Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #7437 > unrolled thread

Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 00:50 -0700
    Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Tim Roberts <timr@probo.com> - 2011-06-12 21:30 -0700
      Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Elena <egarrulo@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 00:21 -0700
        Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-06-13 13:19 +0000
          Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2011-06-13 15:54 +0200
          Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Elena <egarrulo@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 10:42 -0700
          Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-06-13 12:19 -0700
          Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 00:26 -0700
        Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 17:50 +0300
          Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 10:43 -0700
            Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-06-18 00:26 +0300
              Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 15:09 -0700
                Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-06-18 14:06 +0300
                Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-06-18 04:40 -0700
                Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-06-18 15:35 +0300
        Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 10:11 +1000
          Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 20:00 -0700
            Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 07:35 +0300
              Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 05:19 -0700
                Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 15:32 +0300
                  Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 05:43 -0700
                    Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 10:53 -0700
                      Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout? Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> - 2011-06-19 14:21 +1000
                        Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout? rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-06-18 22:14 -0700
                          Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile toImprovethe Dvorak Layout? Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> - 2011-06-19 15:50 +1000
                            Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile toImprovethe Dvorak Layout? rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-06-19 12:19 -0700
      Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Yang Ha Nguyen <cmpitg@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 01:42 -0700
        Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 19:22 +1000
          Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve   the Dvorak Layout? Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-06-14 13:45 +1200
            Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 11:58 +1000
            Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve   the Dvorak Layout? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2011-06-14 03:34 +0000
            Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-06-13 23:11 -0700
              Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 16:11 -0600
            Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 17:29 -0500
            Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 10:18 +1000
            Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 20:23 -0500
          Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Elena <egarrulo@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 05:23 -0700
      Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-06-13 09:06 -0700
        Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Tim Roberts <timr@probo.com> - 2011-06-15 00:16 -0700
          Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 18:30 +1000
          Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 12:22 +0300
          Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 19:33 +1000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#7691

On Jun 15, 5:32 pm, Dotan Cohen <dotanco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks. From testing small movements with my fingers I see that the
> fourth finger is in fact a bit weaker than the last finger, but more
> importantly, it is much less dexterous. Good to know!

Most of the piano technique-icians emphasis, especially those of the
last century like Hanon, was to cultivate 'independence' of the
fingers.  The main target of these attacks being the 4th finger.

The number of potential-pianists who ruined their hands and lives
chasing this holy grail is unknown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7842

On Jun 15, 5:43 am, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 5:32 pm, Dotan Cohen <dotanco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks. From testing small movements with my fingers I see that the
> > fourth finger is in fact a bit weaker than the last finger, but more
> > importantly, it is much less dexterous. Good to know!
>
> Most of the piano technique-icians emphasis, especially those of the
> last century like Hanon, was to cultivate 'independence' of the
> fingers.  The main target of these attacks being the 4th finger.
>
> The number of potential-pianists who ruined their hands and lives
> chasing this holy grail is unknown

Hi rusi, am afaid going to contradict what u say here.

i pretty much mastered Hanon 60. All of it, but it was now 8 years
ago. The idea that pinky is stronger than 4th is silly. I can't fathom
any logic or science to support that. Perhaps what u meant is that in
many situations the use of pinky can be worked around because it in at
the edge of your hand so you can apply chopping motion or similar.
(which, is BAD if you want to develope piano finger skill) However,
that's entirely different than saying pinky being stronger than 4th.

there's many ways we can cookup tests right away to see. e.g. try to
squeeze a rubber ball with 4th and thumb. Repeat with pink + thumb.
Or, reverse exercise by stretching a rubber band wrapped on the 2
fingers of interest. You can easy see that pinky isn't stronger.

