> On Sunday, 12 February, 2012 at 16:36:31 GMT, Chris Lott wrote:
> >Has there been some new evidence since this?
> >http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html
>
> TL;DR
>
> >I've always been told that the superiority of Dvorak was a myth. I've
> >yet to see anything that makes me think otherwise!
>
> I think we can type just as fast in any layout as long as we get used to it. If a person first learns speed typing in Sholes, he reaches x WPM. If he had first learnt speed typing in Dvorak, he'd reach y WPM. The difference twixt x and y is too small to consider either one 'better' than the other, IMHO. Dvorak does 'feel' better, though, and people who suffer from RSI using Sholes do say they can type more comfortably in Dvorak. It also might be worth considering that the world's fastest typer did it in Dvorak.
>
> IOW, if you're already fast enough in Sholes and don't suffer RSI, Dvorak won't help you much.
>
All I can say with confidence about Dvorak vs. QWERTY, was that QWERTY
was designed to prevent typewriters from jamming, whereas Dvorak was
designed for ergonomics of the hand. Whether or not Dvorak allows one
to type faster is (to me) only a nice side effect. I know from
experience, that my hands and wrists get sore after extended typing
sessions in QWERTY, but I have little or no problem with typing in
Dvorak.
In my own personal experience, I am faster now in Dvorak than I ever
was in QWERTY. But that's not what made me switch nor is it why I've
stuck with it, and I'm not convinced that my speed boost is because of
any speed superiority in the layout itself.
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
No comments:
Post a Comment