Author Topic: Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?  (Read 7239 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline brkim1324

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 203
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 06:23:47 »
I have been typing for a long time (I bet everybody is.. haha)
but I sometimes look down at my keyboard layouts and think...
most of the keys I use are in quite far away and in unefficient placements...

for example control and caps lock.
I know some keyboards change their layouts like HHKB to make it more efficient,
but if you think about it.. why did IBM put it like this?
I know qwerty layouts has been made to not type faster actually.
I heard qwerty layout was made for typewriters to type slower to decrease errors
and type more carefully.

Like !@#$%%&^, these special letters could have been put in actual separate keys instead of
shift +.
it could have been put between F1 and number keys separately.
or even separate column keys next to back space and enter.
and nobody use esc that quite often even in programming,
so it could have been where left control was.
and nobody actually use RIGHT alt,windows,control keys that often either.
F1-F12 are fine, but could have moved else where to minimize keyboard size.
And if you think about it, as the keyboard goes to the right, it is less used.
But that makes it holding mouse farther meaning less ergonomic.
Why not put them "left" side including Insert home parts, print parts and numpad
to the left. Or maybe just the Insert and print screen rows to the left side of the keyboard.
I don't know about arrow keys.. their position is just about right I guess.
And is F12 used often? I see F11 and F10 are used sometimes, but didn't notice F12 used
even.. sometimes.. hmmm..
and I don't think gaps are needed between F# keys. I know the gaps r there to distinguish them
even in the dark, but that's what the key letters are for. And if you cannot see in the dark, that's just same for all the numbers and special letters.
So if those gaps r for easier distinguishable purpose, y r there no gaps between numbers?
Therefore, it will be the same even if there r no gaps. But then you use numbers more often than the F# keys.
You need gaps in them actually.
More often keys should be in the fastest way to type them and most efficient placements.
Such as control and shift. Maybe Tab and Caps lock should be replaces with Ctrl and Shift,
and taps should be moved lower like where left shift is, and shortened.
and caps lock should be in where left control is....
Damn, I am customizing layouts here XD

I am just typing these.... to share my thoughts :D
and maybe... I am just bored... lol
but I have thought about this for quite some time as a everyday typist.

Have you guys thought about the layouts?
What do you guys think?
« Last Edit: Thu, 05 May 2011, 06:28:01 by brkim1324 »

Offline HaveANiceDay

  • Posts: 344
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #1 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 09:29:03 »
You know why the sky is blue? It's not because light is breaking or some other stupid excuse.
The answer is because it's been like that forever, so it's hard to change it. Like keyboard layouts!

Try some other layouts if you must, but I recommend that only if you are truly pissed at QWERTY.
Filco Tenkeyless Brown with beige cherry doubleshots (home)
Realforce 86U (work)
Get you own Phantom NAO!

Offline Lanx

  • Posts: 1915
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #2 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 09:50:04 »
qwerty 104 has been around for so long, way b4 mice were even useful.

Offline BucklingSpring

  • Posts: 1613
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #3 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 10:27:30 »
Quote from: ripster;342048
Qwerty Rulez.


Correct me if I'm wrong. I thought the QWERTY design was meant to be inefficient. Early typists were too fast for the technology and that layout was created to reduce the speed so the typewriter parts could keep up with the typists.
In memory of smallfry 1996-2013
Boards I own, click ->
More
Ducky x2 (9008G2 Pro PBT/MX Green and Mini MX Red), Matias x2 (QP and Mini QP Dampened ALPS), Topre RealForce x4 (87U 55g/Digilog case, 103U-UW & 104UG High-Profile x2), Filco Majestouch x2 (TKL MX Blue & V2 AI 104 MX Blue), IBM-M x2 (BS & RD), Unicomp-M x5 (BS black on black x2, BS Ivory x2, QT Ultra-Classic), Deck x4 (Legend MX Black & MX Clear, Hassium & Francium w/ MX Brown), DAS III (MX Blue), KBT Pure Pro 60% (MX Red), NMB-RT8256CW+ x2 (black space invader), XArmor U9BL-S (MX Brown) given for free to someone I hate, CM X2 (Trigger/MX Green + Storm TKL/NovaTouch), TVS GOLD (MX Blue) and a many many more (NMB, DELL, MS, ATT, KeyTronic, Etc...)

