geekhack
geekhack Community => Ergonomics => Topic started by: yasuo on Sun, 08 September 2013, 17:06:02
-
Hello all
i ask here
now i use DV IMO they too much used right hand
though sometimes still qwerty
now i want try switch layout again but colemak/maltron or others?
which more both hand and maybe better?
-
Colemak is more balanced than Dvorak, only 6% leaning to the right hand.
Maltron requires specific keyboard, not universal.
If you still use Qwerty, Colemak would be best, since they have 10 keys in common.
-
I've tried dvorak for about a week before deciding to go to Colemak. Easy to learn and honestly feels so much better because the distribution of work on the fingers is even. I have been typing on Colemak for a few months. Made the transition to mechanical keyboards easier.
-
It really depends what you type (programming, texts in English or some other language etc.). For example, Colemak is great for typing in English, okay in case of German, but borderline horrible if you need to type in French or Japanese IMHO.
-
One of the advantages of using the Maltron is because of its unique shape, it is extremely easy to learn a new keyboard layout without having to "unlearn" any previous layout. Even wearing a blindfold it is very easy to know straight away which layout you will be using simply because of the feel.
The Malt layout is designed with English primarily in mind, but given that early this year the Maltron company received an order for 75 keyboards in Turkish, there's always the possibility (which Maltron says on their website) of having your own "bespoke" layout. Obviously this will bump the cost up quite a bit, but I don't think there are too many makers of keyboards who will (or even can) do that.
http://www.maltron.com/component/content/article/214-keyboard-information/465-bespoke-projects
Joe
-
It really depends what you type (programming, texts in English or some other language etc.). For example, Colemak is great for typing in English, okay in case of German, but borderline horrible if you need to type in French or Japanese IMHO.
i type other languange(bahasa) and english
One of the advantages of using the Maltron is because of its unique shape, it is extremely easy to learn a new keyboard layout without having to "unlearn" any previous layout. Even wearing a blindfold it is very easy to know straight away which layout you will be using simply because of the feel.
The Malt layout is designed with English primarily in mind, but given that early this year the Maltron company received an order for 75 keyboards in Turkish, there's always the possibility (which Maltron says on their website) of having your own "bespoke" layout. Obviously this will bump the cost up quite a bit, but I don't think there are too many makers of keyboards who will (or even can) do that.
http://www.maltron.com/component/content/article/214-keyboard-information/465-bespoke-projects
Joe
thanks for info :thumb:
-
The Malt(ron) layout can also be used with any other keyboard which features thumb clusters, such as the Kinesis and ErgoDox.
Another interesting factoid about the Malt layout is how much less your fingers have to move from the home row as compared to Qwerty (and Dvorak/Colemak to a less extent). Malt allows for the typing of 7,641 words without moving your fingers from home row, compared to just 195 for Qwerty. Moreover, there are just 133 words for Malt where you will have to move your fingers from home row for every letter as opposed to 4560 for Qwerty.
Keys Used | Number of Words (Malt) | Number of Words (QWERTY) | Longest Word (Malt) | Longest Word (QWERTY) |
Home Row | 7641 | 195 | 19 | 9 |
Home Row plus One | 39842 | 1873 | 20 | 10 |
Home Row plus Two | 90072 | 8768 | 21 | 11 |
Home Row plus Top Row | 109639 | 30418 | 25 | 19 |
All Except Home Row | 133 | 4560 | 8 | 17 |
Reference:
http://www.maltron.com/keyboard-info/the-maltron-letter-layout-advantage
-
I've not used Maltron, but I tried Dvorak, and am switching to Colemak at the moment... for me, it's huge that the ZXCVB keys stay the same, since I use them all the time in shortcuts.
-
I use the Maltron layout on conventional keyboards but it requires some remapping software or a keyboard with programmable firmware. I remap a bottom row modifier key, such as left command on Mac OS or left Alt on Windows. That way, it's not too different from using it on a fancy keyboard.
-
These two videos demonstrate how much difference there is between using the Malt layout and the QWERTY layout of the Maltron keyboard, in terms of hand movements using the upper arm. The QWERTY operator is hovering her hands nearly 100% of the time, whereas the Malt operator's hands are resting on the built in palm rests for almost the same percentage of time.
I did my own version of comparing the number of words which can be typed without moving the hands from the home key rows, but including QWERTY, Dvorak, Colemak and Maltron.
http://proword-keyboardlayoutefficiency.blogspot.com.au/
Based upon an international Scrabble word list of 172,807 words, the following figures were derived. (The actual word lists are shown in the blog.)
QWERTY - 198 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.
DVORAK - 3126 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.
COLEMAK - 5963 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.
MALTRON - 7639 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.
Joe
-
I would say that that's a poor way of comparing the layouts. You're allowing Maltron to have one more homerow key than either Colemak or Dvorak which is the only reason why it appears to be "better" according to your metrics. This is problematic for two reasons:
1. It introduces a hardware dependency for the Maltron layout.
2. It does not consider what the Colemak or Dvorak layout could gain using the same hardware.
For example, if the Colemak layout were used on a Maltron keyboard and Colemak's F key placed where Maltron's E key is, then they'd both have identical homerow keys and thus an identical number of words that can be typed from the homerow.
Furthermore, for Kinesis Advantage users, which have hardware similar to a Maltron keyboard, the left thumb will traditionally be used for backspace. The letter F (the least frequent of keys appearing on Maltron's homerow) only has a 2.228% frequency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency). For people with typing accuracies less than 97.772% that would mean that the backspace is more frequent than the F key.
-
Honestly, just find try it out for a couple of months for each if you are that curious. I tried dvorak and didn't like it too much, and fell in love with Colemak because it evened out the work on each finger and I hardly moved my fingers away from the home keys. Also a plus with learning a new layout is that when you do learn a new layout you end up using all ten fingers correctly. When I used QWERTY, I only used my index, middle, and ring fingers. I never used my pinky. Now I type with correct usage of my pinky. Plus, when you get good at it, you will look boss in front of your friends when you are typing essays and ish.
-
thank all i've try colemak not easy from dvorak to colemak :confused:
but quite fun :p
i want try maltron too :D
i think how if maltron on datahand will very very home row :))
-
"I would say that that's a poor way of comparing the layouts. You're allowing Maltron to have one more homerow key than either Colemak or Dvorak which is the only reason why it appears to be "better" according to your metrics. This is problematic for two reasons:
1. It introduces a hardware dependency for the Maltron layout.
2. It does not consider what the Colemak or Dvorak layout could gain using the same hardware."
I'm not "allowing" anything. It's just better design. It's like complaining that a single speed bicycle doesn't perform as well as a 27 speed bicycle because it has extra gears. That's the intention. The "extra" home key (E) is there simply because unlike QWERTY, where the hands are constantly moving away from the home rows, Malt does not need to have each thumb striking the space bar. With Malt, the hands very seldom move far or frequently enough to warrant this feature, so one of the thumbs would be left with nothing to do. Although I don't use either Dvorak or Colemak, if the thumbs were being under-worked because of the "efficiency" of each layout, then that would seem to be an opportunity missed to improve them. It would seem a simple enough test, just try to use only one thumb for the space bar. If your typing speed does not change, then you have an "extra" home key waiting to be employed.