 Xah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7940 — Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

On 06/18/11 03:53, Xah Lee wrote:
> On Jun 15, 5:43 am, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 5:32 pm, Dotan Cohen <dotanco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks. From testing small movements with my fingers I see that the
>>> fourth finger is in fact a bit weaker than the last finger, but more
>>> importantly, it is much less dexterous. Good to know!
>>
>> Most of the piano technique-icians emphasis, especially those of the
>> last century like Hanon, was to cultivate 'independence' of the
>> fingers.  The main target of these attacks being the 4th finger.
>>
>> The number of potential-pianists who ruined their hands and lives
>> chasing this holy grail is unknown
> 
> Hi rusi, am afaid going to contradict what u say here.
> 
> i pretty much mastered Hanon 60. All of it, but it was now 8 years
> ago. The idea that pinky is stronger than 4th is silly. I can't fathom
> any logic or science to support that. Perhaps what u meant is that in
> many situations the use of pinky can be worked around because it in at
> the edge of your hand so you can apply chopping motion or similar.
> (which, is BAD if you want to develope piano finger skill) However,
> that's entirely different than saying pinky being stronger than 4th.
> 
> there's many ways we can cookup tests right away to see. e.g. try to
> squeeze a rubber ball with 4th and thumb. Repeat with pink + thumb.
> Or, reverse exercise by stretching a rubber band wrapped on the 2
> fingers of interest. You can easy see that pinky isn't stronger.

Except that the actual finger strength themselves are not very relevant;
the dexterity of the fingers turned out to matter more because pressing
the keys in a keyboard does not actually take a lot of power.

Finger strength is even less important in typing than piano since, since
the character produced by power press and light press are the same.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7943 — Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improvethe Dvorak Layout?

On Jun 19, 9:21 am, Lie Ryan <lie.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/18/11 03:53, Xah Lee wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 5:43 am, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 5:32 pm, Dotan Cohen <dotanco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Thanks. From testing small movements with my fingers I see that the
> >>> fourth finger is in fact a bit weaker than the last finger, but more
> >>> importantly, it is much less dexterous. Good to know!
>
> >> Most of the piano technique-icians emphasis, especially those of the
> >> last century like Hanon, was to cultivate 'independence' of the
> >> fingers.  The main target of these attacks being the 4th finger.
>
> >> The number of potential-pianists who ruined their hands and lives
> >> chasing this holy grail is unknown
>
> > Hi rusi, am afaid going to contradict what u say here.
>
> > i pretty much mastered Hanon 60. All of it, but it was now 8 years
> > ago. The idea that pinky is stronger than 4th is silly. I can't fathom
> > any logic or science to support that. Perhaps what u meant is that in
> > many situations the use of pinky can be worked around because it in at
> > the edge of your hand so you can apply chopping motion or similar.
> > (which, is BAD if you want to develope piano finger skill) However,
> > that's entirely different than saying pinky being stronger than 4th.
>
> > there's many ways we can cookup tests right away to see. e.g. try to
> > squeeze a rubber ball with 4th and thumb. Repeat with pink + thumb.
> > Or, reverse exercise by stretching a rubber band wrapped on the 2
> > fingers of interest. You can easy see that pinky isn't stronger.
>
> Except that the actual finger strength themselves are not very relevant;
> the dexterity of the fingers turned out to matter more because pressing
> the keys in a keyboard does not actually take a lot of power.

Actually there are 3 factors: strength, dexterity and independence.
Speaking somewhat simplistically,
strength corresponds to how hard one can hit a note,
dexterity to how fast one can play,
independence to.. well independence :-) eg fugal/multi-voice music
needs more independence -- both physical and intellectual -- than
harmony/chord based music

In Bach's introduction to his 2 and 3 part inventions he indicates his
intention:

An honest guide, wherewith lovers of the clavier, and especially those
anxious to learn, are shown a clear method not only how to learn to
play neatly in two parts, but further to play correctly and well in
three obbligato parts; and at the same time not only to acquire good
inventiones (ideas) but to work them out well; but above all to get a
cantabile style of playing and in addition to get a strong taste for
composition.

Likewise in Donald F Tovey's commentary on the fugue in Beethoven's
Hammerklavier he cautions:
"It is three voices, not two fists that unite..."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7944 — Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile toImprovethe Dvorak Layout?

