The QwertFLIP layout

[spiceBar]

I'm conducting personal research in the hope to improve the standard keyboard layout without breaking everything. I don't want to start from scratch and produce yet another Dvorak or Colemak.

I'm looking for small changes that could bring in significant gains.

It's possible I have accidentally discovered (or just re-discovered) a significant improvement for the QWERTY layout. It's an accident because I have found this while trying to improve the AZERTY layout, which is the one I use all the time.

I'm pretty sure this is already known and maybe it's even widely used, but I have not found much about it on the web, and I have not found any option for it either in the very rich keyboard options of X (the windowing system of Linux and other systems).

Naturally I apologize if what I'm going to describe is old news. I'm pretty sure it is. However, I thought it would be nice to share just in case...

Here is the trick, which I call "the QwertFLIP layout":

On a standard QWERTY keyboard, use some lock key (maybe CapsLock or ScrollLock)
to switch to a mode where all digits produce the associated symbol, not the digit.

The digits will be typed by pressing them together with the Shift key.

For example, 1 does an exclamation mark. 9 and 0 allow you to type the parenthesis directly.

This only applies to the digit keys located above the alphabetical cluster. No other key is affected.

Maybe it sounds too simple/weird/whatever, but I believe this is a significant improvement for most if not all QWERTY users.

I have found this out by using statistic gathered on a very long text. This text is actually a C source code, approximately 1MB in size. This C code is a project I have been working on for decades, and I was curious to find out if it would have been significantly easier to type all of this code with an optimized layout, and to get some metrics on how much easier it would have been.

The fact that it is C code should not stop you from reading on and maybe trying the idea. Even if you are typing plain English all day long, the layout can be an improvement for you. Think about it: you don't need Shift anymore to type parenthesis or the exclamation mark for example.

To find out if QwertFLIP can be any good, I have collected statistics by extracting the frequencies of all the characters in said source code.

After that, I have been able to measure the differences with the standard layout by computing two metrics:
- How long does it take to type the code with a given layout? (less is better)
- How bad is Shift disrupting your typing? In other words, how many characters can you type at full speed before you have to use Shift? (more is better)

I have computed the above for 5 QWERTY layouts:
- An imaginary layout with so many keys that there is no need to press Shift, ever
- A full-size QWERTY keyboard
- A TenKeyLess QWERTY keyboard
- A full-size QwertFLIP keyboard
- A TenKeyLess QwertFLIP keyboard

Here are the results:

Imaginary layout on which you never have to press Shift (perfect keyboard):
- Time to type the code: this layout is the reference, so the time is 100% (let's say it's an hour or a day, it does not matter).
- Number of characters you can type on average before you need to press Shift: infinite! By definition, you never have to press Shift on this keyboard.

Full-size QWERTY keyboard:
- Time to type the code: 7.4% longer than with the "perfect" keyboard.
- Number of characters you can type on average before you need to press Shift: 13.5

TenKeyLess QWERTY keyboard:
- Time to type the code: 9.0% longer than with the "perfect" keyboard.
- Number of characters you can type on average before you need to press Shift: 11.1

Full-size QwertFLIP keyboard:
- Time to type the code: 3.5% longer than with the "perfect" keyboard.
- Number of characters you can type on average before you need to press Shift: 28.9 (!)

TenKeyLess QwertFLIP keyboard:
- Time to type the code: 5.8% longer than with the "perfect" keyboard.
- Number of characters you can type on average before you need to press Shift: 17.4

These statistics are a little bit lousy. I should improve them, but anyway, I believe that it is easy to achieve a higher WPM with the QwertFLIP layout.

The numbers are extremely favorable to the Full-size QwertFLIP layout, because the digits can be typed on the numeric keypad without using Shift. When you think about it, it's obvious: a full-size keyboard has duplicate keys for every digit. These keys could have been better used for symbols, and that's what QwertFLIP does.

WPM is maybe not a crucial metric for some: when you type code for example, you spend a lot of time thinking anyway. Typing faster is not going to make a significant difference. But in this case, what I call the "Shift disruption factor" may be important for you. When you are focusing on writing code, or anything that requires a serious intellectual effort, anything that distracts you is a pain. Having to use Shift just to type parenthesis, a star, or an exclamation mark, increasing the risk of making a typo, may be just this kind of disruption: for me, it is.

