Talk:Dvorak keyboard layout/Archive 3

'Fable' of the keys
The treatment of this argument was seriously skewed and did not present a NPOV. The work of L&M is prefixed by adjectives such as 'Influential' and 'Academic', those arguing against them have their arguments distorted and then dismissed.

L&M actually face some serious credibility problems because their work is not exactly disinterested. They are economists and they have a bee in their bonnet about market failure being impossible. So they spend their time 'disproving' the cannonical examples used to illustrate market failure. Dvorak vs QWERTY, VHS vs Beta etc.

They are not historians and they have a political axe to grind. It should be reasonably obvious that Dvorak would have to be a whole heap better than QWERTY to have any chance of displacing it, so regardless of which system is better it is clear that there are circumstances where a lock in effect or 'network externality' can exist. The fact that L&M try to draw this conclusion and argue in their book that Microsoft cannot therefore be a monopoly indicates the type of 'research' they perform. Incidentally their 'research' institute received $100,000 from Microsoft at the time their book was published.

Applying their own principles which they use to dismiss the work to support Dvorak (the funding source) we should dismiss L&M.
 * I agree completely with this. If reference to Liebowitz & Margolis's ("L&M") is to be made at all, my view is that it would be better to cite Marcus Brooke's Fable of the Fable instead, as that article does an excellent job of showing how L&M's 'case against DSK' is a crock of biased umm... poor research. --Pendant 14:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect citation
The article cites the following URL:

http://web.mit.edu/jcb/www/Dvorak/

for the claim that "It is also possible to learn how to use Dvorak only for touch typing while retaining the ability to use QWERTY when looking at the keyboard (though a very few claim to touch type both keyboards efficiently, admitting it takes longer to learn this way).[1]"

This makes it look like the linked site argues for it being more difficult to touch type both keyboards efficiently. This is a misleading citation, since the author of the linked page discusses easily touch-typing on both layouts. Where is the substantiation for the idea that very few can touch type both keyboards efficiently? --128.252.165.99


 * I don't know. I think that sentence is unfounded since all the Dvorak typers I know can easily switch between the two layouts, and do so frequently.  Perhaps it should be revised to reflect reality.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 19:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