The "hardware dependency" is immaterial since the Maltron shell design is quite a separate function from the Malt key distribution. The two videos show that the Malt layout is the ONLY variable involved, as the same physical keyboard shape is used in both videos.
It's of no importance what Colemak or Dvorak MIGHT gain. Dvorak and Colemak are what they are, and that's what I measured. I took them as I found them. If you want to change them, then they cease to be Dvorak or Colemak. However, if you feel that this is important, then you should approach Maltron because they offer Dvorak as an alternative key distribution, and I'm sure they could supply your Colemak request adequately. (You would need to buy four keyboards, QWERTY, Dvorak, Colemak and Malt to have a truly unbiased test - or at least two, because they are switchable between different distributions, with the key caps dual engraved.)
Because my method of measurement of the key distribution is completely independent of human factors (eg comfort, strength/length of individual fingers, distance hands have to move over the keyboard, typing speed, pressure to operate keys) it's unbiased and can be applied to any theoretical key distribution straight away, without the necessity of an operator having to familiarise him or herself with the distribution - ie there is no practice effect. The only variable in my method is the initial list of words used. But as long as the same list of words is used for each distribution pattern analysis then it ceases to be a variable and becomes a constant across all distributions tested.
To see how simple and accurate this test is it's not even necessary to have a physical keyboard. Create the word list you wish to use. Just draw on a piece of paper a proposed key distribution. Make a list showing all the keys that are NOT on the home rows. I use the basic word processing function to find and replace each of these letters with a marker of some sort (I use #), then I use a short macro to go through the list and find any word which contains this marker and delete the word. What I am left with is a list of words which contain ONLY letters which are typed without moving the hands from the home rows. Since even a single marker in a word will result in that word being deleted, there will simply be a "go/no-go" test to pass. This could be automated to an even greater degree by combining both steps into the one via a recurring macro, when one could enter all the letters not on home rows and in a single instance, determine the score. Whilst I don't perform this often enough to warrant creating such a macro, I would suggest that it would not be a difficult task to analyse a couple of dozen different theoretical layouts in a day, assuming they were already created ahead of time.
This to me is far simpler, cheaper and quicker than building (or modifying) a keyboard, then practising with it until a pre-determined level of proficiency is reached (say a random wpm speed) which could take weeks and only applies to that one operator.
Joe
-
Thanks much
actually i interested maltron layout but nothing software for it.so i try colemak
May i wii tryl make w/ AHK
i interested also maltron keyboard if quite cheap ;)
-
I just realized, maltron without letter E :eek:
E on maltron IS Rerurn/Enter :rolleyes:
so where E letter? :)
-
I just realized, maltron without letter E :eek:
E on maltron IS Rerurn/Enter :rolleyes:
so where E letter? :)
It's on a thumb button. The layout has eight thumb buttons for each hand, depending on the version.
Personally I think suka's modified version of AdNW is very nice. Most programs or methods for analyzing keyboards don't take typing rhythm into account. AdNW layout apparently has very nice rhythm and good finger and hand balance. It also has good home row key usage and minimal movement, especially when used on a keyboard with layers and thumb keys :)
-
I just realized, maltron without letter E :eek:
E on maltron IS Rerurn/Enter :rolleyes:
so where E letter? :)
Maltron keyboard is usually standard with two different layouts. Unless you specify otherwise, the second option is QWERTY. The left thumb key is the return/enter if you select the QWERTY option. Otherwise it is the letter E.
Joe
-
It's on a thumb button. The layout has eight thumb buttons for each hand, depending on the version.
Personally I think suka's modified version of AdNW is very nice. Most programs or methods for analyzing keyboards don't take typing rhythm into account. AdNW layout apparently has very nice rhythm and good finger and hand balance. It also has good home row key usage and minimal movement, especially when used on a keyboard with layers and thumb keys :)
interested SUKA layout
any picture more details layout
Maltron keyboard is usually standard with two different layouts. Unless you specify otherwise, the second option is QWERTY. The left thumb key is the return/enter if you select the QWERTY option. Otherwise it is the letter E.
Joe
oh thanks now i've know :)
why E on thumb?
-
I just realized, maltron without letter E :eek:
E on maltron IS Rerurn/Enter :rolleyes:
so where E letter? :)
You have to get a Maltron keyboard that has the layout programmed into the keyboard. I am mostly sure that every Maltron board comes with at least two layouts programmed into it, even if the keys are not dual-legend. They have QWERTY and Maltron or Dvorak.
-
I would say that that's a poor way of comparing the layouts. You're allowing Maltron to have one more homerow key than either Colemak or Dvorak which is the only reason why it appears to be "better" according to your metrics. This is problematic for two reasons:
1. It introduces a hardware dependency for the Maltron layout.
2. It does not consider what the Colemak or Dvorak layout could gain using the same hardware.
For example, if the Colemak layout were used on a Maltron keyboard and Colemak's F key placed where Maltron's E key is, then they'd both have identical homerow keys and thus an identical number of words that can be typed from the homerow.
Furthermore, for Kinesis Advantage users, which have hardware similar to a Maltron keyboard, the left thumb will traditionally be used for backspace. The letter F (the least frequent of keys appearing on Maltron's homerow) only has a 2.228% frequency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency). For people with typing accuracies less than 97.772% that would mean that the backspace is more frequent than the F key.
1. True, there is a hardware dependency for Maltron, but it isn't anything proprietary or even closed source, it just requires any design with the audacity to acknowledge that ten digits should rest on ten different keys. Qwerty, Dvorak, and Colemak are all designed for keyboards that do not, and as such, are limited.
2. Qwerty, Dvorak, Colemak, and any other 9-finger-home layout can easily be put on 10-key-home hardware, they just don't get the full benefit of the superior hardware because unless you modify them, they still only type nine characters using the home row.
3. If you modify the layouts, yes, you can come up with comparable metrics to any other layout, but then you're no longer comparing layouts. After all, if you rearrange the Qwerty keys to match Maltron's, you get a "modified Qwerty" layout which performs just as well as Maltron -- because then it is.
4. Agreed, backspace is always a difficult needle to thread, since it is entirely dependent upon the individual user. I personally wouldn't want it on homerow simply because I frequently need to move around in my text to get to the place where I made the mistake, as I tend to notice them a fair bit after I've typed them, so even if I technically needed to use the backspace more frequently than I needed to use my "F" key, my use of the backspace usually takes the form of a break in the flow of my typing anyway. As I said though, others might benefit from having backspace on homerow rather than "F" (or even "E", honestly, based on some of the typing I've seen over the years :P ), since it is so personal.
I just realized, maltron without letter E :eek:
E on maltron IS Rerurn/Enter :rolleyes:
so where E letter? :)
You can take a look at the full Maltron layout here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KB_Maltron_3D_US.svg
oh thanks now i've know :)
why E on thumb?
To allow the most frequently used character to be typed by the strongest digit without moving it from the home row (home row extended by one by the thumb cluster design, anyway).
