On this episode of Spark: QWERTY, Objectified, and Last Year’s Model
- Nora delves into the deep, dark history of the QWERTY keyboard layout. Guests include:
- Antique typewriter collector Martin Howard
- Microsoft researcher Bill Buxton
- Economics professor Stan Liebowitz, co-author of The Fable of the Keys
- Philip Steadman, author of The Evolution of Designs (full interview)
- User-interface designer Jared Spool (full interview)
- Gary Hustwit interviews industrial design heavyweights for his documentary Objectified (full interview)
- Anil Dash and Gina Trapani want you to buy great gadgets, then keep them with LastYearsModel.org (full interview)
This episode features Creative Commons music and sound effects:
- “Wadidyusay?” by Zap Mama
- “Beef Chow Mein (The Noodle House)” by Windom Earle
- Clip from Basic Typing, Part I: Methods (Part I) (1944)
- “Steppin’ In” and “Blur & Coalesce” by Podington Bear
- “Rubber Molecules,” “Rythn,” and “Filaments” by Chad Crouch
- “E Flat Stride” by the Mills Blue Rhythm Band
- “A Peek Inside” by General Fuzz
- “ditto, ditto!” by DoKashiteru
Play audio:
You can download this episode as an MP3, or receive Spark automatically by subscribing to any of our totally free podcast feeds:
- Free weekly podcast (Subscribe in iTunes)
- Free weekly podcast + additional blog-only content (Subscribe in iTunes)
- Free weekly podcast (low bandwidth version)
For more information (and instructions) visit cbc.ca/podcasting
[Original image by aprillynn77]
Thanks so much for this. I'm a bit of a ergonomics nut and this was a great ep to feed that. This is quickly becoming my favourite show on CBC (via podcast – I'm an ex-pat living in Kansas City) and I'm a lapsed (but not for long) listener of The Sniffer. Keep it up!
Thanks for the very interesting look at QWERTY keyboard history.
I've never tried DVORAK, but a couple of months ago I undertook a serious attempt to learn the Colemak keyboard layout. It's very similar to QWERTY, with a few changes designed to improve ergonomics or typing time. I know a couple of friends who swear by it. When I tried it, I liked it for a while, but I just couldn't ditch the QWERTY layout. One of the major obstacles, of course, was the fact that other people's keyboards are all QWERTY! Luckily, I can type about 90-100 WPM!
It's possible to change the character setting on a computer so that it uses a different keyboard layout even while the physical keyboard remains the same (that's what I did to learn Colemak). I'm wondering if in the future we'll get keyboards that are closer to touchscreens than physical keys, and as a result we could physically reconfigure keyboard layouts on the fly as well as changing the software. Added bonus: no more crumbs in the keys!
I love my Dvorak keyboard, and am quite keyboard "bilingual" — I don't have trouble typing on the Qwerty, but I find it wildly awkward. I think this story should have interviewed fans of the Dvorak. There are well-supported theories that this keyboard may prevent/eliminate carpal tunnel.
I'd be very keen to see the support for those theories that you mention. In the research I did for this story, I didn't come across any.
Stan Liebowitz (one of the guests interviewed for this program) co-authored a paper that appeared in the Journal of Law & Economics vol. XXXIII (April 1990), which took a very comprehensive look at the existing literature on QWERTY and Dvorak, and concluded,
"there are many aspects of the Qwerty-versus-Dvorak fable that do not survive scrutiny. First, the claim that Dvorak is a better keyboard is supported only by evidence that is both scant and suspect. Second, studies in the ergonomics literature find no significant advantage for Dvorak that can be deemed scientifically reliable."
http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html
That's a very impressive review of the DSK versus QWERTY. I especially like the final footnote: "There are several versions of the claim that a switch to Dvorak would not be worthwhile. The strongest, which we do not make, is that Qwerty is proven to be the best imaginable keyboard. Neither can we claim that Dvorak is proven to be inferior to Qwerty. Our claim is that there is no scientifically acceptable evidence that Dvorak offers any real advantage over Qwerty. Because of this claim, our assessment of a market failure in this case is rather simple. It might have been more complicated. For example, if Dvorak were found to be superior. it might still be the case that the total social benefits are less than the cost of switching."