After all, if being distracted by the keyboard was inconsequential, we would not be on Geekhack.

Finally, for the curious, a word on how QWERTY and AZERTY compare in my stats:

I know you are not going to believe it, but AZERTY (french) is actually more efficient than QWERTY for typing C source code when using a full-size keyboard. I have been very surprised by this result: at least twice over the years I have planned to switch to QWERTY just to be more efficient when typing code, but it would have been a mistake!

When using a TKL, they are very close.

However, QwertFLIP vindicates QWERTY: it is as efficient as AZERTY on a full-size keyboard, and significantly more efficient on a TKL!

[0100010]

That actually sounds pretty good for the number row on a full size board.

[Nai_Calus]

Given that I basically never use the number row for numerical input, this makes perfect sense. If I have to use more than two numbers I find my hand over on the numpad anyway. If I have to use that few numbers there's a good chance I'm actually typing out the word for the number. (Which is silly because 28 is shorter than twenty-eight, but whatever.)

[spiceBar]

Given that I basically never use the number row for numerical input, this makes perfect sense. If I have to use more than two numbers I find my hand over on the numpad anyway. If I have to use that few numbers there's a good chance I'm actually typing out the word for the number. (Which is silly because 28 is shorter than twenty-eight, but whatever.)

If you are going to type several numbers and you don't have the numpad, you can use the corresponding lock key (I have suggested CapsLock or ScrollLock for this), and switch back to the standard QWERTY mode.

When you are done typing numbers, you can switch to QwertFLIP again.

The CapsLock or ScrollLock LED tells you in which mode you are.

[spiceBar]

I am astounded that this post has been read more than 100 times with almost no reaction.

I had no idea that QWERTY users were so satisfied with the layout that they weren't bothered by the need to press Shift just to type parenthesis...

[Nai_Calus]

I think it's mostly that most people still using QWERTY don't care enough about improvements on performance vs familiarity, and even this simple change would require re-learning, and the people willing to relearn things already went to completely alternate layouts.

Although Colemak and Workman at least do the same thing QWERTY does with the number row, I think Dvorak does too but I've never looked at it much.

[Oobly]

I think it's mostly that most people still using QWERTY don't care enough about improvements on performance vs familiarity, and even this simple change would require re-learning, and the people willing to relearn things already went to completely alternate layouts.

Although Colemak and Workman at least do the same thing QWERTY does with the number row, I think Dvorak does too but I've never looked at it much.

^^This... I'm still processing the use cases and balancing the factors in my head, but I suspect familiarity will trump efficiency in this case.

I'm not sure the small increase in efficiency is worth taking the time to untrain hitting Shift when typing the symbols and then hitting it when you need numbers. You're retraining something in reverse order which becomes very confusing (and forcing you to think, "Should I hit Shift to get the character I want now, or not?"). Then, once you've learnt the switch, typing on a board that doesn't have it will mess you up. You have to think about it again, which slows you down. Then switching back again will again mess you up. It's not like learning a whole new layout which creates a different set of muscle memory, it's retraining your existing set to use the same keys but in a different order, which is a lot harder and prone to confusion or at least the requirement to confirm by thinking.

For this reason I have left the symbols on the Fn+Shift layer on my writer's board layout. It's just so familiar to hit Shift+1 for !

Also, would you reverse the order of the other symbols, like ;: '" [{ ]} \| /? .> ,< or leave them alone? IMHO, either option will be confusing if you switch the numbers / symbols. The legends are printed with unshifted characters on the bottom, so if you switch one set, should you switch the other? What about - and =?

[spiceBar]

I think it's mostly that most people still using QWERTY don't care enough about improvements on performance vs familiarity, and even this simple change would require re-learning, and the people willing to relearn things already went to completely alternate layouts.

Although Colemak and Workman at least do the same thing QWERTY does with the number row, I think Dvorak does too but I've never looked at it much.

