jim blair wrote: I can picture a sort of Darwinian test of "path dependence". Newsgroup posters who believe in it will change their keyboards from QWERTY to the Dvorak DSK, and if they can then type 20% (or 40%?) faster as claimed, they will come to dominate the the discussions, and Path Dependence will become the accepted conventional wisdom :-) >Wundergeist): > >Sorry, Jim, but the main problem is not the switching cost de per se (i.e. >the one-time investment to learn the DSK) but the network externalities for >those >sharing computers, using computers - with the QWERTY keyboard - at work, for >keyboard makers (is it worth the retooling, given the adoption?), etc. > Hi, I don't understand this. Anyone can switch their keyboard to the Dvorak (DSK) system now and this will not effect a network. It takes only a few seconds. (See below) It would be a problem only if others share your computer. A good typist need not actually move the keys (as I did), but can just type by KNOWING which key is which letter. Even if you share, you could turn it on, switch to DSK, type, and switch back. (Just remember your password on both keyboard patterns!!) I mean the only problem is when a new person uses your computer and does not understand why, when they hit the key for one letter, another letter appears on the screen. I hope you all recognize that my opening statement quoted above was meant more as a joke than as a serious proposition. But somewhere I think the history here has been lost: it is not that Dvorak was ALWAYS better than QWERTY: in the early days of mechanical typewriters, if the typist was "too fast", one key would strike before the previous one had returned to its home position. This caused a jam in the keys. It was "good" to have a keyboard pattern that required the fingers to move more than necessary. Indeed the QWERTY pattern was not "arbitrary" but selected precisely BECAUSE it was hard to type fast with. But when typewriters became better, and with the electric ones and ESPECIALLY with computers, that situation reversed: an efficient keyboard with the most frequently used keys under the home fingers ceased to be a liability and became an advantage. And "path dependence" is more important in evolution than in economics since you can change from QWERTY to DSK now that it is an advantage (but you could not change your mechanical typewriter). I recall the inspiring story of the ambitious little wombat that recognized the error of his marsupial ways, and decided to become a placental mammal. He studied hard and went to night school, learned the catechism and got circumcised. And his effort paid off: he was converted to a bear! Converting from QWERTY to DSK is SO much easier: Under Windows NT, the 'keyboard' under 'control panel' has a tab labelled 'input locales'. For each input locale, you can specify the 'layout', such as 'US' or 'US-Dvorak'. Under Windows95, the tab is labelled 'language', but it also has the 'layout' parameter. Under Windows 3.1, Windows Setup/Options/change systems setting/ Keyboard/ select (you may need a separate disc) ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. AND: >Wes Hardaker (hardaker@iris.UCDavis.EDU) writes: >+-- >| Does anyone know both keyboards, and do you have a problem >| getting confused? I doubt anyone just knows the Dvorak style >| since there are so few keyboards that support Dvorak. I >| think this would be a problem switching from one to the other, >| however, or is the brain intelligent enough to seperate the >| two during their respective use. >+-- > >I converted my personal equipment to the Dvorak Simplified >Keyboard, but of course I often have to use QWERTY. It >doesn't bother me for long, as the feel of the keyboard >tends to serve as a cue to tell me which layout to use. > >If I start using the wrong mental set, after noticing a few >typos I tend to snap into the correct set. My usual pattern >is to use full touch typing on Dvorak (not looking at the >keyboard at all), but during casual use of QWERTY I tend to >look at the keys. If I have to use QWERTY for more than a >few minutes, my touch training on QWERTY kicks in. > >Disclaimer: I don't know if my experience is typical. I had >18 years experience touch-typing on QWERTY when I retrained >myself on the DSK, and that was ten years ago. I seldom do >more than an hour or two of typing a day. My QWERTY speed >never got much beyond 40 wpm, but I can generally do over 70 >wpm on the DSK. >-- >John Shipman/Zoological Data Processing/Socorro, NM/john@jupiter.nmt.edu >``Let's go outside and commiserate with nature.'' --Dave Farber