The principal failure of the Dvorak-Dealey keyboard was the adamant refusal of typewriter manufacturers to make the DSK available to their customers. All of the DSK typewriters were modified in typewriter repair shops. As educators, Dvorak and Dealey attempted to show the advantage of their invention by training student typists, who'd never encounter another DSK machine in the outside world, and retraining QWERTY typists. Without the availability of DSK typewriters in the market, no government nor any business would retrain its workforce to switch their skills to new machines, (especially to machines that are not sold by any manufacturer). One would have to buy new typewriters, modify them in local repair shops, and engage in a new training course: that's costly. If a typist is speedy on a QWERTY, why switch to another keyboard?
However, why should every new typist be saddled with the QWERTY keyboard? Who is manufacturing manual typewriters, today?
With electronic keyboards, today, the only cost to convert would be changing the labels on the keys and a new encoding for the keyboard, (already available on many computers for the DSK).
If the first pair of scissors was invented by a left-handed blacksmith, and if all scissors were made for left-handed people, does it make sense for all right-handed people to be forced to use left-handed scissors? There would be the enormous cost of manufacturing new scissors and the social cost of retraining left-handed people to use their right hand. Ponder that.
Has anyone done a scientific study that proves right-handed scissors are superior to left-handed scissors? Yet, try to find a pair of left-handed scissors in most stores that sell scissors.
On the other hand, the QWERTY keyboard is biased for left-handed people. Does any business equipment manufacturer offer a right-handed keyboard? The DSK and my English Keyboard Scheme provide keyboards properly balanced for either right-handed or left-handed typists.
I really like the statement that there's "no scientifically acceptable evidence that Dvorak offers any real advantage over Qwerty," as it obviously ignores that there are ergonomic differences between left-handed and right-handed people, (especially when they are typing on a keyboard).
Maybe, some more research is needed, (which isn't "both scant and suspect").
“More than good enough”?
I think that’s balderdash!
Your program regarding the QWERTY keyboard did little to illuminate the problem of the continued use of an antiquated keyboard layout that has been perpetuated by corporate interests.
Bill Buxton dismisses any keyboard reforms, claiming that there is no justification, nor any argument in favour of any reform of a faulty technology. Why is his opinion given full reign?
Obviously, someone with your program did a little research and discovered the Dvorak-Dealey Scientific Keyboard, which was patented in 1936. I did, too, in 1972; but, as a Canadian, I was interested in whether or not a similar invention could be developed for the French language, as the Dvorak-Dealey keyboard was designed for the English language.
I discovered a few flaws in the DSK layout and pointed them out to August Dvorak. I wasn’t satisfied with his response and pursued a full review of English and French keyboards. The result of this work was my patents for the “English Keyboard Scheme,” (Canadian Patent No. 975,317, issued in 1975). Due to the nature of the French language, several arrangements offer similar improvements, but, none offered much greater advantage than I had found with the English keyboard.
Not everyone is the same. Some are right-handed, some are left-handed, and a few are ambidextrous. Why should everyone use a keyboard with a left-handed bias? When keyboards were manufactured as a part of a typewriter, conformity was a manufacturer’s advantage. Every machine was made the same way, and typists were given no choice. The QWERTY keyboard was adopted as a standard; and, the American National Standards Institute has perpetuated its use. For a long time, ANSI refused to endorse the Dvorak-Dealey keyboard, even as an alternative layout, until 1982; and, unless I gave up all claims upon my invention, ANSI refused to even consider it as a possible alternative in any business equipment manufactured in the United States.
Manufacturers, educators, and bureaucrats have, (like Bill Buxton), said the QWERTY keyboard is more than good enough. Why change?
If one could learn to type, (without tedious exercises), in half the normal time, wouldn’t that be an advantage? If one could type faster with fewer mistakes, wouldn’t that be an advantage? If the only cost to convert to a better keyboard was manufacturing alternative keyboards, (different button labels), with a different encoding program, couldn’t that be offered by manufacturers and give typists a real choice? If one could choose between a right-handed or left-handed keyboard for typing, wouldn’t that be an advantage?
No? Bill Buxton worries about scrapping typing manuals and the employment of typewriting teachers. He doesn’t care about typists who suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome. We may have different keyboards for different languages, but, for Canadians, the QWERTY keyboard is “more than good enough.” English, or French, the concluding opinion offered by Spark is that Canadians must continue to use a faulty technology.
Hey, what about another opinion?
Hey guys, as a fan of Dvorak I just can’t resist forcing my two cents on you.
I first learned about Dvorak through a Discover Magazine article back in 1997 (I’ve linked to it as my “website”). It did an excellent job of laying out the case for Dvorak and against QWERTY; anything I say is basically a summary of that, plus a little I’ve picked up on via pro-Dvorak sites.