^^This... I'm still processing the use cases and balancing the factors in my head, but I suspect familiarity will trump efficiency in this case.

I'm not sure the small increase in efficiency is worth taking the time to untrain hitting Shift when typing the symbols and then hitting it when you need numbers. You're retraining something in reverse order which becomes very confusing (and forcing you to think, "Should I hit Shift to get the character I want now, or not?"). Then, once you've learnt the switch, typing on a board that doesn't have it will mess you up. You have to think about it again, which slows you down. Then switching back again will again mess you up. It's not like learning a whole new layout which creates a different set of muscle memory, it's retraining your existing set to use the same keys but in a different order, which is a lot harder and prone to confusion or at least the requirement to confirm by thinking.

For this reason I have left the symbols on the Fn+Shift layer on my writer's board layout. It's just so familiar to hit Shift+1 for !

Also, would you reverse the order of the other symbols, like ;: '" [{ ]} \| /? .> ,< or leave them alone? IMHO, either option will be confusing if you switch the numbers / symbols. The legends are printed with unshifted characters on the bottom, so if you switch one set, should you switch the other? What about - and =?

Only the digits.

It's a simple rule to remember and it's enough to significantly boost the efficiency of QWERTY.

I'm well aware that it messes with your habits, but it may depends on how old you are.

And for all the good reasons you give for not trying it, which are all intellectual, I don't see any personal experience of trying it and being really upset by the change.

It really shouldn't be such a big deal. I hoped someone would agree that this gross inefficiency of QWERTY can easily be overcome and that it was tempting to just try QwertFLIP.

I am personally redesigning AZERTY. I have changed 10 keys in order to improve its efficiency and I am testing the changes. Naturally it's a little bit confusing when you start using it, but like in QwertFLIP it doesn't affect the letters. My typing speed is basically unchanged. And then when I want to type some of the most comon symbols, it's so much easier!

I don't expect anyone to use my AZERTY layout, as it is a significant departure from the standard. The QwertFLIP idea, however, is so simple that I thought it was worth posting.

[Anole]

This is a really good idea. Except for 80% users  ) (like me)

[spiceBar]

This is a really good idea. Except for 80% users  ) (like me)

Why?

My statistics are maybe not completely accurate, but it is likely that it significantly improves your performance on TLK (and 80% is similar).

If it works on a TKL, it also works on a 80% and even on a 60%.

[Evo_Spec]

I'm confused on how to actually do this? can i use sharpkeys or something?
It makes a lot of sense and i would love to try it.

[tp4tissue]

Um... I don't want to be the Nelly here..

But... this is a waste of time..

The constraint on "code-production"  is hardly how fast or efficiently the programmer can TYPE it out..


Unless you're BPS from that anime of course..  then by all means.. cut up 6 keyboards and do ur flip thing..

[spiceBar]

Um... I don't want to be the Nelly here..

But... this is a waste of time..

The constraint on "code-production"  is hardly how fast or efficiently the programmer can TYPE it out..


Unless you're BPS from that anime of course..  then by all means.. cut up 6 keyboards and do ur flip thing..

Show Image

You are kidding, right?

I'm an indie dev. At this point, my entire life depends on my ability to produce code that meets a number of requirements on various levels, not limited, far from it, to correctness. This is a stressing, demanding, but incredibly rewarding job.

When I'm working, the real world around me disappears. I find myself totally immersed in code. That's when I'm the most efficient and productive.

To better take advantage of this conscience state, obviously, you want to get rid of any distraction. Because this state is easily broken, and then you must fight to focus again and re-create it.

You don't want a phone to ring, you don't want someone to knock at your door, and YOU DON'T WANT THE F*****G KEYBOARD TO GET IN YOUR WAY.

Everything must just flow.

In this context, improving your keyboard layout, as long as it is not too disruptive and doesn't become counter-productive, is really worth it.

It's not really about typing faster, it's about making typing easier. The act of typing must become so easy that you can forget about it and focus on your stuff.

Using a mechanical keyboard is part of this. Because the higher build quality of a mechanical translates into a better reliability in registering keystrokes and letting you know the keystroke has been registered, a better, less disruptive sound, less stress for your fingers, and so on. What do you think I'm doing on Geekhack?