While the 'difficulty' of holding two 'autonomous' mappings in one head is over-rated (it's no more difficult than speaking two languages), the dual qwerty/dvorak capable typist is still a rarity. If there were more of them then objective testing of the relative ergonomics of each system would be easier. I would not suggest however that a dual-format typist would be a useful model for testing ease of learning or achievable speed, as it would be unreasonable to suggest you could control for the circumstances of learning (one would have to have been first!) and unusual for such a typist to spend an equal amount of time using each system (maintenance of speed being dependent upon frequency of use), although the latter factor could be 'engineered' over a period of 2 to 4 weeks.Tban 03:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A different, more wide-scope argument is that a user of a single layout would be more proficient with that layout than a user of both layouts, so i think the benifits of using just Dvorak would be lost by examining a dual-layout typist -- Lee Carré 15:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting testament
Hi, I just started using Dvorak almost a month ago and I've since regained about 60% of my Qwerty speed. One interesting thing to note though - I also know Korean and there's a striking similarity to the Korean keyboard and Dvorak in the way the hands don't really have to move as far and there is a lot more left and right motion. I only just noticed how efficient the Korean keyboard is when I started using Dvorak and saw a lot of similarity to the way in which my hands are moving now. Let's hope that in the next month or two that I surpass my Qwerty speed. io:user:mithridates
 * That is interesting. Obviously keyboard layouts for different languages have different requirements than for english. It would seem likely that the designers of, in this case, the Korean layout took into account at least some of the factors that Dvorak did. From a technological development point of view; as far as i know technology developed in the western (english-speaking) world, which would go some way to explaining why the "default/standard" english keyboard is so inefficient. Also the Korean layout may have been developed after the existance of computers, so the need to slow typists down is not an issue. Also typewriter technology has improved in the time between the creation of QWERTY and Korean layouts. I've seen some really fancy models in the past, which were electronic, and the arms were controlled in both dircetions (rather than "falling" back, or relying on a spring) enabling extremely fast arm movement (in both directions) thus allowing high-speed use of Dvorak. (Unfortunetly, and quite ironc-ly/ironically (can't spell) the typewriter i saw was a QWERTY one lol -- Lee Carré 16:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You refer to the 'need to slow typists down'. I understood that this was a myth. Pendant 00:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ergonomics
Is Dvorak actually better for the hands? The article doesn't seem to make this clear. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 11:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * According to everyone I've talked to that uses it, yes, it is easier on the hands. The Benefits section which discussed this was removed some time ago. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 14:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that switching kept me from developing a case of carpal-tunnel syndrome several years ago (or perhaps allowed me to recover from a mild case without treatment). Like Frecklefoot, I've only ever heard positive comments from those who have switched.  But such anecdotes can not meet our verifiability requirements.  The few medical studies I know of which have been conducted on this question have been ambiguous, either finding no statistically significant difference or being challenged on methodolgical grounds.  Unfortunately, I don't know of anyone actively studying the question right now.  Rossami (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing that occurs to me (and despite its seeming obviousness I have not seen yet elsewhere) is that a substantial portion of the stress on the hands and wrists during typing comes from the actual pressing of the keys rather from the movement of the fingers to individual keys. Whatever Dvorak's impact on typing speed may be, it seems that it isn't likely to be a cure-all solution for RSI disorders.  Ataru 04:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In this case, the relevant issue for repetitive strain injury is not the speed of the action or even the force needed to press the individual key but the alignment of the muscles and bones in the finger when doing so. The unproven hypothesis here is that the Dvorak layout moves more of the keystrokes to the more efficient (and therefore less stressful) strokes which are directly under the fingers rather than the more torqued strokes necessary to stike the out-keys.  Rossami (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you say this is 'unproven'? I'm no ergonomics expert, but the article in Computers and Automation magazine, November, 1972, pp. 18-25 "The Dvorak Simplified Keyboard: Forty Years of Frustration" by Robert Parkinson, Missisauga, Ontario looks to me to be proof enough! --Pendant 15:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

typing "ls"
I removed this paragraph:
 * Some command line interfaces are optimized for the QWERTY layout. One of the most commonly-used commands in UNIX-like environments is "ls", which is very fast to type as mirrored ring finger keypresses on QWERTY, but requires two consecutive strokes of the little finger to type on the Dvorak layout (in both cases a third keystroke to enter to complete the command). Another frequently used command, "cd", is easier to type on Dvorak. See the above notes the ease of typing sequences.