Offline brkim1324

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 203
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #4 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 10:31:29 »
Quote
You know why the sky is blue? It's not because light is breaking or some other stupid excuse.
The answer is because it's been like that forever, so it's hard to change it. Like keyboard layouts!

Try some other layouts if you must, but I recommend that only if you are truly pissed at QWERTY.

You didn't read all the way lol. I am not pissed at all.
If you READ IT ALL THE WAY and UNDERSTAND the writings, I am just saying my own thoughts, and wanting to share with you guys' thoughts.
And next time, please be polite and thoughtful :)
Thank you for your comment btw
Mr. Obvious

Offline brkim1324

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 203
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #5 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 10:33:45 »
Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong. I thought the QWERTY design was meant to be inefficient. Early typists were too fast for the technology and that layout was created to reduce the speed so the typewriter parts could keep up with the typists.

That is what I heard too, and correct.
I'm not saying about qwerty layout has a problem. I'm not pointing out there's problem. I'm just questioning the whole layout of the keyboard.
Just wanting to hear your thoughts if you had any...
But looks like people are taking this too seriously and by all means in very wrong way..

Offline daerid

  • Posts: 4276
  • Location: Denver, CO
    • Rossipedia
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #6 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 10:39:49 »
Quote from: brkim1324;341952
...and nobody use esc that quite often even in programming...
...and nobody actually use RIGHT alt,windows,control keys that often either...

Where the hell are you getting your information from? I use all of those keys quite frequently. More than my F1-F12 keys, that's for sure.

Offline brkim1324

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 203
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #7 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 10:42:08 »
Quote
Where the hell are you getting your information from? I use all of those keys quite frequently. More than my F1-F12 keys, that's for sure.

Maybe it's only me and my friends then.
My bad.
but anyway, do u have any dream layout for your keyboard? for easier and more awesome layout? :)

Offline BucklingSpring

  • Posts: 1613
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #8 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 10:52:15 »
Quote from: brkim1324;342074
Maybe it's only me and my friends then.
My bad.
but anyway, do u have any dream layout for your keyboard? for easier and more awesome layout? :)


It actually would be fairly easy to figure out.
The layout will be language dependant.

You need to factor two things
1- Letter Frequency per language
2- Ergonomics

Not only you need to assign higher frequency letters to the more agile fingers but you also need to consider the occurrence of letter sequences. Ie common sequences must be easier to type as well. Retraining on a new layout is not fun but it is not as hard as you may think.
In memory of smallfry 1996-2013
Boards I own, click ->
More
Ducky x2 (9008G2 Pro PBT/MX Green and Mini MX Red), Matias x2 (QP and Mini QP Dampened ALPS), Topre RealForce x4 (87U 55g/Digilog case, 103U-UW & 104UG High-Profile x2), Filco Majestouch x2 (TKL MX Blue & V2 AI 104 MX Blue), IBM-M x2 (BS & RD), Unicomp-M x5 (BS black on black x2, BS Ivory x2, QT Ultra-Classic), Deck x4 (Legend MX Black & MX Clear, Hassium & Francium w/ MX Brown), DAS III (MX Blue), KBT Pure Pro 60% (MX Red), NMB-RT8256CW+ x2 (black space invader), XArmor U9BL-S (MX Brown) given for free to someone I hate, CM X2 (Trigger/MX Green + Storm TKL/NovaTouch), TVS GOLD (MX Blue) and a many many more (NMB, DELL, MS, ATT, KeyTronic, Etc...)

Offline HaveANiceDay

  • Posts: 344
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #9 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 11:01:41 »
Quote from: brkim1324;342068
You didn't read all the way lol. I am not pissed at all.
If you READ IT ALL THE WAY and UNDERSTAND the writings, I am just saying my own thoughts, and wanting to share with you guys' thoughts.
And next time, please be polite and thoughtful :)
Thank you for your comment btw
Mr. Obvious
Oh I did, it just didn't make sense. I don't think there is any meat in a discussion of potential problems without offering possible solutions/alternatives. Which I did, for the potential case of you being pissed at the layout.
Actually I don't know what you were trying to say at all. It's a blur of maybe's and why not's.