If we look at the big picture, the act of typing in itself is a ridiculously small part of my job, in which writing code is just one task amongst others, because I also do graphical/sound/music design, marketing, accounting and even changing the light bulbs in my office.

But from my own subjective point of view, the act of typing happens at the most crucial time in my work. By making it easier, I significantly improve my experience.

Here is a list of digits and symbols, ordered from the most frequent to the less frequent in my code:
  / ( ) ; * . " = , 0 [ ] - : _ 1 { } 2 ' & + # | ! > @ 3 \ 4 < 5 6 8 7 % ? 9 $ ^ ~

It does not really matter that it comes from statistics done on "my" code. I expect this order to be meaningful for other's people code, more or less.

What is very shocking in this list is how much the parenthesis are used, and how little the digits from 3 to 9 are used.

I use slash to open comments, and I comment my code a lot. So slash is the symbol I use the most and it may be ranked lower in less commented code.

But I think I don't over-use the parenthesis, and they are amongst the most used characters.

Consequently, it should bother people who write code that two of the most used symbols and in the secondary layer (Shift layer).

Aside from the parenthesis, the star and the double quote also stand out. I guess that the star should somehow be less important for people that don't code in C, C++ or Objective-C, but it should still rank quite high.

The double quote is vastly used in many programming languages, so I expect it to stay in the top ten.

Food for thoughts...

[Azure Flash]

But I think I don't over-use the parenthesis, and they are amongst the most used characters.

Consequently, it should bother people who write code that two of the most used symbols and in the secondary layer (Shift layer).

Aside from the parenthesis, the star and the double quote also stand out. I guess that the star should somehow be less important for people that don't code in C, C++ or Objective-C, but it should still rank quite high.

The double quote is vastly used in many programming languages, so I expect it to stay in the top ten.

Now just imagine how LISP programmers must feel about parentheses

[spiceBar]

But I think I don't over-use the parenthesis, and they are amongst the most used characters.

Consequently, it should bother people who write code that two of the most used symbols and in the secondary layer (Shift layer).

Aside from the parenthesis, the star and the double quote also stand out. I guess that the star should somehow be less important for people that don't code in C, C++ or Objective-C, but it should still rank quite high.

The double quote is vastly used in many programming languages, so I expect it to stay in the top ten.

Now just imagine how LISP programmers must feel about parentheses

I almost wanted to mention exactly this in my previous post.

For them, I guess a small keyboard layout change, namely to swap "(" with "[", and ")" with "]" would probably be a good idea.

There are, however, simpler solutions that may be acceptable for many more users. For example, put "(" on the backquote and ")" on the backslash. The dislodged characters could go where the parenthesis were sitting. I'm pretty sure even Windows users don't use the backslash as often as the closing parenthesis.

I understand the fear to lose the ability to type on keyboards that are not attached to your own computers, but the important question to ask yourself is how hard would it be to type on someone else's keyboard if you are usually working on a slightly modified layout, and how often it is going to happen. For some people, the gains would be much more than the losses.

If you are using any mobile touch-screen device, you are most probably already doing it anyway: typing parenthesis on iOS or Android requires a special sequence. We are easily able to adapt to these small changes.

[Oobly]

You make a good point about the keyboard not getting in the way and this is precisely why I think this idea, while interesting and sounding good as a concept, will not be worth implementing in real life unless you do it over a long holiday. The confusion during the learning period (and possibly even afterwards) will be a severe hindrance to coding while you're learning. This is why I went with a completely different physical AND character layout with my ergo board. I needed to keep my speed of coding on QWERTY up at work and familiarity trumps a small efficiency boost if it requires breaking with the familiar for a significant period of time.

If you have some time when you don't need to be as efficient at coding, then by all means give it a try, it may end being worth it for you, but I'm going to stick with "standard" QWERTY until I start using my 48 key ergo board at work. It has the symbols on a dedicated layer (parentheses are on index and middle finger ) and the numbers on a different layer.

[tp4tissue]

nawh dawg....

Count up all the programming in characters you've (personally) written, excluding copy and pasting..

then divide that by the minutes you've spent at work.. 