On 06/19/11 15:14, rusi wrote:
> On Jun 19, 9:21 am, Lie Ryan <lie.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 06/18/11 03:53, Xah Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 15, 5:43 am, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 15, 5:32 pm, Dotan Cohen <dotanco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Thanks. From testing small movements with my fingers I see that the
>>>>> fourth finger is in fact a bit weaker than the last finger, but more
>>>>> importantly, it is much less dexterous. Good to know!
>>
>>>> Most of the piano technique-icians emphasis, especially those of the
>>>> last century like Hanon, was to cultivate 'independence' of the
>>>> fingers.  The main target of these attacks being the 4th finger.
>>
>>>> The number of potential-pianists who ruined their hands and lives
>>>> chasing this holy grail is unknown
>>
>>> Hi rusi, am afaid going to contradict what u say here.
>>
>>> i pretty much mastered Hanon 60. All of it, but it was now 8 years
>>> ago. The idea that pinky is stronger than 4th is silly. I can't fathom
>>> any logic or science to support that. Perhaps what u meant is that in
>>> many situations the use of pinky can be worked around because it in at
>>> the edge of your hand so you can apply chopping motion or similar.
>>> (which, is BAD if you want to develope piano finger skill) However,
>>> that's entirely different than saying pinky being stronger than 4th.
>>
>>> there's many ways we can cookup tests right away to see. e.g. try to
>>> squeeze a rubber ball with 4th and thumb. Repeat with pink + thumb.
>>> Or, reverse exercise by stretching a rubber band wrapped on the 2
>>> fingers of interest. You can easy see that pinky isn't stronger.
>>
>> Except that the actual finger strength themselves are not very relevant;
>> the dexterity of the fingers turned out to matter more because pressing
>> the keys in a keyboard does not actually take a lot of power.
> 
> Actually there are 3 factors: strength, dexterity and independence.

In piano playing yes; but in typing dexterity is the most important
factor. When typing, you don't usually need to press multiple keys at
the same time except for capitals (or if you're an emacs user) and even
when you do the keyboard will still correctly register the keypresses
(unlike playing piano, which may produce different sound), also the
range of movement in typing is much less than a piano, so finger
independence aren't as necessary in typing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7990 — Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile toImprovethe Dvorak Layout?

On Jun 19, 10:50 am, Lie Ryan <lie.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/19/11 15:14, rusi wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 9:21 am, Lie Ryan <lie.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 06/18/11 03:53, Xah Lee wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 15, 5:43 am, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 15, 5:32 pm, Dotan Cohen <dotanco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Thanks. From testing small movements with my fingers I see that the
> >>>>> fourth finger is in fact a bit weaker than the last finger, but more
> >>>>> importantly, it is much less dexterous. Good to know!
>
> >>>> Most of the piano technique-icians emphasis, especially those of the
> >>>> last century like Hanon, was to cultivate 'independence' of the
> >>>> fingers.  The main target of these attacks being the 4th finger.
>
> >>>> The number of potential-pianists who ruined their hands and lives
> >>>> chasing this holy grail is unknown
>
> >>> Hi rusi, am afaid going to contradict what u say here.
>
> >>> i pretty much mastered Hanon 60. All of it, but it was now 8 years
> >>> ago. The idea that pinky is stronger than 4th is silly. I can't fathom
> >>> any logic or science to support that. Perhaps what u meant is that in
> >>> many situations the use of pinky can be worked around because it in at
> >>> the edge of your hand so you can apply chopping motion or similar.
> >>> (which, is BAD if you want to develope piano finger skill) However,
> >>> that's entirely different than saying pinky being stronger than 4th.
>
> >>> there's many ways we can cookup tests right away to see. e.g. try to
> >>> squeeze a rubber ball with 4th and thumb. Repeat with pink + thumb.
> >>> Or, reverse exercise by stretching a rubber band wrapped on the 2
> >>> fingers of interest. You can easy see that pinky isn't stronger.
>
> >> Except that the actual finger strength themselves are not very relevant;
> >> the dexterity of the fingers turned out to matter more because pressing
> >> the keys in a keyboard does not actually take a lot of power.
>
> > Actually there are 3 factors: strength, dexterity and independence.
>
> In piano playing yes; but in typing dexterity is the most important
> factor. When typing, you don't usually need to press multiple keys at
> the same time except for capitals (or if you're an emacs user) and even
> when you do the keyboard will still correctly register the keypresses
> (unlike playing piano, which may produce different sound), also the
> range of movement in typing is much less than a piano, so finger
> independence aren't as necessary in typing.

