
Why do we all still use Qwerty keyboards? - CapitalistCartr
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20161212-why-is-qwerty-on-our-keyboards
======
nacc
I have switched to programmer's dvorak (dvp) for a year now. I have recorded
the amount of typing vs speed. Right after the switch, the speed increase is
logarithmic to amount of typing: I will need to practice twice the amount of
typing to get a constant speed increase.

But now, I definitely feels much better than qwerty if typing English / code
regularly. I no longer feel the strain on my fingers after long periods of
typing. I also got a ~15% speed improvement, but that might just because I can
touch type better. However there are several things that come up surprising me
after the switch:

1\. I forget all about qwerty. Every time I type on someone else's computer, I
will have to look at the keyboard and picking letters one by one. It doesn't
seem to get better over time.

2\. Passwords are annoying to type even after I am generally comfortable with
dvp after 3 months.

3\. Shortcut keys are even more resilient to change. It takes very long to get
comfortable with vim again (about 6 months), but now after a year of dvp I
still have trouble Ctrl+c and Ctrl+v.

4\. I spent a lot of time changing keyboard settings in games.

So for most of people who don't specifically focus on typing long paragraphs
of english texts but press keys mostly as short cuts, I can see there is not
sufficient reason to switch, if everything is designed around qwerty.

~~~
steveeq1
Curious. Do you use vim? Does this affect the way you use the navigation keys
(h j k l)? Do you remap the keyboard differently for navigation?

~~~
wbolster
if you are interested in vim ergonomics and alternative layouts, i wrote
extensively about the vim + colemak layout i use on a daily basis:
[https://github.com/wbolster/evil-colemak-basics#design-
ratio...](https://github.com/wbolster/evil-colemak-basics#design-rationale)

------
gnicholas
Interestingly, QWERTY's efficiency is back on the upswing. That is, the common
understanding is that QWERTY was developed—at least in part—to reduce jams
resulting from adjacent keys being pressed in close succession. This was
relevant on typewriters, but of course is not relevant on computers, which
have no inked bits to jam.

As we shift to virtual keyboards, there is again a benefit to having distance
between frequently-used keys. Predictive typing guesses are better when keys
like A, E, and I are not close to each other, since there are many words where
only the vowel differs (bit/bet/bat, nit/net/nat, etc.).

On a somewhat related note, I've been trying Swype recently. After a couple
weeks, I'm still not more efficient than regular typing, but I could see how I
might get there eventually. I'd be curious to know what others have found the
learning curve to be—how long it takes to "break even" and whether efficiency
continues to improve for months.

~~~
baldfat
QWERTY Myth. QWERTY was not in fact designed to protect the keys from jamming.
In 1956 it was shown that QWERTY was as fast if not faster then Dvorak.

> The myth goes roughly as follows. The QWERTY design (patented by Christopher
> Sholes in 1868 and sold to Remington in 1873) aimed to solve a mechanical
> problem of early typewriters. When certain combinations of keys were struck
> quickly, the type bars often jammed. To avoid this, the QWERTY layout put
> the keys most likely to be hit in rapid succession on opposite sides. This
> made the keyboard slow, the story goes, but that was the idea.

[http://www.economist.com/node/196071](http://www.economist.com/node/196071)

The Myth goes well with the Army report on the slowness of QWERTY.

> But then it turns out—something else the report forgot to mention—that the
> experiments were conducted by one Lieutenant-Commander August Dvorak, the
> navy's top time-and-motion man, and owner of the Dvorak layout patent.

~~~
carussell
The claim is that QWERTY was designed to reduced jams. You dispute this, and
link to an article showing that QWERTY is not slow. These are not the same
thing.

QWERTY _was_ designed to prevent jams. QWERTY _was not_ designed to make
typists slower.

~~~
AdamN
Urban myth ...
[https://books.google.com/books?id=EtnyT44_c1EC&pg=PA44&lpg=P...](https://books.google.com/books?id=EtnyT44_c1EC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=qwerty+new+york+times+contests&source=bl&ots=CwGmBuMMLC&sig=gazg4_ZBqXtjgYVlbkN8x4lxNhc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdx4yH0_HQAhVHRhQKHXIOB5wQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&q=qwerty%20new%20york%20times%20contests&f=false)