I highly doubt you'd come up with more than 70-80 wpm.. even prolific writers only draw 35-50wpm over a LIFETIME of work..


So you see,  programming or writing in general is not bottle necked by input efficiency..



That is not to say it "couldn't"  be improved for it's own sake..  but then you're in the zone for fun or vanity, not productivity..


My original point was that Programming productivity is NOT limited by input efficiency, and that stands..

[spiceBar]

nawh dawg....

Count up all the programming in characters you've (personally) written, excluding copy and pasting..

then divide that by the minutes you've spent at work.. 

I highly doubt you'd come up with more than 70-80 wpm.. even prolific writers only draw 35-50wpm over a LIFETIME of work..


So you see,  programming or writing in general is not bottle necked by input efficiency..



That is not to say it "couldn't"  be improved for it's own sake..  but then you're in the zone for fun or vanity, not productivity..


My original point was that Programming productivity is NOT limited by input efficiency, and that stands..

Call me back when you have actually tried to read my answer to your previous post.

[tp4tissue]

nawh dawg....

Count up all the programming in characters you've (personally) written, excluding copy and pasting..

then divide that by the minutes you've spent at work.. 

I highly doubt you'd come up with more than 70-80 wpm.. even prolific writers only draw 35-50wpm over a LIFETIME of work..


So you see,  programming or writing in general is not bottle necked by input efficiency..



That is not to say it "couldn't"  be improved for it's own sake..  but then you're in the zone for fun or vanity, not productivity..


My original point was that Programming productivity is NOT limited by input efficiency, and that stands..

Call me back when you have actually tried to read my answer to your previous post.

I have read it..

The immersion you're talking about is simply due to the level of familiarity with those special keys..

A muscle memory is built for each special key to include the shift-key.

For example when I think {} I'm not thinking shift,  my left hand automatically goes there and my right hand goes to the square brackets.

[spiceBar]

nawh dawg....

Count up all the programming in characters you've (personally) written, excluding copy and pasting..

then divide that by the minutes you've spent at work.. 

I highly doubt you'd come up with more than 70-80 wpm.. even prolific writers only draw 35-50wpm over a LIFETIME of work..


So you see,  programming or writing in general is not bottle necked by input efficiency..



That is not to say it "couldn't"  be improved for it's own sake..  but then you're in the zone for fun or vanity, not productivity..


My original point was that Programming productivity is NOT limited by input efficiency, and that stands..

Call me back when you have actually tried to read my answer to your previous post.

I have read it..

The immersion you're talking about is simply due to the level of familiarity with those special keys..

A muscle memory is built for each special key to include the shift-key.

For example when I think {} I'm not thinking shift,  my left hand automatically goes there and my right hand goes to the square brackets.

I don't see how you can tell me that I'm not annoyed by having to hit Shift for some very frequently used characters. I have designed a layout exactly for this purpose (not QwertFLIP, it's a layout that goes well beyond that), I use it all the time now, and it does help me. So what?

Did I reach for Shift automatically when typing some characters? Yes I did. Do I still reach for Shift now that these characters are directly accessible? No I don't, and it feels so good.

Do I find it confusing when I have to type on someone else's keyboard? Yes a little bit. But I don't have to do that so often that I would punish myself by not using my better layout on my own computers. YMMV - if you have to use many computers it may not be a good deal for you.

Have you changed religions? I find it weird, coming from someone who constantly evangelize about the Ergodox, that you would now evangelize inertia.

Be it QwertFLIP or some other subtle change, I dare to suggest that QWERTY has some stunning inefficiency that are easy to overcome. It's a sad thing to tell me that it can't be done, because it can be done easily.

[Oobly]

If I were new to typing on QWERTY keyboards, I would definitely do this. But then again, I would rather use a proper ergonomically designed board from the start then, not just a partially "fixed" layout. For the rest of us (especially old coders like myself), I'm not convinced the small improvement is worth retraining a very ingrained set of muscle memory.

That could just be the grumpy old man in me talking, though. The younger-minded keyboard enthusiast says, "It sounds like a good improvement if you're willing to put the time in to unlearn / relearn the number row movements and risk the confusion when switching layouts."