A quick look at openoffice's autocorrect table shows entries like

ahve have
alwyas always
amde made

What makes the error-entries more natural than the correct ones?

I would suggest its an excess of independence required of the correct
ones
If 'da' is LH and 'di' is RH
da di da di
is easier to type fast than
da da di da

In fact da da di da
is probably harder than da da da da

IIUC dvorak's advantage (one of them) is that it aims for a rhythmic
alternation of LH and RH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7507

On Jun 13, 11:30 am, Tim Roberts <t...@probo.com> wrote:
> Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >(a lil weekend distraction from comp lang!)
>
> >in recent years, there came this Colemak layout. The guy who created
> >it, Colemak, has a site, and aggressively market his layout. It's in
> >linuxes distro by default, and has become somewhat popular.
> >...
> >If your typing doesn't come anywhere close to a data-entry clerk, then
> >any layout “more efficient” than Dvorak is practically meaningless.
>
> More than that, any layout "more efficient" than QWERTY is practically
> meaningless.  The whole "intentional inefficiency" thing in the design of
> the QWERTY layout is an urban legend.  Once your fingers have the mapping
> memorized, the actual order is irrelevent.  Studies have shown that even a
> strictly alphabetical layout works perfectly well, once the typist is
> acclimated.
> --
> Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

Could you show which studies?  Do they do research just about habit or
other elements (e.g. movement rates, comfortablility, ...) as well?
Have they ever heard of RSI because of repetitive movements?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7508

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Yang Ha Nguyen <cmpitg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Could you show which studies?  Do they do research just about habit or
> other elements (e.g. movement rates, comfortablility, ...) as well?
> Have they ever heard of RSI because of repetitive movements?

And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
mouse as well as a keyboard? The classic "grasp mouse" sitting to the
right of the keyboard mandates either a one-handed typing style (left
hand on keyboard, right hand on mouse) or constant re-aiming and
re-grasping. Or you can use a touchpad; what are the consequences of
that on typing speed? And my personal favorite, the IBM TrackPoint - a
stick mouse between the G/H/B keys, a design which other manufacturers
have since copied (although IMHO the IBM/Lenovo type still beats the
others hands down) - keep your hands where you want them and just
reach out to grab the mouse with your index finger, or slide your
fingers one key over (works fine if you're used to it).

Typing speed depends on a lot more than just your layout, and it's
going to be nearly impossible to narrow it down viably.

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7579 — Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout?

Chris Angelico wrote:

> And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
> computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
> mouse as well as a keyboard?

What I think's really stupid is designing keyboards with two
big blocks of keys between the alphabetic keys and the mouse.
Back when standard-grade keyboards didn't usually have a
built-in numeric keypad, it was much easier to move one's
right hand back and forth between the keyboard and mouse.

Nowadays I find myself perpetually prone to off-by-one errors
when moving back to the keyboard. :-(

-- 
Greg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7581

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Gregory Ewing
<greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
>> computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
>> mouse as well as a keyboard?
>
> What I think's really stupid is designing keyboards with two
> big blocks of keys between the alphabetic keys and the mouse.
>
> Nowadays I find myself perpetually prone to off-by-one errors
> when moving back to the keyboard. :-(

That's one of the reasons I like my laptop keyboard so much. Hands
don't have to leave to grab the mouse. Although if you lay out your
desk right (assuming you have one - the other advantage of the laptop
is the ability to type at the same speed on a bus) you can change that
"two big blocks of keys" issue. For instance, I have a computer at
work where the mouse is in front of the keyboard (between me and it).
It looks odd, but it works in practice. The actual distance my hand
moves to get from home keys to mouse is about the same as swinging to
the right past the numpad, but since I'm aiming in the opposite
direction, it's easier to not hit the off-by-one.

But as an old jester Pointed out, you can come in time to like
anything that you get used to.

ChrisA
PS. "Pointed" is not a mistake, but I doubt anyone on this list will
know why I did it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7582 — Re: Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout?