~~~
carussell
Huh? Can you please explain what that link has to do with what I wrote and do
it in full sentences?

~~~
baldfat
I read it and will say this. QWERTY had competition including speed
competitions and there were no vastly better technology then. Right now there
is no study that shows QWERTY is substandard to other layouts in a measurable
way.

------
coldtea
Because the disadvantages of Qwerty are mostly old wives tales, and the
advantages of the alternative keyboards are overly advertised but marginal.

[https://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html](https://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
This is libertarian propaganda. The authors literally don't believe markets
can be wrong, hence popular examples of markets being wrong get attacked.

Now, maybe there's truth in it, maybe there's not. But let's be clear, this is
not coming from an expert in human ergonomics, or in the history of
technology, it's coming from people with an agenda to defend and this is
rarely, if ever brought up when it is cited.

If libertarian sources can repeatedly doubt the science behind climate change,
then the history of keyboard ergonomics is small beer by comparison.

[http://dvorak.mwbrooks.com/dissent.html](http://dvorak.mwbrooks.com/dissent.html)

~~~
baldfat
Dvorak was the Commander that ran the army trails and wrote the report on 26
typist that showed any speed improvements. It is shown in 1956 that QWERTY was
just as fast if not faster then Dvorak. This is science and not some
libertarian attack on marketing????

[http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html](http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html)

~~~
nether
Speed is the least significant reason to change keyboard layouts. You can get
to 100 wpm typing with two fingers, evidenced on YouTube. Layout doesn't
matter if you want to type fast. The main reason is comfort, which is harder
to demonstrate but very obvious in my experience (as someone who switched to
Dvorak 11 years ago but still regularly uses qwerty at libraries).

------
pklausler
I used to get a numbness on the backs of my hands after a long day of coding.
It scared me! Switched to Dvorak, the numbness vanished, and I've been happy
with it ever since. This was back in '95 or so.

If you're happy with your QWERTY keyboard, good. Nobody's going to take it
away from you. But I was glad to have an alternative.

P.S. Also back in the 90's, I ran a genetic programming experiment in which I
tried to evolve a keyboard layout that minimized finger motion across a corpus
of text. The best layouts all had the vowels on the home row under one hand
and THNS on the home row under the other.

~~~
lgunsch
Similar for me too, I got tedonitis. I immediately switched to Colemak, fixed
my hand posture, and I've been great ever since. As a side effect, I can type
significantly faster too.

------
syphilis2
I often wonder why the typical keyboard keys are staggered such that symmetry
is not mirrored for each hand. The top row is shifted slightly to the left of
the home row, which means your left hand fingers reaching outward travel a
different distance than your right hand fingers reaching outward. Combined
with letter placement, the left hand usually has a lot more to do than the
right.

The bottom row is much more symmetrically positioned, and yet has the fewest
letter keys.

~~~
wbolster
the historical reason for staggering are the metal arms on mechanical
typewriters, which obviously does not make any sense nowadays, but
unfortunately the design stuck, as did the qwerty layout.

non-staggered keyboards, such as the kinesis advantage, better match the shape
of the hand, sometimes even with vertical "staggering" instead of horizontal.

additionally, the thumbs are the strongest fingers but are only supposed to
hit the (huge) space bar. this is the problem that alternative physical
layouts like the ergodox and the kinesis advantage try to address.

also, split keyboards allow you to use wrist and arm angles that match your
body instead of the keyboard.

different letter layouts like colemak (good, especially modern computers) and
dvorak (also good, but designed in the pre-computer era) significantly reduce
finger travel and improve on finger and hand alteration. for me personally,
colemak works great to prevent strain.

~~~
gnicholasgreen
'ortholinear' might be the term you are looking for.

On a personal note, I've found no issues bouncing back and forth between and
Ergodox and regular, non-split, staggered keyboards.

------
nilved
I think that we should have redesigned our keyboard layouts when we switched
to mobile. Keyboards are used very differently today. Swiping multiple letters
is possible, people often type with one hand, etc. After using KeyBee for a
while I really feel like QWERTY on a phone is very cumbersome. Swiping is less
effective because the keys weren't laid out with n-grams in mind. Arranging
them in squares wastes screen real estate.

I highly encourage you try it out for a week -- it is really much easier to
learn than you'd expect. (No affiliation.)

[http://keybee.it](http://keybee.it)

------
bad_user
Dvorak is optimized for the English language, but my primary language isn't
English. Qwerty is universal for languages with the Roman alphabet and I type
with more than 120 words per minute, which is enough for me.