Of course, it's also a risk for someone like myself who only uses 60% and smaller formats since the numbers are now on a "Fn" layer, which could be a problem when working in Excel...

[tp4tissue]

nawh dawg....

Count up all the programming in characters you've (personally) written, excluding copy and pasting..

then divide that by the minutes you've spent at work.. 

I highly doubt you'd come up with more than 70-80 wpm.. even prolific writers only draw 35-50wpm over a LIFETIME of work..


So you see,  programming or writing in general is not bottle necked by input efficiency..



That is not to say it "couldn't"  be improved for it's own sake..  but then you're in the zone for fun or vanity, not productivity..


My original point was that Programming productivity is NOT limited by input efficiency, and that stands..

Call me back when you have actually tried to read my answer to your previous post.

I have read it..

The immersion you're talking about is simply due to the level of familiarity with those special keys..

A muscle memory is built for each special key to include the shift-key.

For example when I think {} I'm not thinking shift,  my left hand automatically goes there and my right hand goes to the square brackets.

I don't see how you can tell me that I'm not annoyed by having to hit Shift for some very frequently used characters. I have designed a layout exactly for this purpose (not QwertFLIP, it's a layout that goes well beyond that), I use it all the time now, and it does help me. So what?

Did I reach for Shift automatically when typing some characters? Yes I did. Do I still reach for Shift now that these characters are directly accessible? No I don't, and it feels so good.

Do I find it confusing when I have to type on someone else's keyboard? Yes a little bit. But I don't have to do that so often that I would punish myself by not using my better layout on my own computers. YMMV - if you have to use many computers it may not be a good deal for you.

Have you changed religions? I find it weird, coming from someone who constantly evangelize about the Ergodox, that you would now evangelize inertia.

Be it QwertFLIP or some other subtle change, I dare to suggest that QWERTY has some stunning inefficiency that are easy to overcome. It's a sad thing to tell me that it can't be done, because it can be done easily.

again.. you misread my comment..

My point is.. programming productivity is NOT predominantly hindered by INPUT - EFFICIENCY..

I don't see how that conflicts with you improving your setup for WHATEVER reason you wish..

[spiceBar]

nawh dawg....

Count up all the programming in characters you've (personally) written, excluding copy and pasting..

then divide that by the minutes you've spent at work.. 

I highly doubt you'd come up with more than 70-80 wpm.. even prolific writers only draw 35-50wpm over a LIFETIME of work..


So you see,  programming or writing in general is not bottle necked by input efficiency..



That is not to say it "couldn't"  be improved for it's own sake..  but then you're in the zone for fun or vanity, not productivity..


My original point was that Programming productivity is NOT limited by input efficiency, and that stands..

Call me back when you have actually tried to read my answer to your previous post.

I have read it..

The immersion you're talking about is simply due to the level of familiarity with those special keys..

A muscle memory is built for each special key to include the shift-key.

For example when I think {} I'm not thinking shift,  my left hand automatically goes there and my right hand goes to the square brackets.

I don't see how you can tell me that I'm not annoyed by having to hit Shift for some very frequently used characters. I have designed a layout exactly for this purpose (not QwertFLIP, it's a layout that goes well beyond that), I use it all the time now, and it does help me. So what?

Did I reach for Shift automatically when typing some characters? Yes I did. Do I still reach for Shift now that these characters are directly accessible? No I don't, and it feels so good.

Do I find it confusing when I have to type on someone else's keyboard? Yes a little bit. But I don't have to do that so often that I would punish myself by not using my better layout on my own computers. YMMV - if you have to use many computers it may not be a good deal for you.

Have you changed religions? I find it weird, coming from someone who constantly evangelize about the Ergodox, that you would now evangelize inertia.

Be it QwertFLIP or some other subtle change, I dare to suggest that QWERTY has some stunning inefficiency that are easy to overcome. It's a sad thing to tell me that it can't be done, because it can be done easily.

again.. you misread my comment..

My point is.. programming productivity is NOT predominantly hindered by INPUT - EFFICIENCY..

