QWERTY vs Dvorak vs Colemak: Which Keyboard Layout Should You Use?

Every few years, someone discovers Dvorak or Colemak and spends months switching — only to return to QWERTY or find their speed gains modest at best. This guide gives an honest look at what the evidence actually shows about alternative keyboard layouts, who benefits from switching, and what to consider before you commit to a months-long relearning process.

A Brief History of QWERTY

QWERTY was designed in the 1870s by Christopher Sholes for the Remington mechanical typewriter. The popular myth is that it was designed to slow typists down to prevent key jamming — this is largely false. QWERTY was actually refined through iteration with telegraph operators and early typists to reduce common two-key jams, which did require separating frequently paired letters.

What is true is that QWERTY was never optimised for speed or comfort — those were not the design constraints of the era. It became the default through commercial lock-in when the Remington became the dominant typewriter, and that default has persisted for 150 years.

The Dvorak Simplified Keyboard

August Dvorak patented his layout in 1936 with a clear ergonomic rationale: place the most common English letters on the home row, alternate hands between keystrokes as much as possible, and place less common letters on the bottom row (the hardest to reach).

Dvorak Layout Principles

• Home row (left to right): A, O, E, U, I, D, H, T, N, S — covers the five most common vowels on the left, most common consonants on the right
• Approximately 70% of common English words can be typed entirely on the home row
• Encourages hand alternation, which many typists find rhythmic and comfortable
• Reduces same-hand sequences (one of the main sources of errors and strain)

Dvorak Advantages

• Less finger travel distance for common English text (estimated 30–50% reduction)
• More balanced workload between hands
• Many users report reduced wrist fatigue after full adaptation

Dvorak Disadvantages

• Keyboard shortcuts (Ctrl+C, Ctrl+Z, etc.) are no longer in ergonomic positions
• Requires 3–6 months to reach previous QWERTY speed during transition
• Problematic when using shared computers or remote access
• Speed gains over QWERTY are real but often smaller than expected

Colemak: The Modern Alternative

Colemak was designed in 2006 by Shai Coleman with a different philosophy: optimise for efficiency while keeping as many QWERTY positions as possible to minimise transition cost. Only 17 keys change position from QWERTY. The Z, X, C, and V keys stay put — preserving the Ctrl+Z/X/C/V shortcut positions.

Colemak Advantages

• Home row contains the eight most common letters in English: A, R, S, T on the left; N, E, I, O on the right
• Designed to minimise same-finger bigrams (two consecutive keystrokes with the same finger) — a major source of errors
• Common keyboard shortcuts preserved in original positions
• Shorter transition period than Dvorak for QWERTY users (typically 2–4 months)
• Preferred by many competitive typists who have made the switch

Colemak Disadvantages

• Still a significant transition investment with speed regression during learning
• The Backspace key moves to where Caps Lock normally is — unusual adjustment
• Less widely supported than Dvorak in older operating systems

Side-by-Side Comparison

What Does the Evidence Say About Speed?

This is where the reality check matters. Studies comparing QWERTY to Dvorak speed have produced mixed and often inconclusive results. The most-cited pro-Dvorak research comes from studies conducted by August Dvorak himself — a significant conflict of interest. Independent studies have generally found:

• Experienced Dvorak users are often not significantly faster than equally experienced QWERTY users
• Many Dvorak switchers report comfort and fatigue improvements even without speed gains
• The fastest typists in competitions use a variety of layouts — there is no dominant pattern
• Colemak users in competitive typing communities do tend to report higher top speeds, but selection bias is significant

The honest summary: alternative layouts likely do reduce finger travel and same-hand strain. Whether this translates to speed depends heavily on the individual. The speed advantage, if present, is typically 5–15% — not the dramatic doubling that enthusiasts sometimes claim.

Who Should Consider Switching?

Switching layouts makes most sense if:

• You are experiencing RSI symptoms and your physiotherapist suggests reduced finger travel
• You are a new or low-speed typist who has not yet built deep QWERTY muscle memory
• You work exclusively on your own computer and rarely use shared machines
• You have a genuine long-term interest in optimising for the next decade of typing, not the next six months

Switching does not make sense if:

• You are already above 80 WPM on QWERTY — your time is better spent pushing QWERTY speed further
• You regularly use shared computers, remote desktops, or paired programming
• You need keyboard shortcuts to work intuitively (particularly relevant for developers and designers)
• You are in a period of heavy workload — the 3–6 month regression will hurt productivity

Related Articles

• Mechanical vs Membrane Keyboards for Typing
• Typing Ergonomics: How to Prevent Wrist Pain and RSI
• How to Improve Your Typing Speed: A Complete Guide