Why is the "proper" hand placement asymmetrical?

[hidden-username]

I recently became really interested in typing efficiency.  I have gone through many layouts and finally settled on a custom one I like to call dvoramak.  But the one thing I can't seem to understand is why the "proper" left hand placement isn't shifted over one column to the right; it eliminates that awkward "proper" z-x-c press and those over stretches for y and b (i have small hands).  Also, from a purely physical standpoint, ignoring key values, it is perfectly symmetrical and provides a more natural offset for the left hand.  Does anyone know the original reason for the chosen layout?  And can anyone think of any reasons not to switch before I put in the practice?  I use vim with hhkb so the stretch for ctrl is the only thing I don't like. Esc is remapped to jj.
Thanks Mikey

[ideus]

Do you have a picture of drawing of the [size=0px]dvoramak [/size]you are referring to?

[hidden-username]

After a lot of tweaking I have settled on this layout.  I shift my left-hand placement one column to the right so my left pinky rest on the 'a' key.  I am using hhkb pro2, so the image doesn't reflect the actual keyboard.

[RominRonin]

> Why is the "proper" hand placement asymmetrical?

I don't know, but it is a pet HATE of mine. While I can understand all the mass-manufacturers sticking with legacy design patterns, that people in the geek/custom communities still produce reverse column tilt layouts just annoys me. http://combimouse.com


The layout which I'm aiming for in my custom split design is symmetrical, though the key layout isn't yet final. http://www.keyboard-layout-editor.com/#/gists/d7229b93fe6f96f8fd99

[stevep]

The layout which I'm aiming for in my custom split design is symmetrical, though the key layout isn't yet final. http://www.keyboard-layout-editor.com/#/gists/d7229b93fe6f96f8fd99

If the two halves are separate, what's the point of having the additional stagger?

[vvp]

The layout which I'm aiming for in my custom split design is symmetrical, though the key layout isn't yet final. http://www.keyboard-layout-editor.com/#/gists/d7229b93fe6f96f8fd99

If the two halves are separate, what's the point of having the additional stagger?

Yup.
Stevep, get rid of the row stagger. You do not need it if the halves are separated. Getting rid of row stagger allows you to add column stagger. And column stagger is really useful, especially for pinkie keys.

[jacobolus]

But the one thing I can't seem to understand is why the "proper" left hand placement isn't shifted over one column to the right;

The “proper” typing technique was developed in the 19th century for the earliest QWERTY typewriters, long before IBM and others started cramming extra keys on the right side (1960s–70s).

Here was the original QWERTY layout from the 1870s:


Here’s the original touch typing book from 1889:


And here’s one from 1893:

And can anyone think of any reasons not to switch before I put in the practice?

If you need to type on standard keyboards, the “standard” technique is reasonable enough. If you can build your own keyboard, then go for a column-based stagger, and place the keys directly where they make sense for the fingers.

I’m pretty happy with this layout (I mean the key positions; rearrange the letters if you want) if you want something to take the same amount of physical space as the HHKB:


Or if you have some more space, you could try something like the keyboard.io:

[HP_Jornada]

This oddity of QWERTY keyboards is the reason I have this unorthodox typing habit:  my bottom row is shifted for my left hand.  I type:
   Z with my ring finger
   X with my middle finger
   C with my index finger (along with V and B).
It's a habit I acquired while using a tiny 70% size HP Jornada keyboard (the namesake of my Geekhack ID).  I suspect that many broad-shouldered individuals lean the same way.  I know this guy does:
http://www.onehandkeyboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Z_with_ring.png
http://www.onehandkeyboard.org/standard-qwerty-finger-placement/

Not sure if my comment is entirely on-topic, but I agree that conventional stagger is awkward for the left hand (and becomes more awkward the larger the typist is).

[steve.v]

I cured my awkward hand/finger slant by going ortholinear; you should too!

[batfink]

This oddity of QWERTY keyboards is the reason I have this unorthodox typing habit:  my bottom row is shifted for my left hand.  I type:
   Z with my ring finger
   X with my middle finger
   C with my index finger (along with V and B).
I suspect that many broad-shouldered individuals lean the same way. 

I think it's quite common, I do that too.

So does this guy:  http://kennetchaz.github.io/symmetric-typing/

[jacobolus]

On a standard keyboard I assign fingers to keys roughly like:

[jacobolus]

I cured my awkward hand/finger slant by going ortholinear; you should too!

In my opinion, unless you split the two sides, separate them a bit, and angle them, this is just as bad for your wrists as the standard keyboard layout, without the advantage of being standard. My opinion is that the only possible benefit of such keyboards is some aesthetic preference.

[Zustiur]

I cured my awkward hand/finger slant by going ortholinear; you should too!

In my opinion, unless you split the two sides, separate them a bit, and angle them, this is just as bad for your wrists as the standard keyboard layout, without the advantage of being standard. My opinion is that the only possible benefit of such keyboards is some aesthetic preference.

Yes and no. I agree that it's as bad for your wrists, but that's because ortholinear is focused on reducing finger strain.