My objections:
 * ls (as I just typed then) is not typed with the little finger twice, but with the ring finger then the little finger - it's actually easy and convenient to type (equivalent to p; on qwerty)
 * In any case it wasn't "optimised" - it's presumably short for "list" and just worked out that way.
 * "cd" is not particularly easier to type, and requires a stretch to get the d.
 * This whole paragraph stinks of "my keyboard is better than your keyboard".
 * Make a useful statement about MS clipboard shortcuts instead (ctrl+c, ctrl+v etc make no sense on dvorak). Stevage 17:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I type "ls" with a single stroke of my pinky finger. So really it's just a tad slower than one keypress. Similarly with "gh", "ct" and "rn"... they're all really easy because you can just slide your finger downward. Similar to "ed" when I'm typing QWERTY. On the other hand "sl" I use pinky then ring... that's a tough one.!--208.120.106.136 05:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Resistance to change
Noting that we are trying to move to a more NPOV stance, it is reasonable to suggest that there 'has been' resistance to widespread adoption of Dvorak. I agree with the creation of the 'Resistance to Change' section to explain this, but had a sense as I read it that it bogged down straight away on the issue of keyboard shortcuts, and on the Dvorak-Qwerty war back in the 40's and the studies done back then. It seemed to me that keyboard shortcuts warranted a mention, but in perspective, as one of several factors. And I believed that the issue of 'inherent superiority' had to be 'number one' on the list - although it was the most contentious and there was a sense that 'leaving it out' might avoid an edit-war. So getting a NPOV on the relative superiority of Dvorak and Qwerty seemed to be a high priority. It turned out to be easy (I hope!!) because the issue in this section was about 'resistance' and there was no doubt there had been resistance. Therefore there MUST have been a perception (however ill-founded) that Dvorak was 'not sufficiently superior' to warrant overcoming all the other resistances in order to adopt it. So far I think we are in self-evident territory. So we can report that much. Then I observed that the absence of good studies meant that the perception had not been significantly 'affected' one way or the other. My KEY point (made later) is that even in the absence of good studies, as awareness increases, and as the opportunity to self-teach and use Dvorak on PCs increases we MIGHT see an increase in the rate of use, which would indicate people voting with their feet (fingers actually..) to move to Dvorack. If we don't see that trend then we'd have to conclude (in a democratic sense and in the absence of scientific study) that the Dvorak layout isn't selling itself better over time as resistance crumbles, and infer from that that Dvorak wasn't inherently superior to Qwerty. Problem is that nobody has been doing usage surveys. So we are still in the dark. At the end of the day though, I think I've put down a comprehensive list of 'resistances' which is useful regardless of what conclusion you draw about the inherent character of the layouts. Resistance is a story of 'what happened', and that lends itself to a NPOV. And if you are wondering, I can touch type in both, but I'll keep my non-NPOV on which is easier out of the debate.. Cheers, Tban 09:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A query
"By the early 1990's the Dvorak layout was a built-in selectable option on nearly all computers systems." - any evidence for this? I used a few versions of unix around 2000, and none had built in dvorak support. They generally had xmodmap, but you had to download a mapping for dvorak, or more often, make one. It's hard to say whether Windows has "built in" support - you generally need access to the original CD, so you can't just sit down at any workstation and be guaranteed Dvorak access. With XP it seems to be installed by default. Stevage 17:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I remember it being available by default as far back as Windows 95 and was available on my old Amiga before that. I can't speak to systems older than that.  Rossami (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree that Windows 95 (and Macs around the same time) had it 'built-in'. Perhaps a less contentious way of putting it would be: "By the mid 1990's the Dvorak layout was an installable  option on most computer systems".  Which allows for some 'push and shove' in terms of getting it running. Appreciate the comments. The argument that the 'assertion' was intending to support is that a lot of time had passed between the invention of Dvorak, and the availability of a (relatively) easy way of acquiring a machine that would use it.  In that sense, plus or minus 5 years or so doesn't make much difference - but I agree every assertion should be able to stand up in its own right.  If lack of machines was a 'major' resistance factor (rather than simply Qwerty superiority) then since the mid 1990's we should see a upturn in the rate of use of Dvorak as that particular resistance factor diminished in significance.  I appreciate that Qwerty is still the 'default' on computers, but I'm talking about some kind of 'trend' information.  Tban 23:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

aoeu redirect
I had added the comment
 *  "aoeu" redirects here. aoeu is to the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard as asdf is to the QWERTY keyboard layout.

to the page. This change was then reverted with the comment "I don't think taht writing why aoeu redirects here is important, anyone who types aoeu is looking for this page". However, the page itself never explicitly mentions aoeu. I always find it confusing if I am redirected from a page X to another page Y if the reason for the redirect is not immediately obvious, like if the meaning of X is not explained within the introduction of Y. &mdash; Tobias Bergemann 13:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point but maybe it doesn't need to be at the top of the page in the traditional "dablink" format. It's not the first thing that we necessarily want a new reader to focus on since they won't know yet what the Dvorak layout even is.  Could your comment be reworked a bit and added in the See also section perhaps?  Rossami (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This really is a very minor point, but I always find it annoying if I am redirected to a page and than have to search within the content of that page to even find the term I was originally looking for, and I thought the dablink format was introduced to solve exactly that problem. My preferred solution would be to have a one-line explanation of the meaning of aoeu on the aoeu-page itself, as it used to be until August 2004 when that page was turned into a redirect. &mdash; Tobias Bergemann 14:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Abbreviation
As the main article grows I've found typing 'Dvorak Keyboard layout' repeatedly painful. I'm coming around to the idea of using 'DSK layout' instead. This is consistent with Wiki's rules on abbreviations.

