is not.



Please do not use words you don't know the definition of.


----------



## Innocence (May 7, 2010)

blade740 said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > The point of what I'm saying is, is that QWERTY is a FALLACY!
> ...



That fits. Most people use qwerty every day, believing it to be the popular layout because it is the best. That is not the case.


----------



## blade740 (May 7, 2010)

But it's not an argument, and it's not misleading. It's a keyboard layout. And it is exactly what it claims to be.


----------



## irontwig (May 7, 2010)

Kinda off-topic, but I'll just say that you people that only need to type in English are very lucky.


----------



## Thomas09 (May 7, 2010)

I just got Colemak today. I'm liking it. I think I might make it my main layout. I'm not sure if you can do this with other OS, but I can change between QWERTY and Colemak in just 2 clicks.


----------



## Edward (May 7, 2010)

kunz said:


> i personally have only ever used qwerty (ironically not using a keybord now) and i think it would be stupid to learn another one unless your simply interested in learning a new format
> 
> i have been interested in learning another for a while now but ihave 2 questions
> *do i have to buy new keyboard, and for games that use wasd to move does that change?*



You can switch around the keys yourself.
Just change the controls.


----------



## qqwref (May 7, 2010)

Innocence said:


> The point of what I'm saying is, is that QWERTY is a FALLACY! That alone is enough to switch, in my opinion. It was designed to fix a problem that is *not there anymore.*



1) You don't know what fallacy means. Actually you don't seem to know what half of the words you use mean. I suggest http://www.merriam-webster.com/ or even Wikipedia.

2) I don't use qwerty because it was designed to fix a now-nonexistent problem; I use it mainly because it's a standard, and secondarily because it's clearly at least as fast as I'd ever need a layout to be. The point of talking about its origin is to get rid of the ridiculous urban legend that it was designed to slow people down. Do you realize, though, how many games, handheld devices, software programs, etc. are specifically designed for qwerty? If you're using another layout you'd better hope they support keymapping (or else you'll have to either change your layout back or simply deal with the decreased typing speed or awkward key combos). I don't care if a layout might lead to marginally faster typing (and I'm not even sure of that, because I haven't seen any real proof) because to me it's only worth switching if a layout is significantly better - I'm talking gains of 20+ wpm here - and nothing of that magnitude has ever been shown for already-fast typers.

3) The point of what I'm saying is, is that FRIDRICH is a FALLACY! That alone is enough to switch, in my opinion. It was designed to win a competition that is *not held anymore.*


----------



## Dene (May 8, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> no, i'm asking how many people use an alternate keyboard in a thread about alternate keyboards.


Yes that is what we call an analogy...



incessantcheese said:


> there is a higher percentage of people using alternate keyboard layouts in this thread than any other thread on these forums. most likely, most of the people who have even clicked into this thread had some interest in alternate keyboards or have tried alternate keyboards in the past.


I would like evidence for this statement. I see no particular reason why that would be the case. 



incessantcheese said:


> also, your analogy doesn't make sense.


Oh so you do know what an analogy is.



incessantcheese said:


> i'm asking how many people running in "high-tech sneakers" run quickly and since they're "high-tech sneakers" i'd expect a higher percentage of people to be running quickly, since that's what they're designed for. i'm not asking how many people use it (although i'm willing to bet it'd be a pretty sizeable portion of the people in this thread).


No, you were asking for a comparison of how many people here are fast with qwerty compared to how many are fast with dvorak (I put it back into the original argument for clarity). Please make your intentions clear from the start, and do not change them without explicitly saying so. 
What you have said here is that you were looking for how many dvorak users type at 100+ wpm vs dvorak users that type slower. (If you wanted to know about qwerty figures at all you would have said something about the "normal sneakers", right?)
I think we may as well drop the analogy because you are clearly confused about it. This way you can get out exactly what it is that you are looking for.



incessantcheese said:


> my point in the second paragraph was that it takes a LOT of effort to switch and get to a comparable speed to what can already be attained with the current layout. so yeah, again, no real reason to switch unless you're really bored.


But we have already provided reasons for switching. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you read the post I referred you to. blade740 made it clear that dvorak is much nicer on the hands. 
I myself have provided a good reason why one might want to switch layouts. I never really learnt qwerty. When I switched to dvorak I was already as fast (about 35 wpm looking, about 20 wpm touch typing) within a few days. I would hardly call that a lot of effort. 
Another point: what if dvorak was the more common keyboard around? Kids would be brought up with it. I bet _no one_ would be arguing that they should change to qwerty. You only defend qwerty on the basis that it is already the default keyboard. You wouldn't defend it if it wasn't. So the only issue that there is here is the issue of "switching". If we agree that switching is going to be a trivial issue, then you need to provide other reasons to stick with qwerty.



incessantcheese said:


> and i'm assuming you agreed with kirjava's and my point that dvorak is never used on non-computer devices, since you stopped bringing it up.


Well of course I agreed with it. Only an idiot wouldn't. At what point did you think I disagreed with that point? More importantly, when exactly did you think this point became important? Kirjava tried, and immediately backed out of any real argument.


----------



## incessantcheese (May 8, 2010)

:fp i'm going to stop arguing with you. if someone wants, he can just reread through the thread. unfortunately, on the internet, it usually seems to be the case that the last person who says something wins, and you seem like you're the type of person to drag this out in circles if necessary lol. 

whatever, i think i made valid points. you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing and refuse to accept any points even if they make sense. if you're going to keep responding by saying things like "cry me a river" or "oh, _now_ you know what an analogy is" i don't really want to continue. attacking people isn't really a good way to get people to take you seriously.

starting to go off-topic, but if someone qualifies every point he makes with "wow you must be stupid" what does that do to your opinion of that person? food for thought.


----------



## Dene (May 8, 2010)

Did you even read my argument with Kirjava? What could I possibly respond to "What if you want a keyboard layout phone? Advantage qwerty." Honestly, please play devils advocate for me and come up with a good defense to Kirjava's blantantly immature response which doesn't even constitute an argument. All I can say is "then you will have to learn qwerty as well or put up with a phone that doesn't have a full keyboard layout". I thought "cry me a river" sufficed.

Could you at least respond to the only real point I wanted you to answer to? I'll quote it for you:



Dene said:


> Another point: what if dvorak was the more common keyboard around? Kids would be brought up with it. I bet _no one_ would be arguing that they should change to qwerty. You only defend qwerty on the basis that it is already the default keyboard. You wouldn't defend it if it wasn't. So the only issue that there is here is the issue of "switching". If we agree that switching is going to be a trivial issue, then you need to provide other reasons to stick with qwerty.



Surely this isn't too much to ask.


----------



## Daniel Wu (May 8, 2010)

Seriously. The keyboard phone thing. Touch typing on a computer =/= texting on a keyboard phone at all. I use dvorak for typing and have absolutely no problem using a keyboard phone because touch typing really doesn't carry over into phones imo.


----------

