dvorak vs. qwerty

Economics Economics Questions
1

I think this must have been discussed a lot around here - whether Dvorak is really better than qwerty. As a Dvorak user who learned it by himself, i can certify from my own experience that the system DOES work very well. In fact, I type blind, since I use the dvorak layout on a normal laptop and can’t be bothered to put stickers on my keys. I have no idea where the keys are, but my fingers know where they are. I can type with closed eyes, and i ever feel when I make a mistake. (the last two sentences were typed not looking at the screen). Absurdly, it is even easier for me to type with my eyes closed, because that way I am not distracted by the things i see on the screen. That’s not a joke. I also tried to learn qwerty many years ago, and utterly failed and became frustrated and gave up on ever learning to type really fast.

Based on this experience, and reading about the theory behind Dvorak layout, I am convinced it is better. I also know that it is not at all standard. I know that some people use this as an example for path dependency and how that proves the market fails. Classical economists and Austrian don’t like that, and try to argue that Dvorak is NOT better than qwerty - which, in my personal not-so-humble opinion is an absurd assertion.

Here is my question: why fight the idea of path dependency? I don’t see it in contradiction to praxeology, since the ‘loss’ from using qwerty is minimal. Most people don’t type much for extended periods of time, many people are perfectly fine with using qwerty, and there is little reason for manufacturers to switch their keyboards to dvorak for a reason not often discussed by anglophones, since most of them seem to be incapable of learning a foreign language… Dvorak is a damn pain to use in any language other than English. I can’t type German on it to save my life. The keyboard is so supremel suited for English, it makes it almost completely useless for every other language not using the same sound-letter combinations as English. Which means… it’s only good for English.

Qwerty is modestly lousy for every language, but it is usable for every language with only a few minor adjustments. Adjusting the Simplified Dvorak system to other languages is close to impossible, in my humble opinion. They would have to look completely different.

Producing computers with Dvorak layouts on the keyboard would be idiocy for any computer manufacturer trying to market their products internationally - which is pretty much all of them, as far as I can tell. So, the costs of Dvorak to non-English users are very high, as are the costs for manufactures targetting multi-lingual markets.

BUT - computer technology has made it possible to easily switch at little to no costs to Dvorak, since the layout is included in every operating system today. Those who want to use it, which are a lot of people, can do so easily. The costs for manufacturers is minimal, and therefore the Dvorak system is doing very well. Imagine the costs of having a perfect keyboard for every language, and whenever you go to a foreign country, you have to use a completely different keyboard. Whenever you buy a computer, you have to specify your physical keyboard layout.

Qwerty works, it does the job, it’s functional. I don’t use it, because I have something better. Except when I try to write something in German. Then I wish I would still be used to qwerty, because then i could use the old four-finger hack system, which works fine for almost any language using latin letters.

There is no need to force peopleto use Dvorak. Those who feel they need something better than qwerty can now easily find alternatives for free on their own computer, and learn using the system for free on the internet.

My conclusion is this: path dependency is real. But, if the ‘costs’ associated with the inferior technology are minimal, there is no reason to go against the path until the costs of switching have become lower than the costs of sticking with the original path-dependent technology.

VHS vs. Beta Max? Who uses VHS these days? It was around for less than thirty years before it was almost completely replaced by a technology that is superior to BOTH systems.

I think that if Austrians deny path dependency, they are being silly. The concept is logical, intuitive, and empirically true. However, there is no reason to believe that it shows that the market fails irrevocably in the long run. Who ever argued tha market is perfect all the time? The market stinks much of the time, and there are many, many lousy products on it for at least some time. But, in the long run, it produces excellent results, while the lousy products are forgotten.

Look at the history of biological evolution: close to 99 or so percent of life forms have proven to have been unsuitable for long-term survival. Dinosaurs looked like a really, really good idea for something like two hundred million years until about 66 million years ago. 65 milion years ago - not so any more. Those lousy mammals turned out to be much better suited.

Would it have been better to not have Dinosaurs, and have mammals instead? Who knows - it’s only been about 60 million years since mammals started picking up. Oh, and we still have birds.

The point is… just because something is not perfect does not make it bad. Would anybody seriously argue ‘market failure’ because ENGLISH is the language of internatonal commerce, science, diplomacy, sex, and music? It’s a damn lousy language. Hard to learn, hard to speak, no sensible rules. Native speakers frequently speak and write it worse than second language learners. Spanish would have been so much better. But we should be grateful it ain’t German.

