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.
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.Colemak only rearranges letters and semicolon compared to US QWERTY, thus punctuation remains in the same awful spots.
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).
And what is ridiculous about hjkl?It's just some weird, probably mnemonic thing from the ADM-3A terminal.
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).
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.
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 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(http://i.imgur.com/6v451Gk.png)
So E-dox is better?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(http://i.imgur.com/6v451Gk.png)
Not quite.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:Now, that's just impractical, considering the inconsistent placement of spacebar-row keys on different keyboards.Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/FTPF0mh.png)
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.
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.
Digit ratio.?
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...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”.
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.