QWERTY vs. Dvorak
April 12, 2008 · Print This Article
An article about standards and another from Reason.com both look at the comparison between Dvorak and QWERTY keyboards and suggests that there is a less of a difference than is commonly advertised. Of particular interest is the look at how the research was conducted for the Dvorak layouts.
Very interesting reading. (It took me this long to get through that first article.
I’ve switched over to the Dvorak layout and haven’t looked back. (I can still type in QWERTY though.) It certainly seems to be faster, takes less effort, and my hands feel better because of it. (I was feeling wrist and hand strain before.) But who can laugh in the face of science? 
I suppose I’ll be less vocal about the Dvorak layout, but I certainly won’t stop using it.
I skimmed the articles… so perhaps my comments may not be completely informed. But, here goes:
The articles don’t outright say that Dvorak is faster or slower. The first article points out criteria for any fast keyboard:
A. The loads on the right and left hands are equalized.
B. The load on the home (middle) row is maximized.
C. The frequency of alternating hand sequences is maximized and the frequency of same-finger typing is minimized.
It’s says Dvorak does the first two but not the third (which QWERTY does do). I agree… I’ve been learning Dvorak and have discovered that the lack of various can be a bit mind-numbing. Esp. if you’re used to the digital (as in fingers, not as in analog) gymnastics.
The articles basically say that the data that you hear quoted about Dvorak being worthwhile to switch to is based on some highly suspect experiments that haven’t been replicated.
It doesn’t mean the keyboard layout is bad, it just means that your ROI isn’t likely to match the statistics you’ve probably heard.