Claiming the market never finds a sub-optimal solution is silly - even Rothbad doesn’t argue that, at least not as far as I know. The market is simply a better way to solve our problems than anything else. See, the markte gave us computers, which made it easy to switch to Dvorak. That people don’t do it more, at least in the English speaking world, well… that’s their choice. People do a lot of silly things - but as long as it makes them happy, and they don’t force me to do the same, who cares?

So, dear Austrians, don’t join the neo-classicals in being obsessed with perfect outcomes, which then forces them to make silly assertions to prove their ponits, but stick focussing on the process, wich will allow you to be sanguine. If the price of mechanical writing (a market achievement) was bought at the price of a keyboard layout that is simply mediocre for all languages (rather than one that’s ideal for just one language, but really lously for most others), seriously… where’s the failure? Where’s the problem?

The ‘the market stinks because dvorak did not win’ are as silly as those who claim that qwerty is better than dvorak for those who use only the English language. The first haven’t thought it through, the latter have never even tried to use Dvorak.

Cheers,

2

The statement that the market reaches sub-optimal results implies something else can reach optimal ones. The statement works if you replace sub-optimal with imperfect, because perfection is infeasible. However, the market in the long-run, and even in the short-run in some cases, is optimal.

I haven’t the technical expertise to assess whether Dvorak is or isn’t a better product. As for languages, they tend to be naturally evolved; they are not consciously designed for the most part (exceptions exist.) I think Latin is great as far as languages go, and that it could be the *lingua franca (*I think developments such as Esperanto are pointless; a reversion to Latin would be better.) That said, I disagree that English is confusing or lousy. These are highly subjective assessments, and besides that I find no difficulties in the English grammar. French is far more ad hoc in this respect, with some seemingly arcane rules (I also think it is what makes it so beautiful, in part.)

3

Sure, I can live with imperfect :slight_smile: I have to, every morning I look into the mirror… Calling what I see sub-optimal… well, probably not good for me self-esteem. So, imperfect from a pure engineering point of view. I can live with that, too.

And yes, the point is that there is hardly a system tha would do better - I don’t see a need to impose the cost of total Dovarkization onto everybody, even though I think it’s better. That would be a real waste, and certainly make up for anyhing that could be gained. IF qwerty were horrid, it would have been long gone, that’s my argument.

Oh, and don’t talk to me about French, it IS even worse, I thought I had made that clear;) Oh, and English GRAMMAR is not that difficult to begin with. I think the language hardly has any (please note that I do not count tenses as grammar in the same way one would count declinations or conjugation. If English is good at something, it’s the expression of temporal relationships. I have yet to find a language that does this better).

But… have you ever been forced to correct univeristy papers written by native English speakers? I have the impression that most of them are first generation city folk shipped in fresh from some deep jungle outpost where the language had over time atrophied to basic expressions and random sounds. But, let’s not get side-tracked on this one.

Regarding naturally evolved languages: isn’t the market naturally evolved, too? Isn’t that why it is so amazing and creative? Maybe its more Lamarckian than Darwinian, but it’s naturally evolved nonetheless. I don’t think the idea of natural vs. non-natural makes any sense. What one COULD argue is willed vs. spontaneous, but does this make sense in the context of things humans do? We use language consciously, we shape it consciously, and if you look at languages, they seem to be perfectly adapted to their parcitulal environments, and they seem to be capable of extremely rapid evolution, too. Just like the market. Except French, of coures. The have a centrally planned language. And it shows:)

4

My point is that languages are ultimately suited for their purpose, much like the market is. The two are in fact comparable in that they are both emergent, spontaneous orders (there are exceptions in the case of languages though.) They are both optimal, but not perfect. The mistake some make in languages is comparable to the idea that undergirds the central planning mentality; that there is some more rational way of designing languages (something Wittgenstein viciously opposed; he went a bit too far though.) I didn’t mean to contradict you BTW, just to elaborate a bit on languages.

5

Yeah, the often used term of “market failure” is absurd when actually think about it. The job of any market is to adequately provide those goods which satisfy the wants and desires of those peoples which they strive to serve. So a “market failure” (long run) in the proper sense would be an extended situation where goods which no one desires are brought to the market. Qwerty wasn’t a market failure because it’s precisely what the population desired.

In fact, it’s rather obvious that what makes any market efficient is the fact that there are market failures (in the short-run sense). If they were no market failures there would no reason to do anything, and thus the market would be at a complete standstill (this is a hypothetical impossibility).

