Vaniver comments on Spend Money on Ergonomics - Less Wrong

43 Post author: Kevin 23 December 2011 06:40AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (208)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vaniver 23 December 2011 04:52:38PM 1 point [-]

Edited to add: Also, it requires less motion for standard English, not random strings, I presume - so if I spend a lot of time typing shell commands or other things that were chosen to be easy to type by people sitting at a QWERTY keyboard, would we expect to see the opposite effect?

Carpalx, which I linked to in another comment, is keyboard optimization software (as well as several recommended layouts that it outputs). You can train it on whatever corpus you want- and so if you run a keylogger for a week or so, you'll be able to get a keyboard layout that's optimized for the things you type.

Comment author: dlthomas 23 December 2011 04:58:28PM 4 points [-]

Right, but that's even more awkward in terms of portability.

Comment author: shokwave 23 December 2011 06:46:57PM 5 points [-]

Do note that portability is basically a non-issue. If you expect to spend one-twentieth of your typing time on other computers (an insanely high estimate even for a backwards company's "IT guy") and we pessimistically assume that learning a new layout will magically reduce your old layout skills to hunt-and-peck[1], the gain in speed only has to be something like 5 wpm before it drowns out the lost speed on old layouts.

[1]: This is not supported by my experiences; two of my close friends have remapped to Dvorak and their QWERTY skills only mildly deteriorated. None of the concerns you have raised have been a problem for them; although one thing that did happen is it became impossible for any of us QWERTY users to type on their computers (something they quite enjoy).

Comment author: [deleted] 23 December 2011 08:57:04PM 5 points [-]

we pessimistically assume that learning a new layout will magically reduce your old layout skills to hunt-and-peck

That basically happened to me. I've switched away from QWERTY in 2006 and really only ever use it if I fix something on my mother's computer. Previously I was typing at 80-90wpm, now I don't even know where the keys are anymore. I could maybe get back to 30wpm with a week of practice, but most of my QWERTY skill is gone.

Comment author: dlthomas 23 December 2011 06:57:01PM 2 points [-]

I don't spend 1/20th of my typing time on computers I don't control, no. But I do think the time I spend on other computers is more likely to be particularly time critical, and I don't expect to get any real speed gain from the transition as my work is generally more thought or compute bound than typing-bound (data entry might be sped up significantly, but I don't spend 1/1000th of my time at the computer doing data entry).

[O]ne thing that did happen is it became impossible for any of us QWERTY users to type on their computers (something they quite enjoy).

They aren't married, are they? My wife complains enough about my running ratpoison...

Comment author: shokwave 24 December 2011 02:59:18AM 0 points [-]

my work is generally more thought or compute bound than typing-bound

Sure, and learning a different layout would make it even more thought- / compute-bound.

Comment author: dlthomas 24 December 2011 03:23:48AM 0 points [-]

It doesn't work like that. Typing does not take conscious thought - it is overlapped with my thinking. Speeding up my typing even tenfold would not significantly speed up my output.

Comment author: shokwave 24 December 2011 03:35:14AM *  1 point [-]

If your typing speed increased tenfold, you would go from "generally thought/compute bound" to "always thought/compute bound".

Comment author: dlthomas 24 December 2011 05:27:26PM 0 points [-]

Except when bound by something unrelated. My point is that the gains are minimal, and putting my optimization effort there is ridiculous from a speed perspective - that's not how you do optimization, if you want to do it well. If there are actually large RSI gains to be had, that's another matter.