The document compares the Qwerty and Dvorak keyboard layouts. It discusses studies that have attempted to determine which layout is more efficient. Some studies found typing speeds were 35-75% faster with Dvorak after training, while others found little difference or modest advantages to Dvorak of 2-6%. Motion studies estimated Dvorak was 2-11% faster. Overall, evidence suggests Dvorak may be somewhat more efficient, but questions remain about the practical significance of differences between the layouts. More research is needed to make a definitive conclusion.

1. Qwerty Layout
Dvorak Layout
Efficiency Comparisons of the Qwerty and the Dvorak Keyboard Layouts
Kenneth Rosen
Columbia University
IEOR 4207
Human Factors
Professor Leon S. Gold
Fall 2001

2. Overview
The Qwerty keyboard, named after the first six characters on the top row of
letters, is the standard keyboard used to type English text. The Dvorak keyboard was
developed by University of Washington professor Dr. August Dvorak to be a more
practical layout for typing English. The Dvorak maintains the rectangular alignment of
keys found on the Qwerty, but reassigns the individual keys across the layout. This paper
goes through various studies in an attempt to determine which design is more efficient for
the user, assuming the user has equal experience using each keyboard. Keyboard
efficiency is measured by typing speed since faster typing allows for increased
performance.
When evaluating the two designs from the perspective of a potential keyboard
operator, the user population is restricted to people who touch-type. These skilled
keyboard operators prepare to type by resting their fingers on the middle row of letter
keys, called the home row. From each finger’s starting position, touch-typists can press
the finger’s home key and can stretch the finger to press the adjacent keys that are above
and below. After some practice, they are able to type accurately without looking down at
the keyboard. In addition, as their skills become refined, touch-typists type by moving
their fingers in many directions simultaneously rather than by moving them in a serial
manner. Eventually, for most key sequences, touch-typists initiate future keystrokes
before they complete the present keystroke. Experienced touch-typists typically average
a typing rate of 55 words per minute (wpm) (West, 1998). Touch-typing has become the
usual and accepted mode of operating a computer keyboard (Noyes, 1998), so it is
appropriate to assess the two designs based on this typing technique.
With the widespread utilization of computers and, consequently, more people
becoming touch-typists, it would be valuable to identify a more productive keyboard
design. Based on a review of the relevant research, it appears that the Dvorak
configuration is more efficient than the Qwerty configuration; however, questions remain
as to what degree the Dvorak is better and whether it is one that has practical
significance. In order to finalize these issues, additional experimentation is required.
Background
The design of the keyboard traces its history to the emergence of the typewriter in
the latter half of the 19th
century. Early versions of the typewriter comprised a wide
variety of keyboards, typically with the letters arranged alphabetically. The alphabetic
sequence of keys were primarily laid out in one of three formats: a circle, one long row,
or in rows forming a rectangle. The circular and single-row layouts proved to be
unwieldy, so the rectangular layout eventually became the norm (Norman, 1990).
At that time typists did not touch-type. Instead, they kept their eyes on the
keyboard and typed with one or both index fingers. If the typist would press a succession
of letters too quickly, the large and ungainly levers manipulated by the keys would
collide, jamming the machine (Norman, 1990). In order to combat this mechanical
problem, inventor Charles Latham Sholes altered the alphabetical order and devised the
Qwerty layout for the typewriter he patented in 1868. He deliberately added distance
between keys often typed in sequence, such as q and u, to prevent their respective
typebars from coming into contact (Noyes, 1998).