-
@Proword
You seemed to have missed my point when I refer to a hardware dependency. Yes, the Maltron's two thumb keys are a better design, but what I am saying is that if we are simply comparing layouts, and not hardware, then Malt does not have 10 homerow keys. By this I mean if I place you in front of a traditional keyboard, you can use the Colemak layout on it because it has no hardware dependencies whereas you couldn't use Malt because you don't have a second thumb key in a comfortable position.
I would also argue that your unbiased method of simply using the number of words available using only the homerow keys is a poor representation of the layout's overall usefulness. Although human factors are indeed quite subjective, they heavily influence how worthwhile a layout is. This of course makes it hard to measure accurately though, so I understand why you've chosen to do what you've done, however I would argue that your results do not signify that Malt is better than either than Dvorak or Colemak (though it might be).
The sole reason why Malt has more words than Colemak is that 10th key, as the other 9 keys have the same letters between the two layouts. However, without changing the Colemak layout, if you simply gave Colemak access to the same hardware, it could use the second thumb key as backspace like I suggested (and which is the default on Kinesis) and likely have higher gains than having the "F" key that it is missing in comparison (fewer words still, but higher usefulness).
In any case, I find that doing any sort of analysis that ignores human factors, subjective as they might be, is pointless. Humans are inevitably using the keyboards. If 99% of people found that using two thumbs was extremely difficult and painful, you could still say that it is subjective and thus choose not to consider it while giving Malt a second thumb key and claiming it was better. The human factors are what distinguish the layouts: Dvorak favors hand alternation, Colemak favors rolling motions, Workman favors decreased lateral motion, et cetera. Carpalx (search for it on google) does more extensive studies that involve human factors, you should take a look.
None of this is to say that the Malt layout is bad, but rather that I don't find your metrics at all useful because they allow for a hardware advantage compared to other layouts and they don't consider human factors which should be a primary concern of keyboard layouts.
-
@oneproduct
As I didn't initially see any point in repeating myself, I simply linked to my blog on the topic.
http://proword-keyboardlayoutefficiency.blogspot.com.au/
In it I say:
"I don't for one moment hold that this is the only desideratum for assessing if a key distribution is ergonomic or not, but in my view it's certainly a very good starting point. If a researcher is working on two different key distributions and one has 200 words which can be typed without moving the hands from the home row, and another has 8000, then it would seem to be pretty foolish to consider further developing the keyboard with only 200 words at the expense of the other. However, if both key distributions have the same number of words (ie the same letters on the home rows, but distributed differently within that row) then other factors would take precedence."
You say "then Malt does not have 10 homerow keys." This is in a sense true, because there are 10 home row keys plus 2 thumbs, and for ALL keyboard layouts I analysed, I included both keys for each index finger, since they can be accessed without lifting the hands off the palm rests. However, if I take the physical SHAPE of the Maltron keyboard into account, then I can access these further keys without moving my hands. P, Y, C, B, G, V, M, U, Z, W. On a "flat" keyboard it is not easy to achieve this. But I do not include these keys in my analyses simply because I am looking solely at the distribution of the keys. (On edit: Perhaps we are using different definitions and causing confusion - I've always understood that a "home key" is a key where a digit returns to rest when it is not being used. Thus on all keyboards the space bar is a home key for the thumb(s), but on Maltron E is a home key for one thumb and space bar the home key for the other. The home row is the row of keys where the fingers rest, and would exclude the thumbs.)
Again to quote myself from my blog:
http://mostergonomickeyboard.blogspot.com.au/
"Firstly, for me there are two areas which need to be addressed. One is the "form" or shape of the keyboard, and the other is the layout, or distribution of the keys within that form.
I'll tackle the distribution question, as in some respects it is easier to arrive at a simple answer. For any viable method of assessing the ergonomic value of a layout the following should be viewed as essential criteria:
Objective: It should exclude "personal" factors. Comfort of use, typing speed (which is really a function of expertise and practice, thus a result rather than a cause of ergonomics), strength/ dexterity of fingers (which will vary from person to person), distance fingers travel (a function of the size of the keyboard; using QWERTY on a laptop keyboard will give a different result to using a full sized "ergonomic" keyboard).
Definitive. There should be no ambivalence or looseness in expression to mislead the user. A single word or number is ideal.
Universal: It should be applicable to any keyboard (layout) which can be used for "touch typing". (This will ignore touch screens, stylus operated systems, smart phones, iPads, PDA's etc.)
Accessible: It should be practicable by a moderately skilled user. There should be no necessity to write complicated software, rewire a keyboard, swap key caps. Probably nothing needed more than a basic word processing package
Reproducible: Like any scientific test, it should be capable of being repeated any number of times, with consistent results every time.
Inexpensive: Ideally, it should cost nothing."
So I suppose my next question must be does anybody disagree with these criteria, and if so then what criteria (as opposed to method of testing) should we be aiming at achieving?
I dismiss personal factors simply because that can lead to a situation where I could say I think Maltron is far superior because in my work (as a court reporter) I'm required to transcribe at the speed of speech (150-180 wpm) for 6 or 7 hours a day non-stop, and I could not achieve that using a flat QWERTY keyboard. This is personal to me and should not be used to guide other people. There are several variables: The type of work I'm doing, the amount of practice I've had to achieve that speed (it took me a decade or so to get there) and so forth.
On the suggestion for Carpalx I've not been able to find any primary independently refereed papers on the net. However, on the Maltron website
http://www.maltron.com/keyboard-info/academic-papers
there is a series of papers, going back to 1977, by both Lilian Malt and Stephen Hobday on the testing and development of the Maltron keyboard. (It should be borne in mind that the Maltron is primarily designed to reduce strain and prevent or even cure RSI by applying ergonomic principles. It just happens that this leads to much better performance in keyboarding - in my view at least.)
In your post you say "it could use the second thumb key as backspace". Do you mean space rather than back space (ie deleting the previous character)? In my own experience I very seldom use the backspace key, whereas the space is probably the most common character in typing as every word contains one, and would be an instant qualifier as a primary position character on ANY key distribution.
Joe
-
Your stats work only for English. OP has stated he needs to type in Bahasa (not sure which one though).
-
I don't think alternative layouts like Dvorak or Colemak are worth doing. One is the ergonomic benefits are questionable. The ergonomic issue with computer keyboards I believe is that the hands don't move enough, not that they move too much. Consider pianists who use their hands much more than keyboardists, they can take a lot more abuse. This is because there is a greater range of movement. It's like exercise, you don't want to do too much, but there is as much danger in doing too little.
There are exceptions, such as relying on the pinkies too much (emacs pinkies). Those fingers are fundamentally weak, this is why I do support moving frequently used modifier keys to the thumb or pointer.
-
If you are learning a new physical layout, why not also learn a better character layout? I don't see any real downside besides the time invested in learning it and there are very real benefits. Better rhythm, better speed, less "twisting" movements, less repetetive pressing with same finger, more fluidity, etc.. Even Sholes himself proposed a better layout than QWERTY when his mechanism no longer required it.