The only examples of “market failures” (long-run) that we observe are not really “market failures” at all, they’re restrictions placed on the market by the state. Such restrictions manipulate the natural desires of the population towards those ends which it deems most “optimal”. The market is not longer catering to the the natural desires of the populace but to the governmentally manipulated desires of the populace. It’s silly.

There are different ways by which we can think of the simple term “optimal”. In one sense, as with qwerty and dvorak, “optimal” may mean that outcome which is most technically efficient, in which case dvorak may or may not be the most efficient (I’ve heard differing opinions; Klein has interesting piece on it where he contends Dvorak isn’t more efficient; but that’s not the point). But in another sense “optimal” may mean that outcome which most efficiently caters to the desires of the peoples in question, regardless of whether those desires are technically “optimal” or not. The free market is that process which does this better thany any other, it’s inherent its own definition.

So for even those who boldly claim that the market never finds the sub-optimal solution, they’re completely justified in saying so. Because the “optimal” which they refer to is not the technically optimal state, but that state which is characterized by the most potentially perfect way that human desires can be satisfied.

6

inquisitor: i didn’t feel contradicted - I just elaborated on your elaboration with about the same lack of complete seriousness:)

Edward: no fundamental disagreement. I am talking about Dvorak from personal experience and my understanding of the theory behind it. The system strikes me as vely logical and convincing - provided it is used only for English. That was my original contribution to this topic, and I think it solves the problem that Margolis and others tried to solve by denying the concept of path-dependency. Kirzner accepts path-dependency in his argument against “infant industry” protectionism: yes, the existing structures may not have been designed as well then as we would design them now, but THEN it was the best we could come up with, and not scrapping it NOW for something that is only marginally better makes no sense. IF the new were wonderfully, overwhelmingly better, then it would assert itself. But, we should use what we have (the current existing stock of qwerty keyboards, the current existing stock of those used to qwerty) rather than force something new onto the market (individual dvorak systems for each language, total retraining of typists, mutually incompatibility of keyboards).

As I tried to explain, Dvorak is only somewhat better than Qwerty - and only for English. That’s the aspect advocates of Dvorak haven’t thought of (until now[H]).

Path dependency does exist, and its an curious little phenomenon that in the final analysis is more interesting to historians than economists.

7

dieltwald: I did mean to convey disagreement with you; like you said, your posts are fundamentally the same was mine. I suppose I was just giving my own perspective on it, it’s an interesting topic to think about.

8

It’s very interesting, which is why I AM thinking about it - and have for some years. I had a problem, conceptually, of combining my conviction that Dvorak is superior to qwerty with my equally firm conviction that there are path dependencies with my equally firm conviction that Austrian economics is basically right. I was unwilling to compromise on any of these, so I had to move up the chain and finally found the solution in the realization that Dvorak is superior in one language only. I want to go on the record that THIS is my probably FIRST ORIGINAL contribution to economic thought (if only on a minor detail, but I think I have found a good answer). After years of university, it’s about time, too.

:slight_smile:

9

There is no such thing as “optimalness.” Optimalness is subjective. If a poor person enjoys public welfare, it is more optimal for him than a free market. The market allocates resources depending on current satisfaction, not future satisfaction. Future satisfaction does not exist, except in one’s mind. Humans do not prefer some low time preference investments like learning dvorak. If the state intervened and converted everyone to dvorak, it may have greater good for the greatest number of people.

Measuring optimalness for a group of individuals is purely utilitarian.

I get knee-jerk reactions when I hear unproven buzzwords such as “optimal”. Can you please define what you mean by “optimal”? (a non-utilitarian definition of “optimal”) Thanks

10

Because it’s incorrect. Path dependency is an attempt to substitute categorical jugements on a marginal system: ie the dvorak system is ‘better’. Consumers decide what is ‘better’ through their individual choices. All path dependency says essentially is that people will use standard X until they have reason enough to switch to standard Y, and standard X is usally the result of specific circumstances. Not exactly a statement of genius, and as has been pointed out just an attempt to judge reality against some supposedly perfect utopia and, based on the inherent imperfection of reality, to ‘prove’ market failure. In the end it’s just someone saying, “I think Y is better than X, and therefore because my judgement is different that what the market has delivered, the market has failed.”

11

Pareto-optimal.

