Live data from Hacker News

How bad is QWERTY, really? A review of the literature, such as it is

erichgrunewald.com

131–140 of 148 posts

Re: How bad is QWERTY, really? A review of the literature, such as it is

#131
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does, but the article is pretty cagey in its retraction (including following up with the comment "Though on the other hand, jamming is really bad for typing speed!"). The author seems to me to at least partly still believe its true, merely acknowledging that it's a difficult position to maintain.

i am the author and i didn't mean to be wishy-washy about it. i read several of the papers involved and think it's more likely than not that qwerty was designed for fast typing, or at least not designed to type slowly. but i wouldn't say it's a done deal -- the paper i cited gives the most convincing argument, imo, but it didn't move me up to 100% confidence or anything. i didn't want to give the appearance of being…

The confusion in many articles on the subject is because both the myth and the truth argue that QWERTY was designed to prevent hammer jams. The reason this confuses people is because anecdotally many people find QWERTY slower to find keys ergo many laymans assume QWERTY was designed to slow typing down to avoid jams (in fairness, it's not an unreasonable piece of logical deduction even if it's not technically accurate).

The reality was that typists were trained to type on QWERTY so they weren't slow typing on it. What QWERTY was designed to do was move common follow on characters further away from each other so the hammers jammed less often thus allowing trained typists to type faster than they could have on an alphabetized layout.

Re: How bad is QWERTY, really? A review of the literature, such as it is

#132

> Uncomfortable pinky movements Any keyboard layout that leads to more ulnar deviation is simply a no-go for me. So Dovrak and Colemak are out, evidently (never tried them, but TFA says they use the pinky more, so if I believe that then I must not use them). Ideally the pinky should not be used at all for typing. I've had to teach myself to not use one-handed modifier keystrokes that involve ulnar deviation. The key…

I think if you rule out Dvorak and Colemak due to pinky use, you should also rule out Qwerty. The best option would be to buy a keyboard with multiple thumb keys, so you can press e.g. enter and backspace with your thumb. (Not using one-handed combinations is the general advice on any typing course -- A and M should use the shift keys on the right and left hand, respectively, as should ^A and ^M.)

I have learned to minimize pinky use on QWERTY, but you're right about thumb keys: I could really use control, shift, and alt modifiers right below the space bar. And you're right about typing courses, but.. I never took one, and I think that's true of most people. Perhaps more education would suffice to avoid most typist RSI.

Re: How bad is QWERTY, really? A review of the literature, such as it is

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are an awful lot of people who develop RSI from keyboard use, nearly all of which is preventable. Better training would help a lot, but better designed equipment would also make a big difference. Changing the QWERTY association between keys and letters shouldn’t be the highest priority, but the advantage it has is that it can be done in software, without change to physical devices. Reshaping the keyboard to bet…

> There are an awful lot of people who develop RSI from keyboard use, nearly all of which is preventable. I'm not saying there aren't. What I'm saying is it's not directly because of the keyboard layout. You go on to say this yourself in the very same post as your point above: > Changing the QWERTY association between keys and letters shouldn’t be the highest priority, People talk too much about keyboard layout with…

> we'd hear a lot more cases of RSI

I think you dramatically underestimate how many people suffer from RSI and how much it affects their lives. In the US alone, we are talking about millions of people. In some surveys >50% of keyboard workers have complained about wrist pain from typing.

There was some planned OSHA office worker ergonomics enforcement in the late 1990s, carefully studied for a decade before being finally put into place in 2001 just as Clinton was leaving office, but it got killed by GOP congress and the Bush II administration. If not for that we would hear more about this problem, and there would be a lot more options for ergonomic keyboards today. Instead, this became a problem that employers blamed on their workers and left workers to figure out for themselves.

> position of keyboard in 3D space relative to the operator, position of hands on keyboard, typing style, health of the operator, operator's workflow, etc.

Yes of course. And things were to some extent better when almost all of the people using keyboards were trained professional secretaries.

From walking around large offices full of computer programmers, I would speculate that at least 3/4 of current office workers have inappropriately positioned and oriented keyboards; maybe even 90% or more.