Also, polite is boring.
Filco Tenkeyless Brown with beige cherry doubleshots (home)
Realforce 86U (work)
Get you own Phantom NAO!

Offline Ekaros

  • Posts: 942
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #10 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 11:02:43 »
QWERTY isn't all about speed, more of setup where frequently used letters where spaced out so heads wouldn't stick together, atleast this is more refined theory I heard...

I do agree that standard layout is bad. It could be much improved, but will not happen anymore...
So I should add something useless here yes? Ok, ok...
Filco 105-key NKRO MX Browns Sw/Fi-layout|IBM Model M 1394545 Lexmark 102-key Finnish-layout 1994-03-22|Cherry G80-3000LQCDE-2 with MX CLEAR
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Dell AT102W(105-key SF) (Black ALPS)|Steelseries Steelkeys 6G(MX Black) ISO-FI-layout|Cherry G84-4400 G84-4700 Cherry MLs

Offline brkim1324

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 203
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #11 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 11:07:40 »
Quote
It actually would be fairly easy to figure out.
The layout will be language dependant.
yea. most of the normal keyboard users mostly type within the qwerty range. not so much on F or insert inside.
Was dreaming they could have been moved to the side for more ergonomic design.
People tend to look for tenkeyless cause the mouse reach is too far right or typing too far left.
So I was imagining this could have been fixed if the original design was corrected.
And some keys could have been moved closer too. I guess that's why HHKB has that special layout.
Some people try to avoid HHKB cause of the new layout. But if the original layout was already more efficient
but not so compact like HHKB, it could have been avoided.
New keyboards like some media keyboards like from logitech try to move some layouts for more compacts size by squeezing the page up key below home
and widening up delete key. But they don't fix any of the special letter parts nor F, cause they are afraid people won't be familiar with and not buy it.
I just believe that's not because the layout is perfect for typing and efficiency, but just because people don't wanna be unfamiliar with nor learn new layout.
I cannot make a new keyboard layout myself, that's unrealistic. So I just wanted to share my dream layout. And yours too.
Just to clarify for everyone, I'm not like trying to say "the design is bad~ they should change the layout~"
no, I just wanna hear your thoughts like Spring did :)
So no... disrespectful comments please...

Offline Findecanor

  • Posts: 5082
  • Location: Koriko
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #12 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 11:13:13 »
Quote from: brkim1324;341952
Like !@#$%%&^, these special letters could have been put in actual separate keys instead of
shift +.
More keys => More keys farther away.

Quote from: brkim1324;341952
and nobody use esc that quite often even in programming,
VI users will disagree with you ...
Many programs use Esc for exiting a menu, mode or a function.

Quote from: brkim1324;341952
and nobody actually use RIGHT alt,windows,control keys that often either.
I am programming, using a Swedish layout, where { [ ] } are located on Alt Gr - combinations, because there are important symbols on the keys that are used for [ ] in US/ANSI layout.

Quote from: brkim1324;341952
And is F12 used often? I see F11 and F10 are used sometimes, but didn't notice F12 used
even.. sometimes.. hmmm..
More programs use the F-keys to the far left and the far right than in the middle.

Quote from: brkim1324;341952
and I don't think gaps are needed between F# keys.
They are farther away, so they are not "in your fingers" as the number keys are. The different colour and grouping allow you to see and feel them faster.

Quote from: brkim1324;341952
What do you guys think?
There are many layouts. The current layouts were created as a mix of old convention and some deep thought. However, those thoughts might have fit some arcane purpose that no longer exists, because people use different software, etc. but people have got accustomed to them.

QWERTY was designed so that users could type at speed without jamming, not to slow down the typists. The layout was based on bigram frequency in the English language .. except for one thing: The sales people wanted to be able to type "TYPEWRITER" using only the top row, so one letter changed position to accomodate this.
« Last Edit: Thu, 05 May 2011, 11:28:35 by Findecanor »
🍉

Offline brkim1324

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 203
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #13 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 11:28:18 »
Quote
They are farther away, so they are not "in your fingers" as the number keys are. The different colour and grouping allow you to see and feel them faster.
Thanks for the input. What if there was this little bump (like on F J) on 5 or 6 or any 1 number to let you know what number it is by touching it?
I think that could have been nice. Maybe 5 and 7 would have been nice I think.