I agree that the physical layout is a more important thing to fix, though, and very few designs are really good. Maltron and Kinesis are good, they address hand separation, pronation to some degree and correct finger movement and have thumb clusters. Ergodox allows you to also set your own separation, tenting (pronation), and inward angle due to being a split design. ErgoGP improves this slightly by allowing the thumb to drop more. TECK has some good points and some bad. It allows the fingers to move better by having vertical rows with stagger, it has thumb buttons (though not enough IMHO) and it has some inward angle. It is still very flat, though, and has limited programmability.
Piano keys need a lot more force to move than keyboard keys and a lot less speed. Using the whole hand and arm is normal in that situation, but with a well designed keyboard you don't need to move your hands at all. I still recommend changing positions a few times during a long session, but I don't think the hands need to move more. Not so easy if you want to hit the same keys consistently.
The layouts discussed here are optimised for English (and some for German). Other languages will of course have different letter frequency, different bigraphs and trigraphs and different word frequency. They will need a new analysis to determine layout. Some languages may even have already well thought out layouts and so won't benefit as much from a change as others. QWERTY is just plain bad for English typing, though, especially on a standard layout board. No denying that.
-
How concept to make layout ? :)
I want make layout for my languange
this :)
http://www.sttmedia.com/characterfrequency-indonesian (http://www.sttmedia.com/characterfrequency-indonesian) :)
http://freddy.sutanto.info/perspective/2-relative-frequency-in-bahasa-indonesia (http://freddy.sutanto.info/perspective/2-relative-frequency-in-bahasa-indonesia) :)
For top row,home row,bottom row :)
so can balance 2hand :)
or any english layout most approach my languange :)
-
Personal post which is probably going to get lost in the sea of all this text wall.
On almost any board, because Colemak is the more modern layout and has widely established userbase and because it was invented in the internet era, it will have a larger support base.
Given that I type Dvorak and would personally rather have more people using this layout, given that it isn't a compromise from Qwerty. It took me about a month or so with frequent practice to switch over, but I personally feel that the hand alternation is comfortable and very relaxing. However, based on tastes, there are reasons to have one over the other. As you may know, Dvorak emphasizes alternation, which results in greater accuracy and speed than Colemak, because of it's 'rolling' nature; I cannot find any exceptionally fast Colemak typists, and high 150's in a 30-second sprint is the highest that I can find on search.
Dvorak is not a compromise, and that can be good or bad. If you like the shortcuts and don't want to spend a while relearning habits, go Colemak. If you want greater typing speed, Dvorak is probably a better bet. I personally think that it doesn't make too much sense if you 'optimize' a layout while trying to make it similar to a flawed layout; it's half-optimization at best. I will not speculate much; I believe that Dr. Dvorak took in other considerations when creating his keyboard, and that is why there are faster typists using his format. And Barbara Blackburn.
Either way, I'm needing to sleep for a tournament, so best of luck in finding a suitable format.
-
One of my long term goals was to reprogram one of my Kinesis boards to copy a Maltron layout. I use Colemak currently. I recognize the vast gain in "home row" typing if you are to place the E in a thumb cluster. I'm curious to try the Malt layout on a Kinesis…but there are some issues due to the different number of keys each keyboard has.
I've been meaning to get a Matron for some time now so I can do some of my own comparisons…maybe next year.
I have several evolving Kinesis projects (splitting into 2 halves, mounting on chair arms, replacing rubber F-keys with mechanical switches, add keys to the matrix, integrating a pointing stick, etc.) Not much else to do other than trying the Malt layout :)
-
Personal post which is probably going to get lost in the sea of all this text wall.
On almost any board, because Colemak is the more modern layout and has widely established userbase and because it was invented in the internet era, it will have a larger support base.
Given that I type Dvorak and would personally rather have more people using this layout, given that it isn't a compromise from Qwerty. It took me about a month or so with frequent practice to switch over, but I personally feel that the hand alternation is comfortable and very relaxing. However, based on tastes, there are reasons to have one over the other. As you may know, Dvorak emphasizes alternation, which results in greater accuracy and speed than Colemak, because of it's 'rolling' nature; I cannot find any exceptionally fast Colemak typists, and high 150's in a 30-second sprint is the highest that I can find on search.
Dvorak is not a compromise, and that can be good or bad. If you like the shortcuts and don't want to spend a while relearning habits, go Colemak. If you want greater typing speed, Dvorak is probably a better bet. I personally think that it doesn't make too much sense if you 'optimize' a layout while trying to make it similar to a flawed layout; it's half-optimization at best. I will not speculate much; I believe that Dr. Dvorak took in other considerations when creating his keyboard, and that is why there are faster typists using his format. And Barbara Blackburn.
Either way, I'm needing to sleep for a tournament, so best of luck in finding a suitable format.
Actually what means hand alternation? just dvorak have that? :)
-
Hand alteration means using one hand then the other without having the same hand for two sequential keystrokes. eg on Maltron the common suffix "ation" is typed "a" (L pinky) "t" (R index) "i" (L Middle) "o" (R ring) "n" (L ring) (all on the "home row") or "ment" is "m" (R index Upper row) "e" (L thumb) "n" (L ring home row) "t" (R index home row).
Joe
-
Actually what means hand alternation? just dvorak have that? :)
Seeing that Proword didn't fully answer your question, Dvorak is based around it. It alternates much more than any other layout, which makes it fast and accurate. Colemak instead attempts to have as short of a travel as possible (rolling) which are more comfortable, but considered to not be particularly conducive to speed.
-
Dvorak ...alternates much more than any other layout, which makes it fast and accurate. Colemak instead attempts to have as short of a travel as possible (rolling) which are more comfortable, but considered to not be particularly conducive to speed.
Your evidence for this please?
-
Dvorak ...alternates much more than any other layout, which makes it fast and accurate. Colemak instead attempts to have as short of a travel as possible (rolling) which are more comfortable, but considered to not be particularly conducive to speed.
Your evidence for this please?
Please, if you doubt this, I seriously doubt your ability to have a conversation with anyone without making them cite what time it is during the day. It's common knowledge.
-
"The assertion that something is "common knowledge" is sometimes associated with the fallacy argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"). The fallacy essentially warns against assuming that just because everyone believes something is true, it is."
(I won't bother giving a citation for this - it's common knowledge - but it's on the internet so it MUST be true)
-
...Dvorak is based around it. It alternates much more than any other layout, which makes it fast and accurate….
I believe Proword is looking for a citation that corroborates Dvorak alternates hands MORE than ANY OTHER layout. Mostly because that's a way too generic statement to just stand on its own. And whether it's true or not, it's not common knowledge, not around here at least, and there are a lot of layout geeks on this forum, myself included. Some of us know quite a bit, and some of us know jack ****…that's why it's important to sift through information that is posted so as to not give noobs wrong info. They could spin out of control, they're just noobs!
Before this turns into a bunch of *******s taking swings at each other, let me just toss out that if you participate and make statements be prepared to fully participate and provide further information like citations, sources, experience, observations, opinions, the family cat, etc. Biased or not, most people here believe information is power and are happy to discuss, argue, debate, make assertions, blah blah blah.
We fight about keyboards, layouts, keycaps, and other stupid ****, but it pays to be somewhat courteous/respectful.