3. In 1874, E. Remington & Sons began manufacturing its typewriter based on
Sholes’ prototype, incorporating the Qwerty layout. Remington was able to produce a
high-quality typewriter that contained several important features. As a result, it was the
first typewriter to be a commercial success. Subsequently, due to its pervasiveness, the
Qwerty layout was adopted by other typewriter manufacturers. In the end, the Qwerty
keyboard became the standard that it is to this day (Diamond, 1997).
By the early 20th
century, typists began training to touch-type and new keyboard
layouts tailored to this typing technique were being recommended. In one of the more
extensive attempts to replace the Qwerty layout, Dr. August Dvorak and his colleagues
developed the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard (DSK) in 1932. Dvorak combined studies of
touch-typing and hand physiology with data pertaining to the frequency of letters and
letter sequences to produce his design. He specifically tailored the Dvorak layout for the
touch-typist and claimed it was far superior to the Qwerty (Diamond, 1997).
Dvorak Design Goals & Comparative Data
To make a more ergonomic keyboard, Dvorak pooled a number of major design
goals. For one, he intended to reduce hand and finger reaches off the home row, which
he believed slowed down the typist. He was able to accomplish this by concentrating the
most common English letters onto the home row. As a result, 69% of keyboard strokes
occur on the home row, 24% on the top row and 7% on the bottom row. On the Qwerty
keyboard 32% of keyboard strokes occur on the home row, 51% on the top row and 17%
on the bottom row (Shieh and Lin, 1999). According to a 1993 research study by Ober
these differences translate into 37% less finger travel on the Dvorak keyboard than on the
Qwerty (Ober (1993) as cited in West, 1998).
Another aim of Dvorak was to maximize the alternating of hands while typing
consecutive letters. From his research he recognized that as one hand is typing the first
letter, the other hand is free to get into position to type the next one. Dvorak believed a
quick typing rhythm ensues when these overlapping motions successively recur. To
sustain hand alternations, he placed all the vowels (and y) on the left side of the layout
and the 13 most common consonants on the right side (Diamond, 1997). Consequently,
the Dvorak forces the typist to alternate hands 70% of the time, whereas with the Qwerty
this happens 53% of the time (Shieh and Lin, 1999).
In the event that the same hand would be used for successive keystrokes, Dvorak
sought to avoid consecutive use of the same finger (Diamond, 1997). The desire to
alternate fingers parallels the desire to alternate hands. It was thought that consecutive
use of the same finger would disrupt the typing rhythm that is fostered by alternating
fingers. Dvorak’s layout allows for successive use of the same finger 5% of the time,
compared to 9% for the Qwerty (Shieh and Lin, 1999).
Decreasing the successive use of the same finger on his keyboard also meant that
Dvorak had to distribute the keystrokes more evenly among the fingers. At the same
time, Dvorak preferred to utilize a stronger finger over a weaker finger, so he weighted
the typing load on each finger based on finger strength (Diamond, 1997). On his layout,
in line with the rank order of finger strength, the index fingers receive 31% of typing
strokes between them, the middle fingers receive 27%, the ring fingers receive 25% and
the pinkies receive 17%. For the Qwerty the load distribution is 40%, 31%, 20% and 9%,
respectively, lending more of a skew towards the stronger fingers (Shieh and Lin, 1999).

4. Among touch-typists, Dvorak presumed that his keyboard would ensure less
training time and quicker typing speeds than could be achieved with the Qwerty
keyboard. Specifically, he hypothesized that users, who had the same training time on
both keyboards, would attain Dvorak speeds that were on average 35% faster than their
Qwerty speeds (Noyes, 1998). Given Dvorak’s claims and the ergonomics behind his
design strategy, it is necessary to consider the studies that directly compare the Dvorak
and Qwerty to ascertain if one layout truly is more effective.
Subject-Based Studies
In 1944, the Navy conducted a study to examine replacing their Qwerty
typewriters with Dvorak typewriters. First, 14 Qwerty typists, with below average typing
speeds of 32 wpm, were retrained on Dvorak typewriters for 52 hours in order to catch up
to their Qwerty speeds. Then after completing an additional 83 hours on the Dvorak
layout, the typing speeds for this group had increased to an average 56 wpm, a 75%
improvement. In the second part of the experiment another group of 18 typists
supplemented their Qwerty skills with more training on the Qwerty keyboard. These
typists were listed as having initial typing speeds averaging 29 wpm. After 158 hours of
training, they had increased their speeds to an average 37 wpm, a mere 28%
improvement. These results suggested that the Dvorak is at least 52% faster than the
Qwerty, compelling the Navy to judge the Dvorak keyboard to be substantially more
efficient (Liebowitz and Margolis, 1990). In response to the study the Navy ordered
thousands of Dvorak typewriters; but, in the end, the Treasury Department refused to
authorize the purchase (Diamond, 1997).
In a comprehensive critique of the study, Liebowitz and Margolis reveal that the
typing speeds of the two groups were treated differently, causing the Qwerty results to be
greatly deflated. For the Dvorak group, the initial typing speed was taken from the
second training period’s first test score and the final typing speed was taken from the
period’s last test score. For the Qwerty group, the study states that because the group
contained three novice typists, who initially typed at a rate of 0 wpm, the initial and final
speeds of the group were not obtained in the same manner as they were with the Dvorak
group. Instead, the initial and final speeds of the Qwerty group were calculated as the
average of the first four typing tests and the average of the last four typing tests. This
adjustment had the effect of raising the group’s intial typing speeds and lowering its final
speeds, thereby considerably decreasing the actual gains for the Qwerty typists.
Liebowitz and Margolis rightly point out that such poor methodology serves to invalidate
the findings of the study (Liebowitz and Margolis, 1990).
Adding to the lack of credibility of the Navy study, Liebowitz and Margolis point
to evidence that this experiment was overseen by August Dvorak, who they discovered to
be the Navy’s top expert in the analysis of time and motion studies at that time. The
conflict of interest inherent in Dvorak’s involvement went beyond simple pride in his
design. As the owner of the patent on his keyboard, Dvorak had a huge potential for
profit. If the results of the study demonstrated that it would be worthwhile to replace the
standard keyboard with his keyboard, then a Navy purchase order would probably have
been the beginning of many royalties for Dvorak. Undoubtedly, Dvorak’s involvement
only enhances the study’s bias (Liebowitz and Margolis, 1990).