This - seems to me - to also have the advantage of making the references to QWERTY and DSK stand out equally from the bulk of the text. If nobody raises any objections I'll do the conversion on the document in a couple of days. Oh, and don't read anything into the fact that DSK is easier to type than QWERTY! Cheers, Tban 01:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Consistent or not, I think that's absurd. --StuartBrady 12:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Help me out Stuart. I noted your 'tidy' habits in putting the QWERTY's in order.  Could you indicate whether you'd prefer 'Dvorak Simplified Keyboard layout' or 'Dvorak layout' (presumably you're not a fan of 'DSK layout').  You see my problem is that to be consistent with the 'thing' that the article describes ('Dvorak Simplified Keyboard') it seems to me that we are obliged NOT to call it the Dvorak layout (which would at least be a tolerably short way of putting it) and we ARE obliged to give it its proper title.


 * Having said all of that - how about if we say at the top of the article something like ..'The Dvorak Simplified Keyboard layout, commonly known as the Dvorak layout..' and thereafter call it simply the 'Dvorak layout'. How does that rate on your absurd-o-meter?.  Regards, Tban 12:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would prefer 'Dvorak layout', with the modification to the introduction that you describe. I'd like to see what others think, first, though. --StuartBrady 12:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks Stuart, I'll go along with that approach. Tban 14:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I think we have a deafening unanimity. I have added a 'also known as the Dvorak layout' at the top of the article, and then replaced (nearly) all the various versions of the Dvorak 'thingy' with 'Dvorak layout'. Couple of exceptions though: 'Dvorak keyboard' or 'Dvorak typewriter' are the 'thing'. Theoretically the 'Dvorak layout' is a style or concept. And when talking about foreign keyboards it seems better to use 'Dvorak keyboard layout' - it just seems right. Tban 02:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about "Dvorak SKL", or simply "SKL"? Pendant 08:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Accent marks
Is there an easy way to type accented letters with Dvorak layout in Windows; something similar to the International English layout, when you can press " and then a to get ä? The "AltGr+symbol code on the numpad" method is really tiring, and I didn't have much success in finding a different method.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * option-u + letter = umlaut (ä)
 * option-e + letter = accent acute (é)
 * option-` + letter = accent grave (è)
 * option-i + letter = circumflex (î)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anonymous 198736 (talk • contribs).
 * Thanks, but it seems that you did not notice the fact I was asking about Windows, not about Macs ("option" is a Mac key, right?). Any other ideas?&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to take a look over here: http://arjenvankol.com/dvorak.php
 * I love you, man! That's just the ticket, and it works like a charm.  Thanks a bunch!&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a reference to Arjen Van Kol's Dvorak international extended keyboard layout (http://arjenvankol.com/dvorak.php) should be on this page. The Dvorak Simplified Keyboard Layout is a layout specifically optimised for the English Language. I live in England. English is my mother tongue. I AM English! I need a pound ('£') sign, and the ANSI standard doesn't include one (how ironic is that?) Pendant 08:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional: I just discovered a UK-Dvorak layout at http://keyboards.jargon-file.org/ : search the page for "United Kingodom-Dvorak" (note typo!). In some cases, the application of the dead keys in Arjen Van Kol's International layout gets in the way when typing in (UK) English (such as when using the '"' key). The UK-Dvorak layout not only puts the '£' back where it belongs at SHIFT-3, it also swaps '@' and '"' back to their 'proper' places (from my point of view as one used to a UK-layout keyboard). Sorry for the inadvertent topic hijack - in retrospect this topic probably deserves its own heading (although this talk page is getting rather cluttered anyway). Pendant 08:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
(From the article) With improvements in typewriter design, key jams became less of a problem. With the introduction of the electric typewriter in the 1930s, typist fatigue became less of a problem. Consequently, interest in the Dvorak layout increased.