The studies both of you are looking for have been done, by August Dvorak himself. He spent a decade analysing how people type, even pouring over high-speed movies, before writing an 800 page book called “Typewriting Behaviour” in 1936. Here are two things he discovered. Try them yourself!:
1. Place your hands on a keyboard, and start typing gibberish as fast as possible with only one hand. You hand should get tired fairly quickly, right? Give yourself a quick rest, then try fast gibberish again by alternating your hands, using your left hand for one press, the right for the next, and so on. Much better, right?
2. Place your hands in the usual touch-typist pose, and type gibberish on the “home” row, the one just below your fingers. Now switch to gibberish on the top row; it’s a little tougher on the hands, right? Finally, try gibberish on the bottom row. A little tougher still.
So what have we learned? Any keyboard layout that encourages you to alternate your hands while typing, and favors the “home” row, is easier to type with. By those metrics, QWERTY outright sucks; the most common two letters in the English language are E and T, which are shoved to the top row of the left (and usually weaker) hand. Out of the top 10 letters, only 4 are on the home row.
Compare this with Dvorak. Out of the top 10, 9 are on the home row (“r” is the exception), and all the vowels are placed under your left hand. Since English commonly contains vowel-consonant pairs, it’s nearly impossible to type a full word without using two hands.
So why does Dvorak get a bad rap? Well some people, especially a few economists, simply can’t believe the majority would stick with such a lousy layout. One way to explain it away is to claim it isn’t lousy; since Dvorak’s studies have long been forgotten, and Dvorak typists are so few in number, it’s easy to get away with this lie. Dvorak is easier to hunt-and-peck with, for instance, because its layout is so predictable. Hover over the home row and look for vowels on the left, and you’ll find a good 80% of the letters you’ll need. If Dvorak hunt-and-peckers haven’t been told this, they’ll quickly learn it for themselves through experience.
Also, the show mentioned that there’s little incentive to switch to Dvorak. It may allow for faster typing, but very few people push the limits, so why bother? I have three words: Carpal-tunnel Syndrome. Dvorak achieves faster typing speeds because it takes less effort to move around the keyboard than with QWERTY. Even if you don’t push your WPM to the max, your hands will be less fatigued at the end of the day.
As an exclusive user of Dvorak for the past ten years, I agree with HJ Horbeck's comments. Learning Dvorak took only 2 or 3 weeks to regain my speed, and since then I surpassed my previous speed and accuracy tremendously, more than 10 to 15 percent. As a transcriptionist for 22 years, I can definitely say the daily wear and tear on my hands dimished significantly – I can type much longer without pain or muscle fatigue. A friend switched to Dvorak when she had pain from carpal tunnel-type symptoms and noted relief. The language of the keyboard can be changed in the control panel with a click of the mouse – no cost involved. I never changed the physical keyboards I use at home or at work and others can still use the computer. Once the driver is installed from the disc, the keyboard layout is easily toggled back and forth with a toolbar icon to accommodate multiple users. Anything that saves time and energy and decreases the risk of injury makes sense to me. I found your story heavily biased for Qwerty, not giving Dvorak a fair hearing. Mavis Beacon included a Dvorak tutor in version 5 for a reason! Try talking to people who actually type for a living to get the full story.
Hi Cheryl. Thanks for your comment.
You say, "I found your story heavily biased for Qwerty." Indeed, it was a story _about_ QWERTY.
I'm glad you're pleased with the Dvorak keyboard layout. As Jared Spool mentions in the radio story, some studies show that typists can improve their speed by using the Dvorak layout (though "The Fable of the Keys" calls these studies questionable). I believe that many of the early Dvorak studies were conducted on typing pools.
That said, the vast majority of computer users are not professional typists.
Thanks again for your comment.
I'm a bi-digital QWERTY & DSK typist (each took a long time to learn, my coordination is very ordinary) and I assert that there is no comparison for transcribing from audio, Dvorak is much faster, ergonomically comfortable and just aesthetically pleasing. If you go to our Doom web site you will see, under the topic "AEI Subprime Seminars," many hours of transcriptions of key American Enterprise Institute seminars on the present economic crisis, all painstakingly reduced to text from audio using DSK. I'm sure I would have just about murdered my flippers doing that with QWERTY.
For short bursts, e-mail, things like this entry and web surfing I use QWERTY almost exclusively, because I've not internalized <ALT> and <CTL> keys under DSK.