12

xahrx: i agree and disagree with you. i think the engineering idea of path dependency is almost trivial.Look at the British high-way system, that still follows the Roman roads (talk about path dependent), or the many little French villages in the Rhone that were build by decree (read Timeline just for this), or the crazy settlement structure in Russia, thanks to Soviet planning. Those things don’t just disappear. And yes, none of them were build by free enterprise, I know. What I mean is that the concept as such is real. What it implies for economics… THAT’s a different story.

When it is used to make the kind of judgment you talk about, that’s a different story. I think this is an interesting case because ‘better’ depends on your reference system. If you refer to ergonomically superior and easier to learn, then it is difficult to understand why it did not succeed vis-a-vis qwerty. But when you step back a bit and look at the limitations of Dvorak, as I explained below, it becomes easier to understand.

I think that both the critics and supporters of Dvorak have missed the critical aspect of ideal FOR ENGLISH, as opposed to ideal for ALL languages using the latin alphabet. I think the debate, at least as it applies to Dvorak, may be an interesting case in how cultural blindedness has prevented a clearer understanding of a rather curious phenomenon.

In the end, those who say Dvorak is ergonomically better for English are correct. Those who argue against that don’t understand Dvorak. But those who conclude that the ‘failure’ of Dvorak shows there is something wrong with the concept of the free market are wrong, too. And that includes Jared Diamond, who is one hell of a smart cookie.

So, if you take everything into account, the fact we use qwerty as oposed to some other dumb system - saylrcgf, for example - is explainable by path dependency. saylrcgf would be no better or worse than qwerty. That we don’t have Dvorak is because Dvorak is simply too good at English to be really useful for other languages. So in the end, the failure of Dvorak is simply that, not a failure of the market.

Does that make sense?

Oh, and I was NOT talking about Pareto. I was talking strictly about engineering.

13

The market is not optimal, nothing is optimal, simply because economic agents do not know all means available to satisfy their ends. But the market generates strong tendencies to converge to the optimal position. The entreprenerial process is a process of discovery and exploidation of profit oportunities that arise from potential efficient exchanges that are not made. Only in equilibrium state all potential exchanges are made, profits and losses do not exist and the system is optimal, but equilibrium itself cannot be reached.

14

No, we don’t like that, because “the market has not arrived at what I believe is the best option” is not equal to “the market has failed.” You may even be a world class expert in keyboards, and you may have spent hundreds of hours conducting tests, but you are not the ruler of what kind of keyboard I must prefer.

The market provided an overwhelming majority of QWERTY keyboards because people preferred familiarity over speed, and familiarity meant the typewriter in which you learned to type, or what was available when you learned, or one in which the whole family could type without relearning. The free market results are veritable proof of consumer preferences. If you do not like those preferences, it does not mean the market has failed. It even provides for you, who want to have a DVORAK keybard: you can buy a keyboard, or stickers, or keycaps. Hell, if you got the $$$$ you may even convince Dell or Lenovo to preinstall a DVORAK keyboard for you.

Hugo

15

Hugo - those are excellent economic arguments you are making. The sad thing is that many economists have not used that argument, but tried to argue that Dvorak is inferior from an engineering point of view (http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak/dissent.html) - and even some ‘Austrians’ picked up on that line of ‘argument’ (http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_3_4.pdf).

So now I see two new arguments in this debate (yours and mine) which both show that rather demonstrating market failure, the case of Dvorak shows the failure of homo economicus. People do NOT approach life with an engineering mind-set, they do NOT only value what experts would recommend them to value. They like things like familiarity. For most people, the kind of keyboard they use in their lives is absolutely unimportant. Most people type with two or four fingers, and you can do that on any kind of keyboard.

And yes, ironically enough, the Dvorak case shows that the market works, as you pointed out. Dvorak IS still available (my university has installed it on all computers on campus - so it was not just me who suggested it to them, because I’m not that all powerful there), and yes, some computer manufacturers DO install it even on laptops if you want (many programmers use it).

So - Dvorak shows the failure not of the market, but of classical economics. Now isn’t that nice?

Thanks to all of you for debating this, even if you don’t give a damn what keyboard you use.

Good stuff.

Dietwald

16

…and in the long-run the market tends towards equilibrium even if not reaching it, so my statement stands.

Dietwald, do you mean neoclassical perhaps?

17

Yes, of course neoclassical. I’m still new to all this, a greenhorn so to say. I have only just become interested in economics again, discovered systematic Austrian ideas only about 8 months ago. So, I ask for patience with my inability to always keep the lingo right.