This statement does not make sense. It seems like interest in the Dvorak layout would decrease as typist fatigue became less of a problem.
 * Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I'll go change that in the article to say that fatigue became more of a problem. — Mets 501  (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What, are you just making this up? /blahedo (t) 05:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like it. IMO, neither makes any sense. --StuartBrady (Talk) 11:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article for discussion

 * The keyboards shown here are not correct. With Windows XP you can go to accessories> accessibility> on-screen keyboard and the keyboard that is loaded will appear at the bottom of the screen. You can even type on it with the mouse if you wish or just use it as an aid while learning.


 * Go to control panel> regional and language options > languages> details> add if you need to add Dvorak, LH Dvorak, or RH Dvorak to your options. A keyboard icon will appear in your tray at the bottom of the screen that allows you to change keyboard layouts rapidly.


 * It is quite possible to become an excellent typist using only one hand. If you use Windows there is no cost as the programs include this help. An internet search of "single-handed typing" will return a number of helpful sites and even a free tutor for single-handed persons wishing to type.

This was recently added to the "One-hand layouts" section and I think it should be validated before being added. — Mets 501 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

One-handed layouts
X.org's left and right-handed layouts don't seem to match the images shown here (and I'm guessing Windows uses the same layouts...) However, I've found a site with images that do match X.org's layout, but I did find a site with the other versions, too. What's going on? --StuartBrady (Talk) 23:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure what the other layouts are (older versions of the layouts, maybe?) but I've uploaded GFDLed SVG images that should be correct and used these in the article instead. --StuartBrady (Talk) 04:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

New userbox
I've just added :



Classic and ANSI layouts
I'm having trouble finding information about the classic and ANSI layouts. I'm also not sure what the Selectric used — as I said on its talk page:


