Re: Dvorak Keyboards.
* Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> [120112 02:56]:
> Hello all.
> I've been interested in this subject for some time, because of the greater
> typing speed potential and lowr incidence of RSI and have even delayed
> moving from two finger typing with an idea of implementing a Dvorak
> keyboard into the system.
>
> Who makes the best ones?
> Where can they be bought from.
>
> Thanks for any time and trouble.
> Regards,
>
> Weaver.
SHORT ANSWER: Do NOT purchase a Dvorak-layout keyboard. Instead,
learn to touch-type Dvorak on a standard QWERTY keyboard. The
computer does not care how the keycaps are labeled; and if you
touch-type, neither should you!
LONGER ANSWER: I learned to touch-type circa 1963 on a manual
typewriter which used the QWERTY layout but had blank keycaps. I was
one of the fastest and most accurate typists in the class, but numbers
always were difficult for me. From 1963 until the present day, I type
daily and heavily.
About 1980, with my first IBM-PC (running M$DO$ and Window$) and a
major contract in hand, I switched to the "classic" (that is, the
original) Dvorak layout, in which the numeric row is:
[ 7 5 3 1 9 0 2 4 6 8 ]
Because the "classic" Dvorak layout is more-or-less intuitive to the native
English speaker, the transition from QWERTY to Dvorak "classic" was
not painful; it took me about a month to become comfortable and
proficient with Dvorak. (The best way to ensure a successful
transition is to commit yourself to the Dvorak layout at the beginning
of a major project -- so that the matter becomes "swim or drown", and
so that turning back is not an option.)
Of course, learning the Dvorak layout should be easier for someone who
does not have to "unlearn" QWERTY in the process. With the "classic" Dvorak
layout (which now is available in Debian and Ubuntu, if not
elsewhere), numbers suddenly were much easier to type accurately and
rapidly.
Back then, it was impractical for me to search for a "classic" Dvorak
keyboard driver; the few readily-available drivers produced the
"modified" layout. So I wore out several Northgate brand keyboards
which had the "classic" Dvorak option.
Once keyboard layout utilities (such as "TradeKeys Dvorak" became
common, I switched to an off-the-shelf QWERTY keyboard and simply
ignored the keycap labels. (After all, this is what touch-typing is
all about.) An added advantage is that QWERTY typists do not use my
computer, because they cannot decipher the key layout!
When I first switched from Window$ to Debian, I paid a Debian guru to
modify the QWERTY keyboard driver to Dvorak "classic" layout. (August
Dvorak really knew what he was doing when he arranged the numeric key
row.)
On the original Selectric, IBM offered as an option a layout which
today is termed the "modified" Dvorak layout. But the "modified"
layout is a lamentable and foolish compromise in which the numeric row
arrangement is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 - =
and there are other changes, as well.
Regrettably, it is the compromised "modified" Dvorak layout which was
standardized by the ISO (see Wikipedia). Apple likewise used the
"modified" Dvorak layout on the IIC, allowing the user to switch
between QWERTY and modified Dvorak with a slide switch.
Please see the article at:
http://www.matthewweathers.com/year2004/emacs_dvorak.htm .
The section labeled "Update, August 2006:") presents my
recommendations concerning intuitive Emacs-specific keybindings which
have served me well for at least a decade.
RLH
Reply to: