Alternate layouts to qwerty

[DALExSNAIL]

So, my wpm is below 30 when looking at the board. And maybe 15 when not.

I'm slowly learning JavaScript to compliment my graphic design degree, and eventually other languages, and I now realize this may be an issue lol

Anyway, since I'm essentially a Clean slate, was wondering if some people could gives me some pros and cons of learning colemak, dvorak, etc. As opposed to regular old QWERTY.

Cheers, and hope this hasn't been posted a million times!

[UsualSuspectXXX]

I'd suggest that you become proficient with QWERTY first because that's they layout that you are going to see everywhere and if your typing is that slow you should improve in that area before trying to pick up some fancy layout that could improve your typing speed. After you can type at a decent speed without looking at the board, then sure, try out another layout. It all comes down to being able to build the muscle memory quickly and I think you should first build that muscle memory with the most common layout.

[DALExSNAIL]

Well the main reason I asked is because I'm going to have two personal keyboards at home and work, and from what I hear you essentially have to re teach yourself from square one with the other layouts.

The big thing to me was the less strain on my hands, rather than speed, without getting an ergodox or something similar.

[davkol]

See the ergonomics subforum.

Basically, I recommend learning to touch type on either Dvorak Simplified Keyboard, or Colemak (personal preference). The point is, that these layouts put the most used keys on the home row and in other advantageous positions, thus are easier to learn—you don't waste time practicing "fjfjfjjfj', which can be quite frustrating, but immediately start to type meaningful, rewarding words.

[iLLucionist]

I can touch type on QWERTY and thought of switching / trying out myself dvorak and colemak. And it felt horrible. Why? Because I do a lot of terminal work and coding and for that specific symbols ({ } [ ] / ~ < > ,) were in odd places. Actually, that is the conclusion of some people as well: if you want to type natural language, dvorak is much better. If you need those symbols constantly, QWERTY is best optimized for this. But of course, YMMV.

[davkol]

If you need those symbols constantly, QWERTY is best optimized for this. But of course, YMMV.

QWERTY is anything but optimized for this. It's the other way around; programming languages and shells were designed for common terminal keyboards at the time.

For example, K&R stated in some interview, that they picked the brackets for usage in C only after the position of respective symbols settled on the keyboards they were using.

It's also the reason, why ~ is used for home, vi direction bindings are the ridiculous hjkl, and ZXCV stands for back-cut-copy-paste.

[iLLucionist]

If you need those symbols constantly, QWERTY is best optimized for this. But of course, YMMV.

QWERTY is anything but optimized for this. It's the other way around; programming languages and shells were designed for common terminal keyboards at the time.

For example, K&R stated in some interview, that they picked the brackets for usage in C only after the position of respective symbols settled on the keyboards they were using.

It's also the reason, why ~ is used for home, vi direction bindings are the ridiculous hjkl, and ZXCV stands for back-cut-copy-paste.

I've read that Colemak is easier to pick up because it more closely aligns to QWERTY, but apparently I've confused easy transition with the best place for symbols. I get your point about terminal keyboards, but I'm not sure about your c-reference? And what is ridiculous about hjkl?

[davkol]

I've read that Colemak is easier to pick up because it more closely aligns to QWERTY, but apparently I've confused easy transition with the best place for symbols.

Colemak only rearranges letters and semicolon compared to US QWERTY, thus punctuation remains in the same awful spots.

The layout can be greatly improved by putting those symbols on a layer around the home row, in arrangement not particularly different from, for example, Programmer Dvorak.

I get your point about terminal keyboards, but I'm not sure about your c-reference?

If you look at various terminal keyboards from the era before 1980s, the arrangements are mostly random. Some bit-paired, some not; they're tied to the interfaces of proprietary systems, they were shipped with (pretty much like nowadays, but without any standardization).

To be specific, compare the VT100 keyboard used with PDP-11 (related to the C language and Unix) to earlier-used Datapoint (3300/2200) keyboards (associated with the B language).

And what is ridiculous about hjkl?

It's just some weird, probably mnemonic thing from the ADM-3A terminal.

It isn't in the home resting position, and using all four fingers (that obviously don't move independently) to move around a bit more is just straining (middle+little finger is especially bad).

[iLLucionist]

I've read that Colemak is easier to pick up because it more closely aligns to QWERTY, but apparently I've confused easy transition with the best place for symbols.

Colemak only rearranges letters and semicolon compared to US QWERTY, thus punctuation remains in the same awful spots.

The layout can be greatly improved by putting those symbols on a layer around the home row, in arrangement not particularly different from, for example, Programmer Dvorak.

I get your point about terminal keyboards, but I'm not sure about your c-reference?

If you look at various terminal keyboards from the era before 1980s, the arrangements are mostly random. Some bit-paired, some not; they're tied to the interfaces of proprietary systems, they were shipped with (pretty much like nowadays, but without any standardization).

To be specific, compare the VT100 keyboard used with PDP-11 (related to the C language and Unix) to earlier-used Datapoint (3300/2200) keyboards (associated with the B language).

And what is ridiculous about hjkl?

It's just some weird, probably mnemonic thing from the ADM-3A terminal.

It isn't in the home resting position, and using all four fingers (that obviously don't move independently) to move around a bit more is just straining (middle+little finger is especially bad).

Thanks! This is really informative. I must say that I rather like hjkl, at least compared to arrow keys. But you are right, I guess that jkl; or df + jk would make more sense for arrow navigation on the home row in vim in QWERTY.

What would you suggest is the best layout for symbols / programming? I tried dvorak but I didn't like it much myself.

[jacobolus]

If you need those symbols constantly, QWERTY is best optimized for this. But of course, YMMV.

Nonsense. The standard layout is horribly optimized for typing symbols.

Everyone who needs to regularly type a mixture of symbols and letters (e.g. all programmers) should add symbols on a layer near the home row, and stop using the number row for anything, period.

Symbols on standard ANSI/QWERTY which are obnoxious flow killers in the middle of typing include ~`!^&=+]}\| but frankly all the others on the number row are also quite bad.

Also bad: 1 6 7 backspace return right-shift control escape every-other-F-row-key arrows

Here’s a picture. The purple keys are badly positioned relative to the typing technique which has been the accepted standard since the 1890s, and the red keys are just sadistic design:

[jacobolus]

using all four fingers (that obviously don't move independently) to move around a bit more is just straining (middle+little finger is especially bad).

By this logic the standard inverted T layout is also terrible.

If you want to type arrows all on one hand on a standard-physical-layout keyboard, the best arrangement is probably something like:


Better would be to use the thumb and index finger of each hand, one hand for up/down, the other for left/right.

[iLLucionist]

If you need those symbols constantly, QWERTY is best optimized for this. But of course, YMMV.

Nonsense. The standard layout is horribly optimized for typing symbols.

Everyone who needs to regularly type a mixture of symbols and letters (e.g. all programmers) should add symbols on a layer near the home row, and stop using the number row for anything, period.

Symbols on standard ANSI/QWERTY which are obnoxious flow killers in the middle of typing include ~`!^&=+]}\| but frankly all the others on the number row are also quite bad.

Also bad: 1 6 7 backspace return right-shift control escape every-other-F-row-key arrows

Here’s a picture. The purple keys are badly positioned relative to the typing technique which has been the accepted standard since the 1890s, and the red keys are just sadistic design:

Show Image

Yeah I understand now. But another question, do you think that the right most keys([ ] ; ' , . /) ARE in the right place or also too far away? You could map them in the row above home row of course.

[bocahgundul]

If you need those symbols constantly, QWERTY is best optimized for this. But of course, YMMV.

Nonsense. The standard layout is horribly optimized for typing symbols.

Everyone who needs to regularly type a mixture of symbols and letters (e.g. all programmers) should add symbols on a layer near the home row, and stop using the number row for anything, period.

Symbols on standard ANSI/QWERTY which are obnoxious flow killers in the middle of typing include ~`!^&=+]}\| but frankly all the others on the number row are also quite bad.

Also bad: 1 6 7 backspace return right-shift control escape every-other-F-row-key arrows

Here’s a picture. The purple keys are badly positioned relative to the typing technique which has been the accepted standard since the 1890s, and the red keys are just sadistic design:

Show Image

So E-dox is better?

[davkol]

using all four fingers (that obviously don't move independently) to move around a bit more is just straining (middle+little finger is especially bad).

By this logic the standard inverted T layout is also terrible.

Not quite.

The most problematic combinations (same-finger row jump or 2D-4D) are opposite directions, arguably rarely used outside gaming. Middle finger covers both of its keys easily, considering its relative length; hand orientation wrt the other two directions remains dependent on 2D:4D ratio.

If you want to type arrows all on one hand on a standard-physical-layout keyboard, the best arrangement is probably something like:

Show Image

Now, that's just impractical, considering the inconsistent placement of spacebar-row keys on different keyboards.

[jacobolus]

The most problematic combinations (same-finger row jump or 2D-4D) are opposite directions, arguably rarely used outside gaming. Middle finger covers both of its keys easily, considering its relative length; hand orientation wrt the other two directions remains dependent on 2D:4D ratio.

Middle finger and ring finger have considerable overlap in both flexor and extensor tendons/muscles. Actually, the pinky is more independent from either of them than they are from each-other for most people. Having 3 of the four directions handled by these two fingers is a trainwreck of a design, from a human factors perspective, and is horrible for speed if you for whatever reason need to alternate pressing different arrows in quick succession, unless one of the directions is left. The only way to make it too much worse would be to use the same ring finger for all four arrows, or maybe spread the arrows out e.g. on the QWERTY N6L\ keys.

What do you mean by 2D-4D or 2D:4D ratio?

Now, that's just impractical, considering the inconsistent placement of spacebar-row keys on different keyboards.

Obviously would depend on the specific keyboard for placement. Better would be to use a non-standard keyboard that has more thumb keys and puts the "home" finger keys directly under the fingers when the hand is relaxed.

In general though, I think using fingers 1/2 (i.e. index/thumb) for down/up, and 3/4 (or 3/5) for left/right (with the keys spaced out enough so that the hand can stay relaxed) is a pretty effective design, assuming you want to use one hand for all the arrows. Much more comfortable than the standard inverted T, the linear VIM-style, or the diamond/ijkm type arrangements.

[davkol]

Digit ratio. On a related note, little fingers also have the downside of being relatively short.

[jacobolus]

Digit ratio.

?

Digit ratio is a good reason to build a custom-layout keyboard where there are keys directly under the fingers in the resting “home” position and all the keys on the keyboard are in easy reach. It is not a good reason to use the middle and ring fingers on one hand for 3 of the 4 arrows.

Digit ratio does not make alternating with the index and ring fingers “problematic”.

[iLLucionist]

Digit ratio.

?

Digit ratio is a good reason to build a custom-layout keyboard where there are keys directly under the fingers in the resting “home” position and all the keys on the keyboard are in easy reach. It is not a good reason to use the middle and ring fingers on one hand for 3 of the 4 arrows.

Digit ratio does not make alternating with the index and ring fingers “problematic”.

Interesting. I should try it once but I don't have a programmable board

[davkol]

Digit ratio.

?

Digit ratio is a good reason to build a custom-layout keyboard where there are keys directly under the fingers in the resting “home” position and all the keys on the keyboard are in easy reach. It is not a good reason to use the middle and ring fingers on one hand for 3 of the 4 arrows.

Digit ratio does not make alternating with the index and ring fingers “problematic”.

I fail to see, where you're getting this interpretation...

[jacobolus]

The most problematic combinations (same-finger row jump or 2D-4D) are opposite directions [...] hand orientation wrt the other two directions remains dependent on 2D:4D ratio.

My interpretation here is: “2D–4D” (i.e. index finger/ring finger) is a more problematic combination than index/middle or middle/ring. I’m not sure why that would be, so I assumed it also had something to do with the “digit ratio” of your other comment. I guess I’m misinterpreting? Sorry.

I think you’re eliding some of the details in your comments, and as a result I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say, so I’m filling in bad guesses. When I try to ask for elaboration, the answers are equally terse and somewhat cryptic. I still don’t really understand what you were getting at about the inverted T layout.

[davkol]

What if one has their index fingers significantly shorter than ring fingers?

I always try to imagine such scenarios—ever since I saw the Diverge keyboard, that has column stagger designed for people with significantly longer index fingers.

edit: ah, seebarting

[jacobolus]

I don’t think this (e.g.) would be especially worse for someone with short index finger, compared to the inverted T:


But even on a non-standard column-staggered keyboard where the index and ring finger columns are aligned evenly – along the lines of

– I don’t there’ll be a serious problem even for someone with an index finger 90% the length of their ring finger (that is, with a logical layout where the down/up/left/right arrows are on thumb/index/middle/ring fingers on a layer). Overall hand size, thumb shape and range of motion, etc. are going to be more dramatic differences than digit ratio.