 * The Dvorak Simplified Keyboard article says that "the original ANSI Dvorak layout was available as a factory-supplied option on the original IBM Selectric typewriter". One slight problem is that the ANSI standard for Dvorak dates from 1983... So did ANSI just take the Selectric's Dvorak layout, or is the Dvorak article wrong? (After this has been cleared up, I think that a short sentence in this article mentioning Dvorak might be a good idea.) --StuartBrady (Talk) 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the new ANSI layout might be what's shown in the article. As for the old ANSI layout, I'm not exactly sure what it looks like... and for the "classic" layout — there doesn't appear to be a single layout, and I can't find the one described in this article. Anyone have a better idea? —StuartBrady (Talk) 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Modern OS section
Unless there is some objection, I will at some point soon either delete or move the data in the Modern OS section relating to how to configure various Unix flavors to use Dvorak. This is an encyclopedia, not Slashdot or a *nix configuration FAQ. Ataru 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you leave Mac OS and Windows, could you also leave GNOME/KDE, please? --StuartBrady (Talk) 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly I'd like to remove the configuration details for all the operating systems, and just say that "Systems X, Y, and Z can be configured to use Dvorak" and be done with it. I really don't think Wikipedia is the place for "how-to" type information; there are innumerable other resources for that sort of thing.  Ataru 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Update - I have now removed the technical details from Modern OS. At the absolute very least, your average Windows user will understand absolutely nothing about the technical details of configuring a *nix OS or Mac OS to use Dvorak, and care very little about the details of configuring Windows to use it. If someone insists on bringing the deleted data back, at least move it to a different page, but I oppose bringing it back at all. Ataru 03:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While I tend to agree that this material is not encyclopedic, I don't think "what your average Windows user will understand or care about" is the appropriate criterion here either. What might be helpful is to scrounge up some *links* to this kind of information and include them in the "External links" section, if there aren't already such links there. I will work on this. --Tkynerd 16:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with adding appropriate external links, thanks for taking it on. I think the fundamental criterion is comprehensibility to a lay audience, i.e. that which reads general reference works; this certainly isn't the first article to delve further into "inside baseball" than is really advisable. Ataru 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the best page I found for reconfiguration under various OSs is a subpage to an external link we already have! So I just added a further comment to that link to alert readers that that info can be found at that link. --Tkynerd 17:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ataru and Tkynerd — looks much better, now! I'm wondering if the section should be renamed, though? The Apple IIc isn't especially modern... --StuartBrady (Talk) 23:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Retailers Who Sell DVORAK Keyboards
Would it be acceptable to add something in the article about retailers who sell DVORAK keyboards? I'm just wondering if it would break any Wikipedia rules or anything? Because I found this one at www.hooleon.com, who do. The reason I ask is because it's pretty hard to find companies who actually do. I only got given that link by another company who I found via google, and then sent an email to ask. Cheers. Doom jester 11:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be strongly discouraged. Wikipedia is not for advertising.  We have massive problems with users attempting to misuse the encyclopedia.  Your edit would be viewed with great skepticism, I'm afraid.  Rossami (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rossami, but I am also very curious as to why anyone would even want to by a Dvorak keyboard? Dvorak layout is advertised as superior to QWERTY in terms of typing speed, which implies that one would be touch-typing, and people who are touch-typing couldn't really care less what layout is printed on the actual, physical keys.  What is the point of a Dvorak keyboard then?  I, as a Dvorak typist, never even thought of getting one, let alone knew that someone actually produces them.  I'd rather buy one with completely blank keys (it would look cool); any pointers in that direction? :)&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Get an old IBM Model 50 "clicky" keyboard. The keys are removable, and you can either put whatever you want on them or type right on the blank cap skirts. Fumblebruschi 16:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that'd be a bit extreme, I'm afraid. I mean, after all those years of ever-improving ergonomics it'd be kind of hard to switch back to a dinasaur like IBM Model 50 :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though I don't think a link would be appropriate in the encyclopedia, I do wish that someone would advertise them better. I looked for a Dvorak keyboard when I first switched because I thought it would help me to learn the pattern better/faster.  I never did find one.  I finally decided to pop all the key-heads off and replaced them in the Dvorak layout.  When they switched me to an IBM with the little eraser-head pointer in the middle of the keyboard, I could no longer do that and finally had to make little sticky-labels to cover up my existing keypad.  It's less than ideal.  Rossami (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But doesn't the first rule for those wishing to learn how to touch-type say "Do not ever, under any circumstances, look at the keys"? And if you just want to learn to type, but not touch-type, why inconvenience yourself with Dvorak at all, instead of using mainstream qwerty?  I would guess that may be one of the reasons why Dvorak keyboards don't sell well (and hence are not advertised), but it's just speculation on my part, of course.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for everyone but that's not how I was trained. How do you learn the pattern in the first place if you don't study the keys?  How do you learn where the right key is when you mistype if you can't check your fingering?  Once you know the basic layout, you can take away the letters but that's not how you start.  Rossami (talk)