-
I believe Proword is looking for a citation that corroborates Dvorak alternates hands MORE than ANY OTHER layout.
Your belief is entirely correct. Thank you.
Joe
-
I believe Proword is looking for a citation that corroborates Dvorak alternates hands MORE than ANY OTHER layout.
Your belief is entirely correct. Thank you.
Joe
How many would you like to compare it to before accepting it as a generalisation? (look at the first 2 columns of row rh, the 3rd row)
http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?keyboard_layouts
Or are you simply being pedantic about semantics? ;) They don't have AdNW on the list, though. I'd be interested in how it compares since it was also designed for hand alternation.
-
I was simply asking for a reference to the claim made about Dvorak. However, since you have brought other layouts into the picture, I see no mention there of Malt's layout. It seems to me that this "research" is deficient in this respect. Malt has been around since 1977. Longer than most other layouts.
-
I believe Proword is looking for a citation that corroborates Dvorak alternates hands MORE than ANY OTHER layout.
Your belief is entirely correct. Thank you.
Joe
How many would you like to compare it to before accepting it as a generalisation?
Perhaps I'm being pedantic, ;) but it seems to me that you are attributing the "generalisation" remark to myself. I never mentioned anything about generalisation. That was a remark made by another poster, which I did not comment upon. If you are not making such a misattribution, then I withdraw my comment.
Joe
-
I believe Proword is looking for a citation that corroborates Dvorak alternates hands MORE than ANY OTHER layout.
Your belief is entirely correct. Thank you.
Joe
How many would you like to compare it to before accepting it as a generalisation?
Perhaps I'm being pedantic, ;) but it seems to me that you are attributing the "generalisation" remark to myself. I never mentioned anything about generalisation. That was a remark made by another poster, which I did not comment upon. If you are not making such a misattribution, then I withdraw my comment.
Joe
I looked at the carpalx, and it doesn't appear at glance to have alternation as a factor. However, simply by trying out different words on it, one will find quite easily that it has much more alternation than QWERTY and Colemak. Not experienced with other layouts, so I can only say as far as these two.
-
Why is alternation faster and more accurate than rolling? Also why would rolling be more comfortable than alternation?
-
Yes, I'd like to see comparative statistics for Malt layout, too. It's a well thought out and properly "designed" layout. I wasn't referring to a previous post with my "generalisations" comment. Simply that as a generalisation, Dvorak does have stronger hand alternation than the "common" alternative layouts, particularly those designed for standard horizontally staggered physical layouts (QWERTY, Colemak, Workman, etc.)
Neo, AdNW and Malt are often overlooked.
The first column of the third row of the comparison chart shows hand alternation as a percentage (62% for Dvorak).
I have personal reasons for prefering Dvorak over Colemak, but in fact use a modified AdNW layout in practice (actually a modified form of the BU-Teck variant for English). Each layout has their strengths and weaknesses and it's definitely a personal choice as to which factors matter more to you.
Rolling vs alternation is one of those personal things. For me, alternation is faster and feels better. One reason is my fingers roll "outward" more naturally than inward.
-
Yes, I'd like to see comparative statistics for Malt layout, too. It's a well thought out and properly "designed" layout. I wasn't referring to a previous post with my "generalisations" comment. Simply that as a generalisation, Dvorak does have stronger hand alternation than the "common" alternative layouts, particularly those designed for standard horizontally staggered physical layouts (QWERTY, Colemak, Workman, etc.)
Neo, AdNW and Malt are often overlooked.
The first column of the third row of the comparison chart shows hand alternation as a percentage (62% for Dvorak).
I have personal reasons for prefering Dvorak over Colemak, but in fact use a modified AdNW layout in practice (actually a modified form of the BU-Teck variant for English). Each layout has their strengths and weaknesses and it's definitely a personal choice as to which factors matter more to you.
Rolling vs alternation is one of those personal things. For me, alternation is faster and feels better. One reason is my fingers roll "outward" more naturally than inward.
Neo, AdNW not english how to can compare? CMIIW :D
-
Why is alternation faster and more accurate than rolling? Also why would rolling be more comfortable than alternation?
It's just hand usage. 'Comfortable' is usually seen as less effort required for an action, which is rolling. Rolling is very easy on the hand, but at speed it's slower than alternation. The less consecutive hand use, the more accurate, because overuse of a hand creates fatigue and difficulty to be accurate.
-
Why is alternation faster and more accurate than rolling? Also why would rolling be more comfortable than alternation?
It's just hand usage. 'Comfortable' is usually seen as less effort required for an action, which is rolling. Rolling is very easy on the hand, but at speed it's slower than alternation. The less consecutive hand use, the more accurate, because overuse of a hand creates fatigue and difficulty to be accurate.
i disappointed with dvorak just because not balanced both hand more to right hand# sorry weak reasons :)) :))
Any DVORAK modified? more balanced both hand,interested ;D
-
Why is alternation faster and more accurate than rolling? Also why would rolling be more comfortable than alternation?
It's just hand usage. 'Comfortable' is usually seen as less effort required for an action, which is rolling. Rolling is very easy on the hand, but at speed it's slower than alternation. The less consecutive hand use, the more accurate, because overuse of a hand creates fatigue and difficulty to be accurate.
i disappointed with dvorak just because not balanced both hand more to right hand# sorry weak reasons :)) :))
Any DVORAK modified? more balanced both hand,interested ;D
That's Colemak. :))
Dvorak is better for right-handed people because it has a preference.
-
Why is alternation faster and more accurate than rolling? Also why would rolling be more comfortable than alternation?
It's just hand usage. 'Comfortable' is usually seen as less effort required for an action, which is rolling. Rolling is very easy on the hand, but at speed it's slower than alternation. The less consecutive hand use, the more accurate, because overuse of a hand creates fatigue and difficulty to be accurate.
i disappointed with dvorak just because not balanced both hand more to right hand# sorry weak reasons :)) :))
Any DVORAK modified? more balanced both hand,interested ;D
That's Colemak. :))
Dvorak is better for right-handed people because it has a preference.
Workman i read more balanced bot hand than colemak :)
yeah,because most people is right hand :))
but i still used dvorak, :))quite lazy for learn layout again :rolleyes:
-
Any DVORAK modified? more balanced both hand,interested ;D
That's Colemak. :))
Dvorak is better for right-handed people because it has a preference.
Workman i read more balanced bot hand than colemak :)
yeah,because most people is right hand :))
but i still used dvorak, :))quite lazy for learn layout again :rolleyes:
Hah, learning how to Dvorak is already hard enough, I don't see any gains significant enough to merit a change at this point.
If I learned another layout ever it would probably be Colemak or QGMLWY.
-
By most accounts, once you have made a change from qwerty (in English) to virtually any other layout, you've achieved the most single substantial "improvement" possible. Any other change is very, very minor relative to this one change. Of course it would be nice to move to the best possible layout, but there are so many ways of interpreting what is best, or what is best for you. Rolling, alternation, comfort, actual distance moved, maximize stronger fingers/minimize weaker fingers blah blah blah. Not to mention the relative ease with which more new reasonable layouts can be "discovered". At some point (we're probably already there) additional layouts are basically fruitless it would seem. It's too bad it's such a chore to try/investigate new layouts for the minimal change in results. It seems to me most people that the trouble is worth the result suffer from RSI or major comfort issues.