The biggest problem (among many) with modern equipment/practice is that people type with unstraight wrists, slouch or lean over in their chairs, and stick their elbows out forward or way out to the side.

The keyboard should be held close to the torso and angled so that its top is parallel to the forearms (what this angle should be depends on relative height of torso and table or keyboard tray). Typists should keep their wrists as straight as possible (not flexed or extended; pronation is unfortunately unavoidable on a standard keyboard), and should have their palms and wrists “floating” above the keyboard while actively typing. The primary goal should be to avoid any nontrivial static load on any muscles throughout the body, and try to keep joint positions neutral.

Splitting the keyboard in half, separating the two halves by at least a few inches, and independently positioning and orienting each half can make a huge improvement.

> [If] QWERTY is as bad as HN commenters make out [...]

There are very few HN commenters who care at all about QWERTY, and even most of those are relatively ambivalent. It’s a design poorly matched to modern hardware, and changing it can make a nontrivial improvement, but it’s also not the main problem.

Re: How bad is QWERTY, really? A review of the literature, such as it is

#134
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if anyone has studied the effects of different weights of switches. Personally I've always liked the lighter ones. The heavier ones felt uncomfortable and tiring. But I see people in the mechanical keyboard community praise the heavier switches, so I've always assumed that my hands are just weak. The worst ones I used were ones that I got because the MK community doesn't consider browns to be able to be in t…

Well I like heavier switches because they allow me to fully rest my (rather large and strong) fingers on the keys. I'm actually typing this on 78g Zealio V2s, my favorite switch. I definitely don't bottom out the keys with a ton of force, and maybe like half the time don't bottom them out at all. By comparison, I bottom out on the iPad Magic Keyboard every time and with much more force, I would guess because there is…

I've had problems with the weight of my fingers actuating the switches when I tried some light linear switches. But for me the Cherry MX Browns have just enough resistance from the bump to avoid that issue without being tiring to my fingers.

Re: How bad is QWERTY, really? A review of the literature, such as it is

#135
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder if anyone has studied the effects of different weights of switches. Personally I've always liked the lighter ones. The heavier ones felt uncomfortable and tiring. But I see people in the mechanical keyboard community praise the heavier switches, so I've always assumed that my hands are just weak I don't know about studies, but I prefer membrane keyboards for this reason: far less strength is required.

Since changing to a mechanical keyboard, I've realized the opposite. A traditional membrane keyboard seems like much more effort. (I measured it at some point, by balancing coins on a key until the key activated, but I don't have enough coins to hand to repeat this.) Laptop-style keys can be lighter -- I think too light -- but there are mechanical keys with similar weighting. Next time you're in an electronics shop,…

I love my mechanical keyboards, but membrane boards might still feel better to some even if they do require more force than some mechanical switch options. One specific benefit I can think of is that membrane boards naturally cushion your bottoming out and don't feel as mushy as O-rings or silenced switches can be.

Re: How bad is QWERTY, really? A review of the literature, such as it is

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds wild and frankly I don't believe you.

There was some research that showed people who typed with fewer fingers could be just as fast. However, I am surprised that anyone could achieve 100wpm with no training.

I think the difference is these people need to be constantly looking at the keyboard, as they depend on the letters printed over the keys.

But yes, they can be fast in short bursts.

Re: How bad is QWERTY, really? A review of the literature, such as it is

#137
post #124

Personal anecdote, but I know a few people who got RSI/CTS and had a chance to watch them type --- and what they all had in common was how "stiff" their typing posture was, and the strength at which they hit the keys. They weren't fast either, probably in the 50-70wpm range. One of them, before he got RSI, even commented on how bad my posture was and how it'd "make it easier to injure myself". I find that relaxing, a…

I'm just gonna say that as someone typing 120+wpm for years now, I hate to see high actuation force vilified like this. It's my preference and I quite enjoy the higher force needed. Fewer accidental presses, and you can even lightly drum on your keys without them activating, which is fun and relaxing. I went from cherry mx blues to cherry mx greens to kailh box navies and I love them to pieces. I find that the people…

The observation comes from my personal experience that actuation force seems to be almost directly proportional to typing speed and how long it takes to get tired. Maybe those with heavier fingers and/or stronger muscles would prefer a heavier keyfeel.