 * The way I was taught (and, prior to your comment above, the way I thought everyone is taught) was to learn how to put the fingers into original position (left=aoeu, right=htns) first. From there, each letter in the original position was introduced with a series of excersises.  Once the original position was mastered, the remaining letters in the home row were introduced.  Then letters in other two rows, then numbers and symbols.  At any given point there was never any need to look at the keyboard; in fact, that was strongly discouraged (not that peeking would even help, because my keybord was standard qwerty anyway).  I've been using Dvorak for four years now, and I doubt I'd be able to draw Dvorak layout on paper from memory without resorting to finger memory.  It is a very effective method, really, and I am quite surprised there are other methods that not only allow, but actually encourage you to look at the keys while you learn.  I was told that significantly slows down the learning process, and I honestly believe that it does.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh... Perhaps the difference is the luxury of a formal course of instruction.  I had to teach myself.  When I wanted to learn, I couldn't find any such series of exercises or other coursework (though I do remember getting such exercises back when I learned QWERTY).  Your technique probably would have been faster.  Rossami (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I never went through formal courses of any kind, although I used the software and materials developed for a formal course. How I learned touch-typing and ended up among "Dvorak enthusiasts" (something I very much regret) is a very long story not exactly suitable for this talk page, but my guillibility played a major role :)&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done the same thing. I have a computer with a qwerty keyboard and I decided that learning Dvorak would also be a good way to get myself to touch-type all the time as opposed to the 80% touch-type but with the occasional glance down kind of method I was using with qwerty. I hope that people don't look at sales of the keyboards themselves to judge the numbers because the next time I buy a laptop I'll get one with a qwerty keyboard because you're never sure when somebody else is going to have to use it and since I don't need to look at the keyboard, having the Dvorak keys there would just be a luxury. Of course, there is that keyboard made of light. I wonder how that one works. Saw someone in a coffee shop using one of those last week. Mithridates 23:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A reason one may want to buy a Dvorak keyboard is that some of them, such as those sold by Typematrix, are hardware switchable between Qwerty and Dvorak. This means that you do no need to rely upon Operating System support in order to change layout and that the change will affect every application (something that Windows does not do unless you make use of Dvorak Assist application).  I think a hardware switchable keyboard is a great idea as you can quickly and easily switch layout whenever you are sitting at the computer with someone else.  Oniony 09:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! I only wish I could buy an unlabelled keyboard with switchers for more than two layouts...  Oh well, that's probably wishful thinking.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not intended as an advert, but as a declaration of interest: I am trying to sell standard keyboards modified to Dvorak Simplified layout, with minimal success to date. I would welcome other 'competitors' in this, since it's my belief that if it is possible to crack the 'QWERTY hold' (that has lasted 75 years this year!) then sales would skyrocket: and there is NO way I could keep up with demand!
 * I've created a page at http://www.typocheck.co.uk/dvorak/dvorak-conversion-instructions.html that provides some instructions how to modify a standard keyboard to the Dvorak layout. After my first few conversions I soon realised that popping all of the keytops off at once was not necessarily the best way to do it, and came up with a method I call the 'Six Keys Off' method. Pendant 01:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reality check- How do most people learn to touch-type? By first learning to peck visually, and then by improving this using courses or memorization. It's how basically everyone in the world "actually" learns to type. Even in a structured typing course, I dare you to find a place where people aren't trying to peek at the keyboard, even if there's a screen between their eyes and their hands to discourage it. It's just natural and logical to SEE the keys, learn where they are, and then USE them, just like basically any other tool in the natural world (yeah, it's more efficient to do it all by memory, but we're not efficiency machines). Speaking of which, I also dare most people to find a structured typing course that teaches Dvorak in their area. That's another big problem. And the problem with Dvorak is that anyone who wants to learn it themselves is going to need a Dvorak keyboard until they're familiar with the layout- and if you're like me, going to work everyday on QWERTY systems and then trying to switch to DVORAK at home isn't going to make things easy anyway- a visual reference is absolutely necessary. 209.153.128.248 18:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, getting away from opinions, my real point is this: If you're worried about efficiency, you need to get a similarly efficient keyboard. The one example I know if is "Das Keyboard" (google it- no links). I'm sure there are variations out there, but that's the one I've heard of. Totally blank keys with massive nerd science like individual weighting across the board. If you totally have to go the non-visual route (or if you need to switch regularly and avoid confusion), do it right and get an appropriately nerdy keyboard. 209.153.128.248 18:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)