On 2011-06-14, Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
>> computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
>> mouse as well as a keyboard?
>
> What I think's really stupid is designing keyboards with two
> big blocks of keys between the alphabetic keys and the mouse.
> Back when standard-grade keyboards didn't usually have a
> built-in numeric keypad, it was much easier to move one's
> right hand back and forth between the keyboard and mouse.

That's why I always buy keyboards without numeric keypads. :)

Another good solution is to put the mouse on the left-hand side.

-- 
Grant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7588

On Jun 13, 6:45 pm, Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
> > And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
> > computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
> > mouse as well as a keyboard?
>
> What I think's really stupid is designing keyboards with two
> big blocks of keys between the alphabetic keys and the mouse.
> Back when standard-grade keyboards didn't usually have a
> built-in numeric keypad, it was much easier to move one's
> right hand back and forth between the keyboard and mouse.
>
> Nowadays I find myself perpetually prone to off-by-one errors
> when moving back to the keyboard. :-(

numerical keypad is useful to many. Most people can't touch type. Even
for touch typist, many doesn't do the number keys. So, when they need
to type credit, phone number, etc, they go for the number pad. Also, i
think the number pad esentially have become a calculator for vast
majority of computer users. These days, almost all keyboard from
Microsoft or Logitech has a Calculator button near the number pad to
launch it.

i myself, am a qwerty typist since ~1987, also worked as data entry
clerk for a couple of years. Am a dvorak touch typist since 1994. (and
emacs since 1997) However, i never learned touch type the numbers on
the main section till i think ~2005. Since about 2008, the numerical
keypad is used as extra function keys.

 Xah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7715

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:
> numerical keypad is useful to many. Most people can't touch type. Even
> for touch typist, many doesn't do the number keys. So, when they need
> to type credit, phone number, etc, they go for the number pad.

It's not about being *able* to touch type with the number keys in the
main section.  When you're doing primarily numerical data entry, the
number pad is typically much faster to touch type with than the main
number keys.  In the main section, the number keys are too far removed
from the home row to be able to type with any speed, and if you
reposition your hands directly above them then the Enter, decimal, and
Shift keys are no longer easily accessible.  Touch typing on the
number pad gives you everything you're likely to need in easy reach of
your right hand, and if you need something else as well then your left
hand is free to hover over it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7636

On 2011.06.13 08:58 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> That's one of the reasons I like my laptop keyboard so much.
I find that the terribly tiny keys on a laptop keyboard make them very
evil. I don't see how anyone could type fast on one of them without
making tons of errors. I constantly have to fix typos (the 'o' key is
the worst) when writing with this thing, and I'm not typing fast at all.
I suppose if you have really small hands, the compact layout might be
more comfortable, but I hate my keyboard. Then again, maybe I just have
a tiny keyboard; you might have one that actually fills the space on the
bottom.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7652

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011.06.13 08:58 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> That's one of the reasons I like my laptop keyboard so much.
> I find that the terribly tiny keys on a laptop keyboard make them very
> evil. I don't see how anyone could type fast on one of them without
> making tons of errors.

> Then again, maybe I just have a tiny keyboard; you
> might have one that actually fills the space on the bottom.

There are many different designs of laptop keyboard. Tiny netbooks
seem to have the very worst, leaving it nearly impossible to get any
decent work done (there may be exceptions to that, but I've seen a lot
of bad netbook keyboards). My current laptop is an IBM T60, one of the
last of the IBMs (now they're all Lenovos); prior to him, I've had
various other 14" or 15" laptops, all with the keyboards using most of
the available room. Obviously there's no numeric keypad on a keyboard
that small (having one overlaid on the main keyboard doesn't help when
you're playing Angband), but other than that, it's a complete keyboard
with enough room for the fingers to whack the right keys.

There's also a lot of difference in travel. The smaller keyboards have
keys that move about half a nanometer, but better keyboards feel
right. The worst keyboard of all, in that sense, would have to be the
virtual laser keyboard, no longer available on ThinkGeek but seems to
be here http://www.virtual-laser-devices.com/ - it's an incredibly
cool concept, but I can't imagine actually using one long-term. Typing
on concrete is not my idea of productivity.