I also feel pain every time I end up in front of another computer just for
having mapped my Caps Lock to a Ctrl. But that's just one key and having to
switch to a completely different keyboard layout is just too painful.

Then there are the smart text editors, like Vim or Emacs, which have shortcuts
optimized for Qwerty. Common shortcuts like `C-x C-f` or `C-x C-s` are no
longer easy to type. So for each of those editors under your tool-belt, you
have to reconfigure them. Yay, that's just what I want.

Basically Qwerty wins because it is ubiquitous and because the alternatives
aren't good enough.

~~~
wbolster
you mistake speed as the dominant factor and then you claim you are fast
enough so switching is not worth it, while you should instead focus on
comfort. you will only fully realise this after experiencing pain.

also, while vim hjkl navigation was designed for qwerty, emacs shortcuts are
not.

(for a vim + colemak alternative see the rationale for the layout i use:
[https://github.com/wbolster/evil-colemak-basics#design-
ratio...](https://github.com/wbolster/evil-colemak-basics#design-rationale) )

~~~
lgunsch
Interesting link! I type Colemak and pretty much gave up on Vim after trying
to remap so many keys. This project didn't exist back when I gave up on
learning Vim.

~~~
wbolster
that project did not exist since i switched to colemak only recently, and that
made my evil-mode setup (vim editing on top of emacs) completely unusable for
me, which is why i started this project.

for a similar vim-based implementation (which served as inspiration for my
remappings), see
[https://github.com/ohjames/colemak](https://github.com/ohjames/colemak)

------
lgunsch
I switched to Colemak years ago, and I still love it. It helped remove my
tendonitis, and improved my typing speed.

The odd time I use another computer I hunt and peck. My phone is still qwerty
too, but it seems to not matter at all, since its not touch typed.

When I first started learning Colemak, I simply used a regular qwerty
keyboard, and ignored the labels on the keys. Now I love my mechanical
keyboard with cherry mx blue switches, with a custom Colemak key-cap set.

------
teilo
I am one of the few people out there who has: started on Dvorak, switched to
Colemak, switched to Qwerty, and then switched back to Dvorak. During each
switch, I stuck with it until I was >100WPM.

My results: Every time I switched, my speed and accuracy improved.

Here is my conclusion: As long as your layout is a reasonably useable layout
(which all of the above are), it doesn't matter. If your speed increases, it
has nothing to do with the layout. It is because by switching your layout, you
are forcing your brain to re-train, and in the process are eliminating bad
habits, and increasing your focus on speed and accuracy.

The ability of the brain to adapt far exceeds any intrinsic advantage of one
keyboard over another. Ergo, the keyboard layout wars are meaningless.

The only advantage one layout may have over another is ergonomic - i.e., for
those who are especially prone to RMI, the (slight) edge of one layout over
another _might_ make a difference. Even then, the difference is minimal enough
that it may not matter.

~~~
antisthenes
> Here is my conclusion: As long as your layout is a reasonably useable layout
> (which all of the above are), it doesn't matter. If your speed increases, it
> has nothing to do with the layout. It is because by switching your layout,
> you are forcing your brain to re-train, and in the process are eliminating
> bad habits, and increasing your focus on speed and accuracy.

I think anyone with a bit of common sense will conclude the same thing.
Because every time you switch you are specifically focusing on speed and
accuracy improvements, but even if you never switched layouts and put in the
same amount of time training your typing skills, you would have seen
improvements over your baseline. Maybe not as much as when switching layouts,
however.

These issues are also not common. I don't have the hard numbers about how many
people train their typing skills specifically, but my suspicion is that it is
a astonishingly small fraction of people who use computers. The people who go
so far as to switch layouts in pursuit of typing skill specifically are likely
an even smaller subset.

~~~
teilo
I agree. Those who insist that one (reasonable) layout is sufficiently better
than another enough to bother switching are suffering from confirmation bias.

As far as switching layouts in pursuit of an improvement, I imagine this
depends upon the person. In my case, at least, the repeated switching forced a
complete break. I could not easily fall into bad habits because I was exerting
so much effort just in retraining my finger memory. In this regard it may be
more of a brain hack.

------
creeble
I believe the article contains a factual error about the qwerty keyboard not
existing until Remington had bought the patent.

The earliest commercial Sholes and Glidden Type-Writer (one that you could
actually buy) had a qwerty keyboard [1].

It has been said that Sholes used this arrangement because one can type the
word "typewriter" without leaving the top row; I.e. for salesman demonstration
purposes.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholes_and_Glidden_typewrite...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholes_and_Glidden_typewriter)

Edit: erm, the Wikipedia article also states that the typewriter "as presented
to Remington" did have "." where "R" is in qwerty. I do believe that Sholes
and Glidden were already selling typewriters with this change, however.

------
AznHisoka
because it works, and changing to somethig marginally better is not worth it
if you have to relearn the keys for even a few days.