It is, that's what I'm trying to tell you.

I explained precisely why typing is at the same time a small percentage of a developer's time, and the most crucial time.

As long as the changes in the layout do not become themselves a problem - which is debatable but is eventually decided by experimenting, not talking about it - improving my experience at the most important time in my job is certainly not futile.

Think about it this way: it can take less than 3 seconds of my time to create a subtle bug in an important program today, and it can have a devastating impact on my business for the rest of the year.

This can be caused by my attention being captured for a few seconds by a distracting event. Sometimes it's just that I can't type as fast as I would like, or that I find some characters frustrating to type. Just an example: on the french AZERTY layout, an opening square bracket is generated by the key combination AltGr-5 (AltGr is the right Alt key). Guess what? I have moved this characters on my personal layout, and I have done it a long time ago. There is a dozen characters that I have moved for the same reason, sparing me the repeated inconvenience hundreds of times a day.

Even with the strongest, state of the art checks in place, being distracted while coding is seriously counterproductive.

I don't care that, numerically, it represent a small fraction of my time. It just matters.

I don't know if you have to do serious coding in your work, or at home. If you don't, then its not surprising you have trouble understanding this.

I don't see how that conflicts with you improving your setup for WHATEVER reason you wish..

Show Image

[pnutster]

Very interesting.

In light of being willing to try anything that will reduce use of pinkies/shift and thus a resulting in a positive effect on my tendonosis lower left arm, this seems like something that may be worth a try.

I am certainly using the characters "behind" the digits way more than the digits itself. Don't think the "unlearning" process is really going to be a big issue for me. Certainly think it is worth the try.

Ukelele for remapping keys for Mac is a great help here...

Using it on my couch-slouch laptop now and must admit that the "unlearning" process may be a bigger challenge than initially thought, however, I hardly ever will have to type on another keyboard than my own... so it's not such a big deal as someone that would have to work in an office without their own hardware, or having to share keyboard frequently.

[spiceBar]

If I were new to typing on QWERTY keyboards, I would definitely do this. But then again, I would rather use a proper ergonomically designed board from the start then, not just a partially "fixed" layout. For the rest of us (especially old coders like myself), I'm not convinced the small improvement is worth retraining a very ingrained set of muscle memory.

That could just be the grumpy old man in me talking, though. The younger-minded keyboard enthusiast says, "It sounds like a good improvement if you're willing to put the time in to unlearn / relearn the number row movements and risk the confusion when switching layouts."

Of course, it's also a risk for someone like myself who only uses 60% and smaller formats since the numbers are now on a "Fn" layer, which could be a problem when working in Excel...

Well... Exactly!

It's funny that on one hand you consider moving a row (or flipping it) as a serious disturbance in the force, and that on the other hand you admit that you have already done it, more or less.

My keyboard stats show that I use the arrows (collectively) more often than the space bar. But for months I have been using two layouts dedicated to 60% keyboards that do not have arrows keys (SpaceFN and GuiFN). You are probably doing this too, whatever layout you are using on your 60% board(s).

Ultimately, this is a matter of trying a change, not talking about it.

My experience is that the negative impact of a carefully pondered change can be washed away in a matter of hours, not even days. That is, if you try it in the first place.

[spiceBar]

Very interesting.

In light of being willing to try anything that will reduce use of pinkies/shift and thus a resulting in a positive effect on my tendonosis lower left arm, this seems like something that may be worth a try.

I am certainly using the characters "behind" the digits way more than the digits itself. Don't think the "unlearning" process is really going to be a big issue for me. Certainly think it is worth the try.

Ukelele for remapping keys for Mac is a great help here...

Using it on my couch-slouch laptop now and must admit that the "unlearning" process may be a bigger challenge than initially thought, however, I hardly ever will have to type on another keyboard than my own... so it's not such a big deal as someone that would have to work in an office without their own hardware, or having to share keyboard frequently.

Yes, it's definitely a job for Ukelele on the Mac. That's how I do and I still improve my personal layout.

The downside of the experiment is that you are going to become overly conscious of the inefficiency of the default layout as soon as you go back typing on a "standard" keyboard.