Great to see. I only use the Dvorak layout. The only thing that might feel different is the "F" and "J" keys in the Qwerty board. They typically have dots or lines on them. They would be moved to the "C" and "Y" spots.

Reply

what's so FAST on Dvorak's layout? I would never get used to this layout

Reply

I'm silly I thought it was something John C. Dvorak made up before I looked it up on wikipedia.

Reply

A really good overview here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvorak_keyboard

Background, how to, why it's faster, etc. Personally, I've never gotten the hang of it, but I've never given it a really serious try.

Reply

Man, I can never get the hang of Dvorak keyboards. But it sounds like a very fun hack!

Reply

It's not supposedly faster, it's just plain faster. QWERTY was made slow so the hammers on typewriters wouldn't jam. It's supposed to slow you down.

Someday I'll learn DVORAK! Someday...

Reply

I use the Dvorak layout on all the computers that I use regularly (at home and work) and to me the greatest benefit is not speed, but the comfort of typing in a better arranged layout. http://www.dvzine.org/ is a great resource for learning more about Dvorak vs Qwerty (aka Sholes).

Personally, I think changing the physical keys on a keyboard is kinda silly. It's good for learning the layout, but once you know the layout, you should be able to touch-type Dvorak without looking at the keyboard. And you can also think of a Qwerty printed layout with Dvorak underneath as a security mechanisem of sorts.

Reply

unless there's something missing from tuaw's synopsis, this won't work at all. the 'o' button will still be read as an 's' by the computer.

it would require considerable reworking/soldering to truly implement a dvorak style.

right now, sjwalsh384 is still typing in the standard layout, the keys just don't match.

Reply

(and what about " keyboard tapping" in GarageBand?)

Reply

Although many people believe that QWERTY is intended to slow down typists, this isn't entirely accurate (at least from what I surmise from the reading I've done).

Although QWERTY was made to accommodate the hammers in typewriters but it did this by alternating where the strikes were coming from - not necessarily to slow down the typist. One of the goals of Dvorak was to reduce the fatigue of typing and research was done to do this effectively. However, fatigue is much less of an issue today than it was with manual typewriters. I can type for hours without an issue... so I'm not sure it's as necessary today as it was. This is especially true for programmers who are not typing characters in the same patterns that typical English typist would (since Dvorak is language specific).

Unfortunately, it would be difficult to prove that one layout is necessarily faster than the other... so this debate will always be one of anecdotes. Fortunately, all modern OSes allow for easily changing the keyboard layout, and I think it's cool that someone can do it physically as well (although it's too bad that the nibs on the F and J keys will be wrong... I still like the old Apple standard of D and K anyway).

Reply

I'm not sure I would change my keyboard layout (especially on a MBP), but this is the first time I've heard of this and am going to try the layout for a while. If it improves my typing, all the better. :)

Reply

I have done this to my Apple Pro keyboard for my iMac.

(No tools required).

My hands feel much better since I switched to a Dvorak layout. Apple has the DQ (Dvorak-Qwerty) layout, which is Dvorak unless you press a modifier key. This keeps the standard keyboard shortcuts where they used to by (so Cmd-C is in the same place).

That's nice, if you don't switch keys or have a Dvorak-labelled board.

But for some reason, my mind gets really confused when the keys do something other than what they say, even though I mostly touch type. So popped of the keys and put them in their Dvorak positions. It works fine an an Apple Pro (unlike many other keyboards, which don't have orthogonal keys).

I've actually done a bit of number crunching regarding Dvorak vs. Qwerty. Assuming my metric made sense, your fingers most definitely move around the board less with Dvorak compared to Qwerty. It's not a slam dunk that that makes it faster, but it seems highly likely that it does. There is one "debunking" of the "Dvorak is better than Qwerty" idea, but I find it very unconvincing, and also think the authors have an agenda which is giving them too much bias to be trusted.

(I used have this stuff online, but I don't right now. I'll have to put it back up).

Reply

aaron-
sorry, you learn something every day.

Reply

:) don't we all...(scott). well it is an interesting concept (dvorak), one that i have honestly never even heard of before. might be worth a look. although i think gamers would be screwed :p, 'awsd' is forever moot haha. cya guys, happy new years!

Reply

Maybe it should be noted (because it never is) that this is mostly an english centric option? I write regularly in Swedish (my mother tounge - although I found "Svorak" to solve that problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svorak), English and Japanese and I can imagine that a Dvorak-setup would make things more difficult and actually slow me down rather than the opposite.

Reply

Good-looking MacBook. It's a great feeling seeing a Mac with a proper keyboard. I use only Dvorak, and even though I never look at the keyboard, it's good to see the layout in all its glory.

Holy crap! There are people here defending QWERTY! Unbelievable. No no no. If you haven't learned Dvorak, and are even the slightest bit interested, do it now. It was a revelation when I found it a decade ago. Took me less than an hour to learn to touch-type with it, and I have never looked back.

Here is the best article I have ever seen on the issue. Free online:

http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-97/features/thecurseofqwerty1099/

"The Curse of Qwerty" by Jared Diamond. Discover Magazine, April 1997.

Reply

I did this to my Apple Pro Keyboard awhile back, in fact, I'm typing this with it right now!

Reply

> It's not supposedly faster, it's just plain faster. QWERTY was made slow so the hammers on typewriters wouldn't jam. It's supposed to slow you down.

Actually, no, it's not that clear cut. QWERTY was designed to cross mingle the key hammers so they wouldn't jam, not to slow them (or the typist) down. Subtle distinction, but one which is perpetuated almost as much as the "Bill Gates said 640K ought to be enough for anyone" myth.

The typist wasn't actually a consideration, as most people at that time typed with hunt-and-peck two fingered typing.

Although the superiority of more efficient key layouts makes intuitive sense, there is no hard evidence supporting anything more than a modest improvement in efficiency. Careful reading of the Wikipedia article linked to above illustrates this debate and this study sums up the controversy:
http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html

Key quotes:

"...the evidence in the standard history of Qwerty versus Dvorak is flawed and incomplete. First, the claims for the superiority of the Dvorak keyboard are suspect. The most dramatic claims are traceable to Dvorak himself, and the best-documented experiments, as well as recent ergonomic studies, suggest little or no advantage for the Dvorak keyboard."

"studies in the ergonomics literature find no significant advantage for Dvorak that can be deemed scientifically reliable. "

"the competition among producers of typewriters, out of which the standard emerged, was far more vigorous than is commonly reported"

"by ignoring the vitality and variety of the rivals to the Remington machine with its Qwerty keyboard, the received history implies that Sholes's and McGurrin's choices, made largely as matters of immediate expediency, established the standard without ever being tested. More careful reading of historical accounts and checks of original sources reveal a different picture: there were touch-typists other than McGurrin: there were competing claims of speed records: and Remington was not so well established that a keyboard offering significant advantages could not have gained a foothold"

Reply

I didn't dare mess with my macbook pro, but my iBook G3 has been like this for years. Caused some consternation at the apple store when I took it in for the motherboard replacement issue.

/dvorak only since 2001

Reply

scott: Are you insane? Why on earth would you change the electrical components? All you do is tell OS X you want to use the Dvorak layout. Windows and MacOS and Linux and everything around has supported this for years. It's no different than telling it to treat a pc104 keyboard as some other localized type.

Reply