元:Dvorak vs. QWERTY
I think Dvorak's idea of making typing more efficient by employing the more dextrous fingers of the hand is a valid notion. However, it is an industrialist notion with an underlying assumption that faster is better: take the two fingers on each hand that are most able (statistically drawn from what kind of people?), and employ them to do 90% of the activity of typing.
From my perspective after studying yoga, martial arts & Feldenkrais (and using that training to whenever possible reduce the tension that leads to RSI), I think that Qwerty is more functional as a device for the mobility of the hands, which is to say, distributing the alternating sequences of stabilizing and mobilizing (kinetic activity) across all the fingers equally.
The fingers are a mechanical system just like the original typewriter. Which is to say, distributing the workload across the original mechanical keyboard was better for the underlying mechanical system - it would follow that the hands themselves are subject to exactly the same stresses as the mechanical keys and levers, and hence, would derive similar benefits from having been more widely and completely employed at the expense of being able to move the fastest.
I have observed that the fingers of classically trainined pianists show deterity and individuation of movement down past the knuckle following the phalange to the wrist. In most 'normal' people, the area between the knuckles and the wrist would largely be semi-fused into an immobile mass. This is similar to the notion that the sacral vertebrae are 'fused' in their natural state. I guess it depends on the cadavers that were dissected.