Offline brkim1324

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 203
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #14 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 11:28:58 »
Quote
Dvorak versus Qwerty speed benefits are like NKRO on PS/2 versus 6KRO on USB.
I love your pictures Ripster XD

Offline HaveANiceDay

  • Posts: 344
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #15 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 11:35:20 »
TypeMatrix


Used it for about a year in a dvorak layout. Was not bad.
Filco Tenkeyless Brown with beige cherry doubleshots (home)
Realforce 86U (work)
Get you own Phantom NAO!

Offline False_Dmitry_II

  • Posts: 1107
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #16 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 11:58:31 »
No. The spacings are there to distinguish where you are on the keyboard. The majority of the time I do not look at it at all. I am also usually in the dark, and have no problems finding keys. For the number row, that's what F and J nubs are for, those are to have you get your bearings for that entire area of the keyboard. Personally I just always use the numpad for numbers (well, for more than one or two anyway), and it has its own nub. Then the spacing up in the function row tells me which function key I'm hitting. If they were together I wouldn't be able to tell quickly and without looking.

The placement of control and whatnot is fine.

As far as qwerty itself goes, it is said that the left hand does more stuff in it. I am ambidextrous, but as far as keyboard usage goes, I might as well be left handed. It does much more than my right hand. As such I always use the left shift, and the stuff to the left of the spacebar, not the right. Though I am thinking of making right control a windows key, because almost none of them have one already.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin (11 Nov. 1755)

Offline pitashen

  • Posts: 1200
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #17 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 14:49:08 »
Inefficient? Go grab a pencil and a piece of paper and try copying down 50 words per minute.

THIS, is inefficient.



I guess, the sufficient of "efficiency" out weighs the minor faults of the layout if you consider there to be any.
« Last Edit: Thu, 05 May 2011, 14:55:29 by pitashen »
\\\\ DSI Mac Modular Keyboard (Brown) w/ Leo  Blank Keycaps //
\\\\ Leopold 87keys Keyboard (Brown) w/ Black CherryCorp + SP DoubleShots //
\\\\ Filco Majestouch 2 NINJA (Black) w/ White CherryCorp + SP DoublsShots //

Offline The Solutor

  • Posts: 2262
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #18 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 16:34:08 »
Qwerty was introduced to slowing down typing. It was a feature at the time.


Now all are used to it.

It's just like English and it's silly random spelling, it has historical reasons due to different nationality of the first typographers that went to civilize the British territory, which ended on a babel of spellings. Nowadays (almost) nobody cares about it, exactly as QWERTY which is a bad layout but is widely shared. And all are used to it.

That said I find some variants way better than the US, like the UK or Japanese
The problem with quotes on the Internet is you never know if they are true  (Abraham Lincoln)

Offline hasu

  • Posts: 3491
  • Location: Tokyo, Japan
  • @tmk
    • tmk keyboard firmware project
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #19 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 19:24:19 »
Quote from: The Solutor;342220
Qwerty was introduced to slowing down typing. It was a feature at the time.

It is a famous *MYTH* about QWERTY. We need to know the truth and the history.
QWERTY is not best layout, but not so bad for English at least.

Yes, I'm QWERTY lover :)

Offline BucklingSpring

  • Posts: 1613
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #20 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 19:40:59 »
Quote from: hasu;342266
It is a famous *MYTH* about QWERTY. We need to know the truth and the history.

AFAIK this is no myth.

I think voice recognition will take over before a new layout make its way to the top.
In memory of smallfry 1996-2013
Boards I own, click ->
More
Ducky x2 (9008G2 Pro PBT/MX Green and Mini MX Red), Matias x2 (QP and Mini QP Dampened ALPS), Topre RealForce x4 (87U 55g/Digilog case, 103U-UW & 104UG High-Profile x2), Filco Majestouch x2 (TKL MX Blue & V2 AI 104 MX Blue), IBM-M x2 (BS & RD), Unicomp-M x5 (BS black on black x2, BS Ivory x2, QT Ultra-Classic), Deck x4 (Legend MX Black & MX Clear, Hassium & Francium w/ MX Brown), DAS III (MX Blue), KBT Pure Pro 60% (MX Red), NMB-RT8256CW+ x2 (black space invader), XArmor U9BL-S (MX Brown) given for free to someone I hate, CM X2 (Trigger/MX Green + Storm TKL/NovaTouch), TVS GOLD (MX Blue) and a many many more (NMB, DELL, MS, ATT, KeyTronic, Etc...)