My fastest typing has been done on a ~40g rubber dome that actuates quite close to the top, and then has a very springy "cushion" past that (contrary to a lot of "common wisdom", they don't have to go all the way down to actuate --- that's what the "tit" on the bottom of the dome is for, and the longer and softer it is, the more cushion you get). Definitely not linear, but the bump is very subtle.

As for my speed: I can sustain around 150-160 for long periods, with brief (~10 second) bursts over 200.

Re: How bad is QWERTY, really? A review of the literature, such as it is

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are an awful lot of people who develop RSI from keyboard use, nearly all of which is preventable. I'm not saying there aren't. What I'm saying is it's not directly because of the keyboard layout. You go on to say this yourself in the very same post as your point above: > Changing the QWERTY association between keys and letters shouldn’t be the highest priority, People talk too much about keyboard layout with…

> we'd hear a lot more cases of RSI I think you dramatically underestimate how many people suffer from RSI and how much it affects their lives. In the US alone, we are talking about millions of people. In some surveys >50% of keyboard workers have complained about wrist pain from typing. There was some planned OSHA office worker ergonomics enforcement in the late 1990s, carefully studied for a decade before being fin…

> I think you dramatically underestimate how many people suffer from RSI and how much it affects their lives.

I'm not saying it isn't high; I said it would be higher. The distinction here is vital, as I'll go on to explain...

> According to one survey, nearly 60 percent of computer office workers nationwide suffer from wrist pain while at the computer, and 51.2 percent say their keyboards are placed too high.

(source: https://consumer.healthday.com/encyclopedia/pain-management-...)

So more than 5/6 people who have keyboard related pains believe it is due to the placement of the keyboard.

Of those remaining ~15% of users, how many of them are getting pains due to other circumstances (keyboard type, other positions in 3D space, or even just their own posture)? How many of them might still have their keyboard too high and don't even realize it (those excluding them from the first category where they should have belonged)?

Hence why I said the number of complaints would be much higher if QWERTY itself was a major contributor to RSI because QWERTY is near universal whereas the other factors are not yet the other factors still vastly dominate the statistics.

As for the rest of your comment, you're literally just reiterating everything that I've already said to you in my past comments.

To summarize (because I think you're fixating on the detail and thus missing the overview for it): for all the talk about how "bad" QWERTY is, other environmental factors have a much more significant impact on the health of the typists.

Re: How bad is QWERTY, really? A review of the literature, such as it is

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly recommend you look into keyboards that have "Enter" and "Backspace" reachable by thumb/index fingers. I've been dailying a TECK for nearly a decade, and it's helped immensely with RSI. Their new Clevo keyboard is a bit different, so can't vouch for it, but my SO likes it so far as first foray into ergo keyboards: https://trulyergonomic.com/

Plover[1] and stenography has come up occasionally on HN, but I haven't seen anyone say they've given it a serious try. I keep feeling like it would be good for emails and documentation, if not code. More text for fewer keypresses. [1] http://www.openstenoproject.org/plover/

I would really want to try that, but it seems extremely tied to the language. for English that's cool, but I write code, greeklish (Greek with English characters) and English daily. That means that for these three I would need to configure things and that seems like waaaaay to high of an up front investment for a trial.

Re: How bad is QWERTY, really? A review of the literature, such as it is

#140
post #83

> One week or so ago I switched from Colemak to typing on QWYRFM due to the reduced load it places on the pinkies. I typed Dvorak for 10 years before I started getting RSI again in my right ulna. It turns out that the 'S' key being hit by the pinky in Dvorak caused me a lot of pain. I ended up switching to BEAKL, a pretty obscure layout which is specifically made to alleviate stress on the pinky. It moves the relativ…

I used BEAKL as well for a few months but in combination with a 5-column split keyboard (so you don't press enter, shift etc with your pinky) there was too little for my pinky to do (which caused other fingers to do more than needed). Of others have similar issues I would recommend you to look at a split keyboard first (but switching layout is great too).

That's interesting, I do type on split ortholinear keyboards (e.g. corne variant) so maybe I'll run into that soon. My right hand pinky is pretty bad with flare-ups so it would be a welcome break for me
Post reply on HN