I’m starting this post after a long day of trying to learn the Colemak keyboard layout. I’m tired. I haven’t gotten much work done. The best speed I clocked after hours of conditioning was sixteen words in a minute – with three errors. Right now I’m relishing the familiar QWERTY patterns as my fingers fly over their well-worn, oh-so-awkward paths to my usual 70-WPM clip. But all of these things are normal, to be expected when one is breaking new ground after years of typing on a standard layout. And none of them is the reason why I’ve decided to give up on alternate layouts.
The problem of QWERTY
Even a cursory glance at any ordinary computer keyboard reveals one obvious fact about the QWERTY layout: It makes no sense whatsoever. The most commonly used letters are scattered around a seemingly randomized field of keys, making the layout difficult to learn and difficult to use.
Contrary to a popular notion, the ancient QWERTY layout was not specifically designed to be awkward and slow for typists. (If it had been, E would be where P is, and Z would replace F under the index finger.) Rather, this awkward layout was necessary to prevent keys from jamming in the early 1870′s typewriters. Key jamming hasn’t been a concern since the development of electric typewriters, but QWERTY shows no signs of going away any time soon. It’s the ultimate self-perpetuating monopoly: Everybody knows QWERTY, so virtually all keyboards are made that way, so everybody learns QWERTY to use the existing keyboards, so everybody knows QWERTY, and so on.
Various insurgent movements have attempted to replace QWERTY with something easier to learn and use. To date, these efforts have made about the same impact on typing that Esperanto has made on language – that is, almost no impact at all, compared to the vast number of users in the mainstream. The first and most famous such alternative system is called Dvorak for the professor who introduced it in the 1930′s. Backed by significant research and testing, Dvorak claimed to increase efficiency and make typing easier to learn. If QWERTY ever was to be conquered, this would have been the time. Dvorak typists demonstrated the layout’s superiority by winning a series of typing speed contests, but the QWERTY-entrenched world barely noticed (except to ban Dvorak from competition, a grossly unfair move that was soon rescinded).
With the advent of computers, it has become possible – even trivial – for individual users to declare Layout Independence and chuck QWERTY for a high-efficiency option such as Dvorak. Many have done just that, including well-known tech figures such as Apple patriarch Steve Wozniak and WordPress co-founder Matt Mullenweg.
My experience with Dvorak
After thinking about it carefully, I decided a few weeks ago to try Dvorak. I did this not so much because of the purported ergonomic benefits, but because of the increased speed potential. At a peak 80 words per minute or so, I am a relatively fast typist, but my speediest work is pathetic compared to that of accomplished Dvorak users. The Guinness World Record holder for typing speed – a Dvorak typist, naturally – was clocked at a peak two hundred and twelve words in one minute, and could sustain a blistering 150 words per minute. (Needless to say, she was much in demand as a secretary.)
The Dvorak keyboard layout. Image courtesy Wikipedia.
The idea of being able to type at even 100 WPM, plus the ergonomic advantage, made me willing to at least kick the tires on Dvorak. I installed the layout, which is included with Windows, and ran through some training.
My experience with Dvorak was, in a word, short. Although I pick up new things fairly easily, I had forgotten how many years of concentrated effort were required to achieve my current speed on QWERTY. Getting up to – let alone past – that level with Dvorak would have taken, optimistically, 40 otherwise unproductive hours – perhaps much more. Then there is also the problem of keyboard shortcuts such as Ctrl-X and Ctrl-C, which were designed for QWERTY and are not easy to do one-handed on Dvorak.
On to Colemak
After the short Dvorak experiment, I went back with relief to awkward old QWERTY and continued as before until a commenter on this blog put a bug in my ear about Colemak. I had always assumed that Colemak was just another funky Dvorak lookalike. Upon closer examination, I liked what I saw. Where Dvorak moves nearly everything on the keyboard and makes no allowance for standard Ctrl shortcuts, Colemak is designed to be easily adopted by QWERTY typists and accommodates the most common keyboard shortcuts. Only 17 keys are moved from the standard layout – sixteen letters and Semicolon. The resulting arrangement is impressively ergonomic-looking, with a litany of the most common letters occupying the home row.