Offline The Solutor

  • Posts: 2262
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #21 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 19:45:21 »
Quote
It is a famous *MYTH* about QWERTY.


I think this is a more than a reasonable explanation. Maybe is a retrofitted story the one that tell about the first alphabetical row, meant to easily type the word "typewriter"

Quote
QWERTY is not best layout, but not so bad for English at least.


When one is used do something, that thing looks correct even when is wrong.

We (most of the western country) are used to drive on the right and driving in UK or Japan feels strange, even if the the correct way is the latter.

The world is full of wrong things, that become normal trough the use.
The problem with quotes on the Internet is you never know if they are true  (Abraham Lincoln)

Offline HaveANiceDay

  • Posts: 344
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #22 on: Thu, 05 May 2011, 22:01:27 »
Come on people, it's not that hard to learn something about it here on the internet. ANYTHING, really. I am disappointed in you!
Let me be the first to [strike]cast the stone[/strike] post some references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QWERTY
BOY THAT WAS A TRICKY ONE

Making a layout for the sole purpose to slow down the typists is either the biggest troll attempt of our time, or just a stupid idea and thus not true. Your pick.
Filco Tenkeyless Brown with beige cherry doubleshots (home)
Realforce 86U (work)
Get you own Phantom NAO!

Offline Surly73

  • Posts: 425
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #23 on: Sun, 08 May 2011, 07:18:44 »
As others have said, QWERTY was to reduce jamming in mechanical typewriters.  You needed to keep often used heads separated so that they wouldn't collide and stick while typing.  I learned to type on a standard, mechanical typewriter...

I don't really agree with some of the assessment of how the OP feels things should be laid out.  CTRL, SHIFT and ALT are modifiers which need to be held while other keys are struck.  Why would I want a modifier up where ESC (a non-modifier, single strike key) just to have ESC where CTRL is?  I can hold CTRL with my pinky and type practically anything else.  That wouldn't be the case if CTRL was where ESC is.

Though I'll probably get booed out of geekhack, I'm perfectly happy where standard CAPSL and CTRL are these days.  When I learned to type there was no CTRL, and yes on early computers they were reversed.  I made the adjustment decades ago when the change was made and feel the present location is just fine as a typiing/programming modifier and SUPERIOR as a gaming modifier (usually crouch or whatever).  I find it odd how people can run out and embrace DVORAK and COLEMAK but can't handle CTRL being in the lower left after 20 years.  Anyhoo....

Offline Pylon

  • Posts: 852
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #24 on: Sun, 08 May 2011, 13:20:50 »
I really think that the nav cluster could have been more efficiently arranged.

I suggested this a while back:



Also a shift layer would have been helpful on the nav cluster, so that you can type in other commonly used symbols like °, ≤, ≥, Δ, etc. could be used.

woody

  •  Guest
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #25 on: Sun, 08 May 2011, 13:29:37 »
Where's the Insert, then?

Offline bhtooefr

  • Posts: 1624
  • Location: Newark, OH, USA
  • this switch can tick sound of music
    • bhtooefr.org
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #26 on: Sun, 08 May 2011, 19:58:22 »
To be fair, IBM's user interface standards had Insert as part of the key combos for copying, cutting, and pasting. So, it needed to be easily accessible.

(Apple's X/C/V block standard took hold, though, and Insert's purpose became far, far less.)

Offline xwhatsit

  • Posts: 297
  • Location: NZ
Don't you think IBM key layouts are really.. unefficient?
« Reply #27 on: Sun, 08 May 2011, 20:32:39 »
You're all wrong.

y to copy. d to cut. p to paste. No Ctrl necessary.

Inverted T is unnecessary because h, j, k, l do just fine :)

Control in place of Caps Lock is definitely a good thing though.

@ripster: Like the AlphaLock, that's cool. Just like my Olivetti
Beam spring IBM 5251 (7361073/7362149) & IBM 3727 (5641316) | Model F IBM 122-key terminal & IBM PC-AT 84-key | Model M Unicomp 122-key terminal | Cherry MX Blue Leopold Tenkeyless