As for possible benefit, like most things in the ergonomic space it depends on your usage. If you have say a 60% sized ortholinear which you lived up with your left shoulder while you're right hand spend 90%+ of the time on a mouse, then yes it's better than row staggered.

That's the trouble with most ergonomic devices. They only fix one problem then put the ergo label on. The standard keyboard has many ergo problems.

[jacobolus]

It’s not any better for your fingers. Some keys are marginally closer to the “home” position; other keys are marginally further away. Overall it’s a wash. The shape is still completely unrelated to the shape of human hands. There might be some advantage to the symmetry if you were learning to type for the first time, but in that case, you’d be much better served by a better design. Overall, it’s a change which has aesthetic appeal to a certain group of people, but no real functional advantage. And the downside is that it’s different from the standard, so it takes a considerable amount of time and effort to learn, for not much benefit.

YMMV though.

[davkol]

As far as I'm aware, plenty of people struggle with outer number-row keys (US QWERTY 1, 2, 9, 0, -, =). I sure still do on staggered keyboards, but don't have a problem on TypeMatrix or similarly configured point-of-sale keypads.

[jacobolus]

As far as I'm aware, plenty of people struggle with outer number-row keys (US QWERTY 1, 2, 9, 0, -, =). I sure still do on staggered keyboards, but don't have a problem on TypeMatrix or similarly configured point-of-sale keypads.

Putting the numbers two rows above the home position sucks in general. Personally I don’t have any problem with 2, 9, or 0, but the `, 1,  6, 7, =, and backspace keys are all in terrible places.

On a Typematrix, the `, 5, 6, -, +, esc, and all the F keys are all still pretty bad.

(One additional problem: the Typematrix really suffers by having all uniform flat keycaps. The number row on a standard-layout keyboard with sculpted keycaps is actually much easier to reach than the number row on an all-flat Typematrix. But then, most people nowadays type on chiclet-cap scissor-switch boards, so...)

Getting rid of the top row or scaling it back to 3–4 keys per hand, and putting the number keys on a layer near the home row makes a dramatic improvement, regardless of the physical keyboard layout.

The typematrix left shift is great. Too bad it’s not symmetrical on the right. Typematrix enter is also great, and the additional separation between hands is nice, though even more separation would be better. Typematrix ctrl and fn keys are all just as bad as a standard keyboard, if not worse. The typematrix is severely hampered by the need to keep all the keys in a strict grid, and to stay somewhat close to the standard keyboard layout. With the same amount of physical space, someone making a custom flat one-piece keyboard can do dramatically better by aligning keys better with the hands and dropping all the awkward key positions, putting those actions on layers.

[davkol]

As far as I'm aware, plenty of people struggle with outer number-row keys (US QWERTY 1, 2, 9, 0, -, =). I sure still do on staggered keyboards, but don't have a problem on TypeMatrix or similarly configured point-of-sale keypads.

Putting the numbers two rows above the home position sucks in general. Personally I don’t have any problem with 2, 9, or 0, but the `, 1,  6, 7, =, and backspace keys are all in terrible places.

That misses the point entirely. There are languages other than English, often with a (significantly) larger alphabet. Then, those hardware keys are used for either accented letters, or punctuation.

Personally, I prefer to use an AltGraph-acessed layer, but it's hard to get right, and the thumbs' work is essentially doubled in some cases (e.g., Slovak or Czech).

(One additional problem: the Typematrix really suffers by having all uniform flat keycaps. The number row on a standard-layout keyboard with sculpted keycaps is actually much easier to reach than the number row on an all-flat Typematrix. But then, most people nowadays type on chiclet-cap scissor-switch boards, so...)

The form factor makes TypeMatrix (at least 2030) an excellent portable keyboard. Regardless, TM's specifics are irrelevant to the main point.

[jacobolus]

Regardless, TM's specifics are irrelevant to the main point.

The main point is that a standard keyboard is just about equally bad if you just shift the columns into a stricter grid. A couple keys become marginally easier to reach. A couple keys become marginally harder to reach. Depending on the logical letter layout this can make typing overall marginally more or less comfortable, but it’s only a small difference. If you additionally separate the hands a bit, move around some of the more common keys, etc., you can make some improvement. The Typematrix definitely has certain features which are better than the “standard” 1870s typewriter + various 1960s–1980s additions IBM/QWERTY layout. But you’d get a much bigger improvement by arranging the keys based on the shape of human hands.

This is equally true regardless of language. The foreign-language letter arrangements are for the most part just as stupid as the standard English versions, because their primary design criterion is to be trivial for people to learn (using only 2–3 layers with everything printed on the key tops) and compatible with existing (poorly designed) keyboard hardware, rather than remaking everything from first principles to be comfortable/effective for experts to type on.

Or to be more explicit, this ...

... or this ...

... compared to this ...

... are only marginally different from a human comfort/strain/efficiency perspective; namely, both styles are pretty uncomfortable, and the main reason to prefer something like the latter over something like the former is aesthetic preference.

[davkol]

It's bad from a biomechanical pov.

The difficulty of finding keys/symbols in the first place is an entirely different story.

The foreign-language letter arrangements are for the most part just as stupid as the standard English versions, because their primary design criterion is to be trivial for people to learn

Not even that.