Colemak keyboard layout. Image courtesy Wikipedia.
After a brief trial which convinced me that Colemak would be much easier to pick up than Dvorak, I swapped out 17 keycaps on my Kinesis Freestyle keyboard and went cold turkey. (Some people recommend against switching all at once, but personally I don’t think I could ever develop the reflexes for a new layout while continuing to type on QWERTY at the same time.) The adjustment period started out approximately like I expected. By the end of the day, as I mentioned above, I was heavily fatigued – extending to back and wrist pain from the tension of trying to rework so many brain wires at once. But I could tell I was making progress. Common key sequences like T-I-O-N and I-N-G were starting to coalesce in my mind, gradually nudging aside the long-ingrained QWERTY reflexes.
So, why am I writing this on QWERTY?
Today I’m back on the standard layout. While I can’t predict the future, I don’t foresee ever toying with alternate systems again. This was not brought on by the adjustment period, which I am confident that I could handle. It was brought on by something I never thought of until I actually started using Colemak, something that has to do with a basic principle of high efficiency keyboard layouts.
Among other things, Dvorak and Colemak postulate that the most commonly struck keys should be placed on the home row. I always accepted this logical-sounding notion at face value, until I tried it and found that I actually don’t like it. You see, I don’t keep my fingers on the normal home positions while typing. Prompted by an ergonomic trick I read about years ago, I let them stay where they naturally fall when uncurled. This means that my left middle finger, for instance, parks on E instead of D most of the time, and my right ring finger resides on O instead of L. As I grew accustomed to Colemak, I began to realize that my longer fingers were feeling cramped. The layout was doing its job of keeping my fingers on the home row, but the constant curling was doing a job on my fingers.
So here I am, happily pecking away on my 1870′s QWERTY layout, in yet another illustration of the fact that ergonomics is not about following the latest trends. It’s not about doing what some book told you was the best idea. It’s about finding what works for you, personally, for the long term.
In my case, QWERTY works.
I'm Jason, a web professional and graphic designer from the Show-Me State. After much discomfort and a long journey through many ergonomic devices, I decided to start writing about all things ergonomic.
9 Comments
Sorry it didn’t work out for you. Thanks for writing it up.
I’m still struggling away trying to learn Colemak. It’s been about 10 days (mixed with qwerty use), and I can get between 30-40 wpm (down from 100+ with qwerty).
I’m going to persist with it for a while. I touch-typed from the home row, so I actually find the Colemak layout very comfortable. Much less reaching, and my fingers don’t get as tired. And I’m actually finding the experience of re-wiring my brain really interesting (although somewhat traumatic).
Definitely agree that finding what works for you is the crux.
I’m glad to hear that it’s working for you, and I applaud your persistence in sticking with it. I really do think this question has a lot to do with individual typing style, as well as the kind of keyboard you use. If I was on a staggered keyboard such as the Kinesis Advantage or the Truly Ergonomic Keyboard, I might feel quite differently about spending all my time on the home row.
BTW, thanks again for putting me onto Colemak. It was an interesting ride
Then , you may want to read someone’s else’s blog with the similar sentiment on colemak and dvorak but had a different conclusion.
http://viralintrospection.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/a-different-philosophy-in-designing-keyboard-layouts/
IMO, it may be true that colemak and dvorak’s preference for home row keys might be misguided but it doesn’t mean they’re as bad as qwerty. This guy didn’t like the whole home row either and also made use of the upper row keys (like those for the middle fingers). Based on your observations, you will prolly like his layout.
Thanks for taking the time to comment and post that link – fascinating stuff.
It seems to me that the Workman layout was designed mainly to combat lateral finger movement. The designer talks about how little it uses the “center column” – the G and H column on QWERTY. The only major keys I see moving up off the home row vs. Colemak are D and R. While this might help with uncurling the left hand, it seems to leave the right hand pretty much where Colemak has it – firmly planted on the home row.