5. In another attempt to examine the costs and benefits of switching to Dvorak, the
General Services Administration commissioned a 1956 study carried out by Earle Strong,
a Pennsylvania State University professor. Highlighting the distinction between Strong’s
methodology and the Navy’s methodology, Liebowitz and Margolis emphasize that
Strong kept his study carefully controlled. In the first phase of the experiment 10
experienced government touch-typists spent over 100 hours training on the Dvorak to
catch up to their Qwerty speeds. Then the newly trained Dvorak typists continued
training and a new group of 10 Qwerty touch-typists, with proficiency comparable to the
Dvorak typists, began a parallel program to improve their skills. In this second phase the
Dvorak typists showed less improvement with their additional Dvorak training than the
Qwerty typists continuing on the Qwerty keyboards. As a result, Strong concluded that
converting to Dvorak would never be able to repay its training costs. In stark contrast to
the Navy study, Strong did not find the Dvorak to be more productive. For greater
productivity, he recommended that typists should receive further training on the Qwerty
keyboard (Liebowitz and Margolis, 1990).
Nonetheless, there is speculation concerning Strong’s conclusions. Supposedly,
there was a history of animosity between Dvorak and Strong, which could have
influenced Strong to discriminate against the Dvorak keyboard. Also, Strong is accused
of withholding his data from other researchers who wanted to verify his results (Yamada
as cited in Liebowitz and Margolis, 1990). Despite the doubts raised by these issues, the
information provided by Strong’s study found enough acceptance at that period to
convince businesses and agencies not to switch to the Dvorak (Liebowitz and Margolis,
1990).
A novel approach towards evaluating the two keyboards was implemented by
Baruch College professor Dr. Leonard J.West. West’s study employed eight touch-
typists with speeds ranging from 45-81 wpm. The subjects were given the 30 most
common two-letter digraphs to type on the Qwerty keyboard and a corresponding set of
their Dvorak-keyboard equivalents to type on the same keyboard as if it were a Dvorak
keyboard. For example, the h and e keys on the Dvorak layout are located at the j and d
positions on the Qwerty keyboard. So typing jd on the Qwerty keyboard corresponds to
typing he on the Dvorak keyboard. Two trials were run with the Qwerty digraphs and
two with the Dvorak digraphs. Each trial stepped through the list of 30 digraphs where,
for each digraph, the subjects were given 10 seconds to repetitively type the digraph as
many times as they could. The results showed that the subjects’ Dvorak keystrokes were
on average 4% faster than their Qwerty keystrokes. Accordingly, West attributed a
modest advantage to the Dvorak over the Qwerty (West, 1998).
There are a couple of procedural flaws associated with West’s approach. First,
West relies on uncommon key combinations on the Qwerty to predict the typing rates of
common key combinations on the Dvorak. He measures the typing rate of what would be
familiar keystroke sequences to a Dvorak typist based on how quickly a Qwerty typist
paces through these sequences. Yet, these sequences are relatively unfamiliar to the
Qwerty typist, so it is unlikely the Qwerty typist would reach the Dvorak typist’s
expected speed. Using the example given above, a Qwerty typist is unlikely to type the
unusual jd combination as quickly as a Dvorak typist types the familiar he combination.
In essence, the Dvorak data are handicapped. Subsequently, it could be argued that the
4% advantage that West attributes to Dvorak is undervalued.