I could never make qwerty work for me….OR 99% of the worlds flat keyboards….very unnatural/uncomfortable. So now Kinesis Advantage and Colemak. I may choose to QGMLWY or other optimized CarpalX layouts…but that will probably be it. The quest for improved keyboards will always continue, not that Kinesis Advantage/Maltrons once split in half aren't pretty damn good!
-
Yes, I'd like to see comparative statistics for Malt layout, too. It's a well thought out and properly "designed" layout. I wasn't referring to a previous post with my "generalisations" comment. Simply that as a generalisation, Dvorak does have stronger hand alternation than the "common" alternative layouts, particularly those designed for standard horizontally staggered physical layouts (QWERTY, Colemak, Workman, etc.)
In September 1977 Lilian Malt presented a paper to the conference of PIRA (Printing Industry Research Association).
https://www.smitherspira.com/About-us.aspx
giving her findings from her research.
Since this was 1977, there were really only three keyboard distributions in use, QWERTY, Dvorak and Maltron. Thus Malt was obviously unable to compare newer layouts, but her paper has some interesting figures.
On page 6,
http://www.maltron.com/media/lillian_kditee_006.pdf
she discusses at some length the factors taken into account when designing a keyboard distribution.
On page 7 she presents tabulated results for her research
http://www.maltron.com/media/lillian_kditee_007.pdf
including, towards the bottom (Table 9) "Balance of keystrokes to each hand. Percentage of all language."
This perhaps should go some way to fulfilling your desire to include Malt's distribution in any discussion.
On page 2
http://www.maltron.com/media/lillian_kditee_002.pdf
she gives a selection of areas of inefficiencies or "bottlenecks" in the use of keyboards.
From my own point of view, as a court reporter, I observe that she quotes a figure of 15 wpm for the production of typescript from handwritten shorthand notes. In 1979 I started learning Pitman's pen writing, but at the same time I bought my first computer, and as I learned about it, I decided that the computer had the potential to eliminate the "middle man" and I would be able to enter abbreviations on the keyboard and have instant transcription into a first draft, subject to correction (which would have to be done whether from handwriting or keyboard.) I dropped the Pitman's and went on to develop my own shorthand. About 6 years ago I took an entire month's work, reduced it to straight text (no formatting, page breaks etc) and calculated that based upon an 8 hour day, and a 5 day week, with NO breaks of any sort, I was achieving 23 wpm. And given that I was using the finished (ie proof read and corrected) copy it was virtually 100% accurate.
As I say, this was only for myself, but it certainly gives me an absolute conviction that I could NEVER have achieved that figure with any other keyboard than a Maltron. (It should be noted that although I used shorthand, this was totally unrelated to which key distribution I used, as it will work on ANY keyboard.)
Joe
-
Further to my previous post, this paper by Stephen Hobday
http://www.maltron.com/keyboard-info/academic-papers/234-a-keyboard-to-increase-productivity-and-reduce-postural-stress
gives a diagrammatic representation of loadings on individual digits. It's interesting to note that on both QWERTY and Dvorak, the loading on the thumb(s) is 16% whereas on Maltron it is 26%. (In the Malt distribution the left thumb is the letter "E".)
On Edit: On page 4 of her paper (last paragraph)
http://www.maltron.com/media/lillian_kditee_004.pdf
Malt says that "both left and right thumbs may now be used quite extensively. These two digits are the strongest and most flexible of all and have the backup of a considerably larger section of the brain than other digits. Nine times the brain size in fact."
-
Further to my previous post, this paper by Stephen Hobday
http://www.maltron.com/keyboard-info/academic-papers/234-a-keyboard-to-increase-productivity-and-reduce-postural-stress
gives a diagrammatic representation of loadings on individual digits. It's interesting to note that on both QWERTY and Dvorak, the loading on the thumb(s) is 16% whereas on Maltron it is 26%. (In the Malt distribution the left thumb is the letter "E".)
On Edit: On page 4 of her paper (last paragraph)
http://www.maltron.com/media/lillian_kditee_004.pdf
Malt says that "both left and right thumbs may now be used quite extensively. These two digits are the strongest and most flexible of all and have the backup of a considerably larger section of the brain than other digits. Nine times the brain size in fact."
Unrelated but I can see how it might be interesting to a Maltron user such as yourself. I seriously doubt Maltron's logic in using brain allocation and muscle size on typing ability, though.
-
Stephen Hobday is a highly qualified engineer, and a life member of the IEEE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Electrical_and_Electronics_Engineers
His resume:
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/stephen-hobday/20/669/183
Do you have any qualifications or experience in this area? If not then whilst you are free to express your opinion, it is just that, a personal opinion. Any "doubts" you may have are totally irrelevant.
-
Stephen Hobday is a highly qualified engineer, and a life member of the IEEE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Electrical_and_Electronics_Engineers
His resume:
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/stephen-hobday/20/669/183
Do you have any qualifications or experience in this area? If not then whilst you are free to express your opinion, it is just that, a personal opinion. Any "doubts" you may have are totally irrelevant.
This 'conversation' has degenerated into you attempting to snub me when I try to comment on your fallacious statements. You may continue being an immature child to people other than myself.
Yasuo, I also recommend that you lock this thread. I'm pretty sure it's gone past any semblance of use, thanks to our friend Proword.
-
These two videos demonstrate how much difference there is between using the Malt layout and the QWERTY layout of the Maltron keyboard, in terms of hand movements using the upper arm. The QWERTY operator is hovering her hands nearly 100% of the time, whereas the Malt operator's hands are resting on the built in palm rests for almost the same percentage of time.
I did my own version of comparing the number of words which can be typed without moving the hands from the home key rows, but including QWERTY, Dvorak, Colemak and Maltron.
http://proword-keyboardlayoutefficiency.blogspot.com.au/
Based upon an international Scrabble word list of 172,807 words, the following figures were derived. (The actual word lists are shown in the blog.)
QWERTY - 198 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.
DVORAK - 3126 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.
COLEMAK - 5963 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.
MALTRON - 7639 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.
Joe
Hi Proword. By this standard (number of words that can be typed on home keys) my layout (http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=52967.0) wins.
-
Hi Proword. By this standard (number of words that can be typed on home keys) my layout (http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=52967.0) wins.
Well done. In the interests of due diligence and keeping the thread factual, what was your methodology? eg which list of words did you use and what result do you claim?
Joe
-
Thanks Joe. I claim that on T9-QWERTY 95% or more English words can be typed without leaving the home keys - 100% if a predictive algorithm is used. I used a list of around 500 of the most common words and found that 3 words conflicted (i.e. require you to leave the home keys to press one of the conflict resolution keys).
Note: The idea is in part thanks to you and your suggestion of using WordPerfect to create abbreviations, which got me interested in text replacement. I found a better application (Phrase Express) which by the way would allow your idea of using shorthand to be used globally across the operating system, rather than confined to a Word Processor.