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7659

On 2011.06.14 07:18 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> There are many different designs of laptop keyboard. Tiny netbooks
> seem to have the very worst, leaving it nearly impossible to get any
> decent work done (there may be exceptions to that, but I've seen a lot
> of bad netbook keyboards). My current laptop is an IBM T60, one of the
> last of the IBMs (now they're all Lenovos); prior to him, I've had
> various other 14" or 15" laptops, all with the keyboards using most of
> the available room.
I thought that might be the case. I can take a picture of mine if you're
keeping a collection of bad laptop keyboards. :D
Seriously, I have a 17.1" display, and the keyboard is almost small
enough for a large tablet. It takes up no more than 30% of the area
available.
Also, the left shift and left control keys don't want to work most of
the time, but that's another issue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7602

On 13 Giu, 11:22, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Yang Ha Nguyen <cmp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Could you show which studies?  Do they do research just about habit or
> > other elements (e.g. movement rates, comfortablility, ...) as well?
> > Have they ever heard of RSI because of repetitive movements?
>
> And did any of the studies take into account the fact that a lot of
> computer users - in all but the purest data entry tasks - will use a
> mouse as well as a keyboard? The classic "grasp mouse" sitting to the
> right of the keyboard mandates either a one-handed typing style (left
> hand on keyboard, right hand on mouse) or constant re-aiming and
> re-grasping. Or you can use a touchpad; what are the consequences of
> that on typing speed? And my personal favorite, the IBM TrackPoint - a
> stick mouse between the G/H/B keys, a design which other manufacturers
> have since copied (although IMHO the IBM/Lenovo type still beats the
> others hands down) - keep your hands where you want them and just
> reach out to grab the mouse with your index finger, or slide your
> fingers one key over (works fine if you're used to it).
>
> Typing speed depends on a lot more than just your layout, and it's
> going to be nearly impossible to narrow it down viably.
>
> Chris Angelico

Moreover, I've seen people move the mouse faster than I could achieve
the same task by keyboard.

To me, the advantage of ergonomic layout is not about speed - I'm sure
there will always be people able to type blazingly fast on any random
layout - but about comfort.  Even when typing slowly, I don't want my
fingers and my hands neither moving much more nor contorting much more
than necessary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7530

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:30:43 -0700, Tim Roberts <timr@probo.com>
declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:


> More than that, any layout "more efficient" than QWERTY is practically
> meaningless.  The whole "intentional inefficiency" thing in the design of
> the QWERTY layout is an urban legend.  Once your fingers have the mapping

	Oh, there was an "inefficiency" in QWERTY -- but it only applies to
fully manual typewriters, in which some of the more common letters were
placed under the weakest fingers -- to slow down key strokes enough to
reduce jamming multiple type blocks (didn't help for my last name -- I
and E are on opposing hands, same fingers, making for a fast parallel
reach).

	Low pressure electronic keys don't have the strength feedback
slowing down the outer fingers.
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
        wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7675

Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:30:43 -0700, Tim Roberts <timr@probo.com>
>declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
>
>> More than that, any layout "more efficient" than QWERTY is practically
>> meaningless.  The whole "intentional inefficiency" thing in the design of
>> the QWERTY layout is an urban legend.
>
>	Oh, there was an "inefficiency" in QWERTY -- but it only applies to
>fully manual typewriters, in which some of the more common letters were
>placed under the weakest fingers -- to slow down key strokes enough to
>reduce jamming multiple type blocks 

That's what I was referring to.  That's a very common belief, but it's
nonsense.
-- 
Tim Roberts, timr@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7679

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Tim Roberts <timr@probo.com> wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>       Oh, there was an "inefficiency" in QWERTY -- but it only applies to
>>fully manual typewriters, in which some of the more common letters were
>>placed under the weakest fingers -- to slow down key strokes enough to
>>reduce jamming multiple type blocks
>
> That's what I was referring to.  That's a very common belief, but it's
> nonsense.

Competing rumour: The layout was designed such that "typewriter" could
be typed out using only the top row, to improve demo speed by a factor
of three.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web