I wouldn’t necessarily go so far as to say that Colemak and Dvorak are misguided to love the home row so much. Obviously, those layouts work really well for a lot of people, and if you have a staggered keyboard such as the Kinesis Advantage, there’s no problem with finger curling.
Given that most people don’t have a staggered keyboard, however, I think the whole concept of a “home row” may need to be rethought. When laid out ready to type, our fingers simply don’t form a “row” – they form more of a cup. Moving up the home positions for the ring, middle, and possibly index fingers does much to accommodate this natural posture.
I’m a Dvorak user, that never ‘properly’ touch typed under Qwerty.
It takes years to master a keyboard. Words that you type all the time become easier and easier. It’s a far bigger investment than we care to realise. So changing layout is going to be tricky.
Colemak is supposed to be easier for Qwerty typists – because it keeps some of the layout (some keys are in the same place, like punctuation.) Dvorak on the other hand is more of a radical departure.
I do think if you are new to the keyboard – Dvorak is a good choice. Because it divides the keyboard in half. Vowels and common punctuation is on the left hand. The right hand plays a melody. This actually makes it easier to memorise the layout, if you think about it. It also puts more work onto the right hand – which suits right handers.
Qwerty oddly favours the left hand, which makes switching to Dvorak seem odd.
I found it hard aligning my fingers to the home row. However if you do curve your fingers. There comes a point where the almost align. Type like this and you’ll find it easier.
If on the other hand you like to type with your hands flat, you’ll be at conflict with a layout that is heavy on the home row.
I am surprised we haven’t seen any radical design changes in the physical layout. Why stagger keys, why not have circular or hexagonal keys? Why is the keyboard so asymmetric? It baffles me.
Oh and why are they so flat!
I should add that there are alternative designs. Look at the Frogpad, the Maltron and Datahand, for something a little different.
Wow, some very in-depth observations – thanks for contributing.
I do see the logic of Dvorak, and I have also heard that it can be learned three times faster than QWERTY, which is a big plus. Put together with a curved-row keyboard for flat-handers like me, the layout would be a real winner – with the usual drawback that keyboards in schools, labs, kiosks and public places use QWERTY almost uniformly. Still, for someone who has never learned to touch-type and plans to do it for a living, I can well see where Dvorak would be the right choice.
As to your question about why the keys are staggered, my understanding is that this is simply a vestige of a bygone era. Keys on manual typewriters had to be staggered to leave room for their mechanical arms, and this configuration became self-perpetuating – much like QWERTY. Some keyboards have moved away from staggering, though, such as the Kinesis Advantage and the Typematrix 2030.
Your thought about hexagonal keys is also very interesting. I personally have no idea why keyboard keys couldn’t be made like that, and intuitively it would seem that such a keyboard could have a smaller footprint than the current design. I do think that circular keys used to be found on some manual typewriters, but I have never seen them on a modern device.
Frogpad, Maltron, Datahand – I’m familiar with all those, but haven’t obtained any samples yet. I see that Frogpad’s website has been fixed since the last time I tried to contact them, so I may give that another go. Maltron is so high-end – and European – that I doubt they send out they even send out units for evaluation. Datahand, unfortunately, seems to be out of production at least for now, but I’d love to give their fingertip-based device a try.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Interesting post! I appreciate your effort to look beyond the QWERTY standard to find new alternative ways to type. I have been working on my own system which reduces the keyboard to just ten keys, each acting as shift keys to provide 100 keystrokes with simple combinations. I’ve built a few and we are now attempting to make it wireless but if you would like to try the USB version, contact me. The focus of our device is to make touch-typing easy with one hand or with both hands on small mobile devices. the site is at http://www.in10did.com but here s a short video so you can see how it works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBmb4heEsb4
Regards,
Wayne
Sorry for the delayed comment approval; you got stuck in the Spam Machine on a false positive. Your new device looks very interesting and I would love to try it out – I’ll contact you via email to discuss further.