-
I can't find my exact list on the net, but here is an interesting list of English words similar to that which I based my calculations on.
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/safer_sephiroth/EVERY_WORD_EVER.htm
I should say here that to me the list of words which can be typed without leaving the home keys is a completely separate issue to using abbreviated typing. My shorthand is not keyboard dependent, as I have said previously, and works just as well on Maltron as on QWERTY or Colemak, or in fact any key distribution. If the operator can touch type, then the shorthand can be employed.
Joe
-
I used the top 500 word list from http://www.world-english.org/english500.htm and the top 300 words from http://www.duboislc.net/EducationWatch/First100Words.html which amounts to 521 unique words. Out of those 521, 518 can be typed without leaving the home keys. I would estimate 95% or more of English words could be typed.
-
I should say here that to me the list of words which can be typed without leaving the home keys is a completely separate issue to using abbreviated typing. My shorthand is not keyboard dependent, as I have said previously, and works just as well on Maltron as on QWERTY or Colemak, or in fact any key distribution. If the operator can touch type, then the shorthand can be employed.
Joe
Yes I understand that, but I thought it worth mentioning that Phrase Express would be a better software than WordPerfect as it would allow the shorthand to be used within any application on the operating system. I've already started using my own personal shorthand taking ideas from your list (to score a whooping 180 WPM on 10FastFingers).
-
The WordPerfect shorthand can be used by any software which has access to the Windows copy/paste function*. I use the WP to compile my document, execute a "select all/copy" WP macro (single keystroke), shift the focus to the relevant working software and paste. When I return the focus to the WP window, the text is still highlighted, so I can either cancel the select function, and continue working in the same document, or start typing a new document, which automatically deletes the highlighted text.
Joe
*This doesn't usually work with the typing testers though, but I get enough practice in ordinary daily work. ;) But congratulations on the 180 wpm :thumb:
-
I think that's an unnecessarily tedious process, when you can just use a text replacement program like Phrase Express. Say you're on a chatroom, as I understand it you would have to alt-tab to WordPerfect and back to get your shorthand expanded text, whereas with Phrase Express it would be immediate.
-
Yes, but an extra 4 keystrokes per copy/paste cycle is pretty small beer with say 500 words of text (I don't use it for absolutely EVERYTHING) comparing to the amount of keying I'd save by using the Shorthand, so really 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. ;)
Joe
-
I suppose it does depend what the person uses it for. But as I understood it you were trying to get the younger generation to start using shorthand from a younger age, many of whom probably spend a lot of time on chatrooms etc. I think the idea would sound a lot more appealing if you told them they just needed one program that would do it automatically rather than alt-tabbing around.
What do you think of T9-QWERTY?
-
Well, given the rate of progress in things such as built-in predictive technology and speech recognition, keyboarding will soon become a very arcane skill, along with driving manual gear shift, petrol driven automobiles and cursive handwriting. So it's really a moot point I suppose. I've actually been using Dragon speech recognition for over a decade, and I wouldn't be able to do my work without it, but it's not the universal panacea, it just needs to be used in the proper context.
The only way I can assess T9 is to learn how to use it, and in view of the above, I don't think there's going to be enough time, before we find ourselves being bogged down to how quickly one can type with one's thumb(s). :p (or tongues)
Joe
-
Good point. I will have to give Dragon a shot at some point.
By T9-QWERTY I mean the layout I've posted in this forum section which uses the same premise as T9, except on a full keyboard. So you don't have to leave the home keys. It's no different to typing normally, except each key represents multiple letters.
-
These two videos demonstrate how much difference there is between using the Malt layout and the QWERTY layout of the Maltron keyboard, in terms of hand movements using the upper arm. The QWERTY operator is hovering her hands nearly 100% of the time, whereas the Malt operator's hands are resting on the built in palm rests for almost the same percentage of time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYJtF1I3PRs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYJtF1I3PRs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4H931A3BDE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4H931A3BDE)
I did my own version of comparing the number of words which can be typed without moving the hands from the home key rows, but including QWERTY, Dvorak, Colemak and Maltron.
http://proword-keyboardlayoutefficiency.blogspot.com.au/ (http://proword-keyboardlayoutefficiency.blogspot.com.au/)
Based upon an international Scrabble word list of 172,807 words, the following figures were derived. (The actual word lists are shown in the blog.)
QWERTY - 198 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.
DVORAK - 3126 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.
COLEMAK - 5963 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.
MALTRON - 7639 words can be typed without taking the fingers from the home keys.
Joe
Could the Maltron layout be implemented on an standard ANSI keyboard?
-
Since I'm already in the position of having the quality of the audio as the limiting factor for the speed at which I can transcribe, I see no advantage in another layout.
Of course the Maltron is not just about the key layout, but also about the shape of the keyboard, and since because of this I can reach almost all of the alpha keys without lifting my hands from the palm rests, then I've already got the vast majority of the problem solved, so again, another key distribution, no matter how good, will add nothing.
Joe
-
Could the Maltron layout be implemented on an standard ANSI keyboard?
Whilst it's something I know nothing about executing, I can't see why not. Probably better answered by someone who makes the modifications, I just buy the keyboard ;)
Joe
-
Since I'm already in the position of having the quality of the audio as the limiting factor for the speed at which I can transcribe, I see no advantage in another layout.
There's no advantage for you personally, but for someone like the original thread poster who wants to try another layout and might not be able to afford a new keyboard, a Maltron keyboard would be impractical and T9-QWERTY would offer them a keyboard layout with minimal motion.
-
Since I'm already in the position of having the quality of the audio as the limiting factor for the speed at which I can transcribe, I see no advantage in another layout.
Of course the Maltron is not just about the key layout, but also about the shape of the keyboard, and since because of this I can reach almost all of the alpha keys without lifting my hands from the palm rests, then I've already got the vast majority of the problem solved, so again, another key distribution, no matter how good, will add nothing.
Joe
I am confused: This thread is about keyboard layouts, if you are talking about keyboard designs, then your posts might be out of topic. You may better open a new thread about "Maltron's design". Don't you think?
-
"There's no advantage for you personally, but for someone like the original thread poster who wants to try another layout and might not be able to afford a new keyboard, a Maltron keyboard would be impractical and T9-QWERTY would offer them a keyboard layout with minimal motion."
That may very well be so.
Joe
-
You may better open a new thread about "Maltron's design". Don't you think?
No.
-
Could the Maltron layout be implemented on an standard ANSI keyboard?
Whilst it's something I know nothing about executing, I can't see why not. Probably better answered by someone who makes the modifications, I just buy the keyboard ;)
Joe
The reason to ask that is to focus the discussion in the original question about alternative layouts. It seems only Maltron's requires also hardware, so that should be clear for the original poster.
-
The original poster asked "now i want try switch layout again but colemak/maltron or others?" So it's possible they already had the Maltron keyboard in mind. Proword/Joe was just responding to that.
-
The reason to ask that is to focus the discussion in the original question about alternative layouts. It seems only Maltron's requires also hardware, so that should be clear for the original poster.
That was made quite clear very early in the thread, by Tony.
