On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 03:11:38PM -0700, Stewart Stremler wrote: > begin quoting John H. Robinson, IV as of Thu, May 04, 2006 at 02:05:47PM > -0700: > [snip] > > Simpy, Dvorak is superior. > > By how much? I've heard that it's as little as 2% improvement in speed..
That I don't know. > But it's not speed that's really the issue. Very few people type as > fast as they possibly can, all the time. Most people have to think a > bit, and then write a bit, and then think a bit, and then write a bit, > and then edit a bit, and then get a cup of coffee... > > So what is the goal with our keyboard layouts? > > Avoid RSI? This sounds like the true goal. > Wouldn't junking the mouse do more along those lines? Most of my > problems occur when I use the mouse a lot. > > Better posture, frequent short breaks, split keyboards, etc would also > probably do more than changing a keyboard layout. When you look at the English language, and the distance travelled per finger to type English prose, Dvorak comes out to have more on the home row than Sholes. Total distance travelled per finger is less. Let motion = less damage. > > Modern genetic algorithms show that. > > http://www.visi.com/~pmk/evolved.html > > Heh. Cute. > > Can't say I'd consider that "proof"... It, however, does show original research. The interesting thing that I took out of it that using weighted costs per transition caused the gentically evolved keyboard to share two traits with the Dvorak layout: all vowels on one side, and most frequent letters on the home row. -john -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