6. A separate shortcoming exists because West models real-life typing with
repeatedly typing a digraph for 10 seconds. West computed the correlation coefficient
giving the relationship between the subjects’ digraph typing rates and their regular typing
rates to be r = .70 . Thus, with a proportion of variance r2
= .49, about half the factors
governing regular typing also apply to digraph typing (West, 1998). If digraph speed is
to be considered a direct measure of real-life typing speed, then a higher correlation
would be expected. Still, a positive relationship exists to the extent that West’s findings
should not be discounted altogether.
Motion Studies
Liebowitz and Margolis mention the results from two studies based on the
analysis of hand and finger motions. One case calculated the Dvorak to be 6.2% faster
and the other case calculated a 2.3% advantage (Liebowitz and Margolis, 1990). Norman
devised a computer simulation of the hand and finger movements of one high-speed
typist, which produced an estimate of a 5.4% advantage for the Dvorak keyboard
(Norman and Fisher as cited in West, 1998). Ober reports on an 11% speed differential
in favor of Dvorak that was found by another investigator (Ober (1992) as cited in West,
1998). These motion studies are limited because they depend on several rough estimates
and they may neglect important characteristics of actual typing (West, 1998).
Furthermore, similar to the criticism noted by West’s study, there is the possibility that
Qwerty typing habits were erroneously used to simulate non-analogous Dvorak typing
habits. Even so, the motion study results can serve as indicators of the relative
efficiencies of the two keyboards.
Conclusion and Recommendations
According to West, “the rationale underlying the layout of [the Dvorak keyboard]
makes its superiority highly likely” (West, 1998). Indeed, much of the scientifically
acceptable research suggests that the Dvorak outperforms the Qwerty by a margin of 5%
to 10%. Incidentally, it can be assumed that within this range the Dvorak design is the
more efficient of the two keyboards.
West explains that Dvorak’s prediction of 35% superiority might be too
extravagant because he did not fully account for the complexity of practiced touch-
typing. In particular, West asserts that coinciding finger movements that stem from
touch-typing on the Qwerty mitigate the perceived benefits of reduced total finger travel
on the Dvorak. As long as the same finger is not required for successive keystrokes, the
next fingers in the keystroke sequence can cover the distance to the upcoming keys
before the current key is hit. In other words, finger travel cannot be viewed as
sequentially additive when gauging a layout for an experienced keyboard operator.
Therefore, reduced total finger travel on the Dvorak does not necessarily lead to faster
keystrokes by the touch-typist (West, 1998).
Regardless, faced with a history of studies confounded by various defects and
results of uncertain reliability, it would be informative to conduct an experiment
comparing the keyboards starting with two groups of novice typists. While controlling
against any relevant characteristic differences, the experimenter should randomly select
an adequate sample size of non-touch-typists and evenly split them into a Qwerty group
and a Dvorak group. Then each group should be provided with equivalent training on its

7. respective keyboard. After all the participants have surpassed a specified minimum level
of touch-typing proficiency, the respective group typing rates should be measured. Next,
in order to check for the influence of disparities between the groups, the groups should
exchange keyboards and the process should be repeated. Ideally, analysis of the results
would satisfactorily establish the degree of efficiency differentiating the Dvorak and
Qwerty keyboards.

8. References
Diamond, J. (1997, April). The Curse of Qwerty. Discover Magazine. [Online] Available:
http://208.245.156.153/archive/output.cfm?ID=1092 [2001, November 13]
Liebowitz, S. J. and Margolis, S. E. (1990, April). The Fable of the Keys. Journal of Law &
Economics, 33. [Online] Available: http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html
[2001, November 14]
Norman, D. A. (1990). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell.
Noyes, J. (1998, June). QWERTY – the immortal keyboard. Computing & Control
Engineering Journal, 9, 117-122.
Shieh, K. and Lin, C. (1999). A Quantitative Model for Designing Keyboard Layout.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 113-125.
West, L. J. (1998). The Standard and Dvorak Keyboards Revisited: Direct Measures of
Speed. Santa Fe Institute, Working Paper 98-05-041E.