Joe
-
Could the Maltron layout be implemented on an standard ANSI keyboard?
Whilst it's something I know nothing about executing, I can't see why not. Probably better answered by someone who makes the modifications, I just buy the keyboard ;)
Joe
Alright.
-
I have made some analysis with Malt which I would like to share here. It confirms the numbers of Lilian Malt from her articles and gives a very compact overview on this keyboard layout:
malt90en 250.033 total costs 139.289 layout costs left right
0.583 same finger 12.373 Shift-same finger up 6.8 8.3
qpycb vmuzl 54.056 hand alternatio 46.374 Shift-hand alternatio mi 25.2 25.2
anisf dthor 0.935 in-/outward 5.675 IndirSame finger dw 4.8 3.9
,.jg/ ;wk-x 24.922 adjacent 11.062 Shift-adjacent sum 46.6 53.4
e 8.7 8.3 7.3 12.5 9.7 | 16.1 14.7 6.7 6.2 9.7 Sh 1.0 1.4
same finger 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.10 Sh 5.69 6.69
""line switch.>=2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Sh 0.00 2.29
adjacent 2.93 3.29 3.89 4.79 0.00 0.00 5.48 1.70 2.85 Sh 1.72 9.34
""line switch.>=2 0.00 0.00 0.02 4.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sh 0.10 0.06
9.7% of the key presses are on the letter 'e' and 16.1% are spaces. As you can see most work is done by the index fingers with 12.5% and 14.7%. the other fingers have a nice similar distibution of load of about 6-8%. Usage of the bottom row is minimised and the balance between both hands is equal 36.8%:37.4% if we do not count the thumbs percentages (e=9.7%,space=16.1%).
The extremly few same finger movements are distributed mostly on the left index finger and the right index, middle and pinky.
Malt is supporting equal outbound and inbound rolls when typing bigramms (ratio=0,9) one handed. Hand alternation ratio is about 54%.
Using adjacent fingers for typing successive characters is hard for outer fingers. Index finger and middle fingers are capable of such adjacent keystrokes. With Malt the adjacent usage of finger is not prevented by typing bigrams by different hands:
- left pinky/left ring finger : 2.93%
- left ring finger/left middle finger: 3.29%
- right pinky/right ring finger : 2.85%
- right ring finger/right middle finger: 1.7%
The following image shows arcs between keys if bigrams are typed one handed. The more often a bigram occurs the thicker the line is. Here you can see very good the involvement of outer fingers on adjacent key strokes. I.e. for AN, IN. Vertical arcs are showing same finger movements (i.e. SC).
[attachimg=1 align=left width=1024]
-
The Carpalx guy done a lot of work, to be sure, but the scoring system of his model seems pretty arbitrary, and there seem to be pretty strong assumptions baked in about how someone uses a keyboard which don’t necessarily match real-world practice. I don’t trust it to yield particularly “ideal” layouts in terms of efficiency, hand comfort, accuracy, etc.
I really like both the physical layout and the character layout of the Maltron keyboard, and though I think it’s probably possible to do better with a DIY hobby project, it’s just about the best thing commercially available. Not the most portable though. (Also, not my favorite keyswitches.) I also think Dvorak is a reasonable step in the right direction, but basing it on the physical layout of a standard Sholes keyboard has some big disadvantages.
-
Disclaimer: This is a incredibly alpha-test work in progress! You may permanently mangle your hands beyond recognition if you try it out!
Now that that's out of the way...
...playing around with the MTGAP/Keyboard Layout Optimizer software (from Michael D. -- his last name gets whacked by the swearing filter, link here: http://mathematicalmulticore.wordpress.com/ ) and heavily tweaking it with the Keyboard Layout Analyzer (here: http://patorjk.com/keyboard-layout-analyzer/#/config ), I'm looking at something similar to the following, if you imagine a number pad between the left and right hands. I'm using a programmable Cherry POS keyboard that I will make key legends for as soon as I am satisfied with it. :) Here is something similar, using the Keyboard Layout Analyzer's Ergodox template.
Basic American PC.
[attach=1]
English/Spanish/German (maybe others) plus all of the stuff I could think of.
[attach=2]
I hope that posted something resembling what I expect. I may have to edit if I messed it up.
edit note: Oops, left a couple of AltGr items in the basic one. Oh well, I'm too lazy to fix it just for that.
-
Disclaimer: This is a incredibly alpha-test work in progress! You may permanently mangle your hands beyond recognition if you try it out!
;D For those who do not want to try it out I pictured the left hand situation: >:D
[attachimg=1 align=left]
-
But to become serious on multilingual keyboard layouts, I want to correct the following assumption:
Neo, AdNW not english how to can compare? CMIIW :D
Neo was optimised for german language, while AdNW was optimised for the english AND german language.
How good AdNW is beating for the english language compared to other popular layouts you can compare on http://patorjk.com/keyboard-layout-analyzer/#/config (AdNW is listed as 'Aus der Neo-Welt' there)
-
Disclaimer: This is a incredibly alpha-test work in progress! You may permanently mangle your hands beyond recognition if you try it out!
;D For those who do not want to try it out I pictured the left hand situation: >:D
(Attachment Link)
That looks cool! :)
In case anyone is interested, I can see if one of the attachment options will let me attach the layouts for the two images above to play with them on the patorjk.com website (since he is behind submissions :D ).
-
That looks cool! :)
Thanks. This one hand movement visualisation is much more expressive than the heat map on patorjk.com.
YOR UIAN Mini has very good ratings on http://patorjk.com. It is hand balanced and has few adjacent fingers usage on outer fingers BUT an overload of adjacent keystrokes on left index and left middle finger.
How does it feel to type the bigrams OR, AR, AN, ON and NR?
-
That looks cool! :)
Thanks. This one hand movement visualisation is much more expressive than the heat map on patorjk.com.
YOR UIAN Mini has very good ratings on http://patorjk.com. It is hand balanced and has few adjacent fingers usage on outer fingers BUT an overload of adjacent keystrokes on left index and left middle finger.
How does it feel to type the bigrams OR, AR, AN, ON and NR?
Right now I am using a TypeMatrix with a QWERTY format, but it's like typing ER, DR, DF, and FR on that (should be similar on a standard, staggered keyboard). NR isn't a very common digram in English, though.
And you are right about a lot of adjacent keystrokes put on index and middle fingers, but I have found that I often like alternating digrams between hands more than alternating letters, especially on those two fingers. If you compare typing "the" and "her" on a keyboard, for example, the latter is more fun for me. I would have picked two words with four or six letters to compare, but QWERTY has a dearth of those that you can type with just the index and pointer fingers. Three letters with one hand, though, is generally not as fun as two for me, probably because I have to use one of my less agile fingers in the sequence, or because I need to use the same finger more than once in the sequence.
In addition, I prefer my typing to "roll in" to the center -- middle finger, followed by index finger -- rather than vice versa. I have heard others have expressed similar preferences about inward rolls, and for me it is definitely true. I tried to select for that (which is why I put N and R under the left index finger -- IN/AN/ON/UN/OR/AR are just so common in English!). Just my opinion, and your mileage may vary, of course! :))