Ta.

18

If you believe qwerty keyboards to be significantly sub-optimal, I’d suggest coming up with a different layout and marketing it towards professional typists.* People such as transcriptionists (who typically change per minute of audio transcribed) could profit from quicker typing. However, it may very well be that transcriptionists have already settled on an optimal keyboard layout, or something close enough that change is not worthwhile.

There are significant network externalities which would have to be overcome for a new keyboard layout to be widely accepted. I don’t believe I’ve ever read of Austrian economics denying network externalities.

  • Doing some reading, it seems that almost all OSes nowadays allow one to switch between qwerty and dvorak key layouts. Given the low costs involved in implementing that, I don’t think there are nearly any network externalities at work. To me it seems that while the dvorak layout might be better, its just not a significant enough improvement to justify a lot of people switching.
19

Grant - I have switched to Dvorak, and it was a major benefit. I also know that a lot of people use it, how many - hard to tell. There are systems that are even faster than regular keyboards, court clerks use some kind of machine that is so fast, it makes normal typing look downright dumb. The problem with switching is that it slows you down for abou a month or so, which means that the only way you can switch is during vacations. Which means that the economic incentive of switching is not as great as the economic disincentive.

There is no point in trying to market something that’s available for free - however, there are people who make a living of catering to the Dvorak market with adaptation technology.

The other aspect that those who think the market ‘failed’ here forget is that nobody is marketing the layout. Nobody is promoting layouts of keyboards, there is no competition in this area for the simple reason that one cannot make any reasonable amount of money with keyboard layouts. There is no ‘monopoly’ forcing people to use qwerty. There is simply no awareness of a better system, just as there is no awareness of a lot of things that would make life a bit better if only we knew and cared about them.

I’m sure there are superior steering wheel designs to those found in most cars. Some people pay money to get a racing style steering wheel. But, most people wouldn’t like it in their cars. They all want the same dumb same-diameter wheel, because that’s what they are used to. So what?

The last point you make is crucial: for most people, the difference between Dvorak and Qwerty is too small to really bother them. The only way you could find out whether the other system is better is by reading about it, thinking about it, and then make the effort to learn it and try it - with one month suffering from not being able to type at any reasonable speed. Not worth it, if your time preference is high.

I changed because I was intellectually impressed by the Dvorak system, because I had nothing better to do, and I couldn’t type to begin with, and I found leraning Qwerty too damn hard. I wanted to type faster, but couldn’t learn it, until I heard by accident about Dvorak, and began to investigate it. IT worked for me:)

What I would like to ask those who use Dvorak as an example of market failure is this: ok, you found something that’s not very big, that’s not important to people, something that is of little relevance to the lives of most people - even those, who type a lot. Now, go and find a similar example with something really dramatic. Say… a truly superior technology that is easy to adapt and that would save people not just pennies a day, but dozens of dollars - and that has not been adopted by the market (and was not negatively impacted by government regulations). I don’t think such cases exist.

The Dvorak case is a freak case. It’s weird. It’s an oddity - largely because the keyboard is an odditiy. There is, incidentally, a better piano layout, too. Except nobody liked it for some odd reasons, I could look that one up, but apparently it makes playing piano music really easy, with one disadvantage: the instrument no longer looks like a piano.

So, it can happen for weird things like keyboards or where the control buttons are in Windows (as opposed to mac), or that the FILE button is ALWAYS in the first spot on the left, rather than at the right.

I’m sure some clever people will come up with a better way to arrange computer menus, but… who cares? Not important enough.

20

Thank you for providing you definition. However, Pareto efficiency only depends on the current satisfaction, not future satisfaction. Humans are usually high time preference. If humans changed to a low time preference lifestyle, then it may have greater Paleo efficiency than the usual high time preference. What I am saying is that government intervention may create greater Paleo efficiency in the future by sacrificing our current efficiency. It is impossible to predict the future accurately.

For instance, children have high time preference. If they are not enslaved by their parents, they may not have the optimal efficiency. Of course, I am not advocating compulsory education nor any of these.

As a hard determinist, I could not see any distinction between low vs. high time preference. All humans have infinite time preference “on the fundamental level”.

I switched to Dvorak and could type English faster, but I switched back to QWERTY because of difficulties of typing programming languages, and now I am stuck in QWERTY because I am too lazy to switch back and forth.