~~~
melling
Plenty of people suffer from RSI from long uses of the keyboard and mouse:

[http://www.looknohands.me](http://www.looknohands.me)

[https://medium.com/@benjiwheeler/what-to-do-when-typing-
hurt...](https://medium.com/@benjiwheeler/what-to-do-when-typing-
hurts-e0ac3456a712)

[https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/11/18/rsi-
solution/](https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/11/18/rsi-solution/)

Most alternate keyboard layouts (e.g. Colemak, Dvorak, etc) require a lot less
hand movement, which might prevent RSI.

[http://patorjk.com/keyboard-layout-
analyzer/#/load/FFv3m625](http://patorjk.com/keyboard-layout-
analyzer/#/load/FFv3m625)

~~~
fleetfox
I have large hands and having both hands on home row is actually uncomfortable
(more strain)

~~~
wbolster
perhaps you should give a split keyboard a try.

------
woliveirajr
We use it because it's used.

What advantage would you have if you just changed it? Every computer you were
about to use would have a different layout. QWERTY is good enough. Replacing
all keyboards won't happen at same time, and every time you need to replace
one keyboard, you'll go with one that is similar to your
home/work/university/notebook/virtual ipad/cellphone keyboard, that are all...
qwerty.

Change all keyboards that you use at once, and a new candidate is born. Change
just one each time, and keep the same.

~~~
garrettgrimsley
I type in Dvorak and the QWERTY cellphone keyboard hasn't been an issue for me
because I rely on a different muscle memory for typing with thumbs then for
touch typing on a hardware keyboard. Only my IBM Model M at home has been
rearranged because the key-caps are removable. Both my work keyboard and
laptop keyboard are still in QWERTY, but it isn't an issue because I touch
type. But I agree, we use QWERTY because it's what is familiar.

------
guest2143
I switched to Dvorak because of wrist pain. It worked. Of course, that result
is confounded with slowing down to learn to type on a new keyboard. That said,
I have not had the pain come back.

If you're interested it typing speed, look at plover:
[http://www.openstenoproject.org/](http://www.openstenoproject.org/) over 200
words per minute should be achievable. (I've only met users, never tried it
myself. I was amazed at their speed.)

I've never found speed to be my issue, YMMV.

------
woliveirajr
Let's not forget that every idiom has their most used keys and so on, so even
if another keyboard layout is "better", it doesn't mean it'll be faster
worldwide.

------
docdeek
After learning to touch type in Australia as a high school student on QWERTY I
was thrown for a loop when I arrived in France and found myself face to face
with AZERTY. Didn’t take a long time to figure out and now, ten years later, a
QWERTY keyboard has me staring at the keyboard and picking at keys like a
hungry bird. The shift key for numbers? Totally natural. Shift key for the
period? Also natural now.

If you like your keyboard, keep it - but the switch is always a pain.

------
module0000
> Why do we all still use Qwerty keyboards?

The same reason stoplights are red: inertia.

In the 5th grade, we had typing class, and we got to use both qwerty and
dvorak. This was some time ago, but even then, we were told that qwerty was
the present and the future, and dvorak was rare and on the way out. Basically,
at a young age we are told what to use, and trained to use it - the rest is
history.

------
SadWebDeveloper
When i was a young developer, i used to hear that using "Dvorak" was better
for everything including software development but after 2 months with it, it
became a PITA so i abandon the whole idea of changing keyboard layouts.

------
ErikVandeWater
If you're thinking of switching to Dvorak, perhaps don't. I switched at the
age of 20 and I don't think there was enough of a benefit to it. Too much
muscle memory gets locked when you are young.

------
Vampires123432
Let's not speak English anymore because there's more efficient languages.

No?

Ok. Long live QWERTY.

