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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#7437 — Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the Dvorak Layout?

(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.

I remember first discovering it perhaps in 2007. Me, being a Dvorak
typist since 1994, am curious on what he has to say about comparison.
I recall, i was offended seeing how he paints a bias in peddling his
creation.

So, here, let me repaint his bias. Here it is, and judge for yourself.

〈Keyboard Layout: Dvorak vs Colemak: is it Worthwhile to Improve the
Dvorak Layout?〉
http://xahlee.org/kbd/dvorak_vs_colemak.html

here's a interesting excerpt:
--------------------------------------------

Just How Much Do You Type?

Many programers all claim to type 8 or 10 hours a day. They may be
sitting in front of the computer all day, but the time their fingers
actually dance on keyboard is probably less than 1 hour per day.

Contrast data-entry clerks. They are the real typists. Their fingers
actually type, continuously, for perhaps 6 hours per day.

It is important get a sense of how much you actually type. This you
can do by logging you keystrokes using a software.

Let's assume a pro typist sustain at 60 wpm. 60 wpm is 300 strokes per
min, or 18k per hour. Suppose she works 8 hours a day, and assume just
3 hours actually typing. 18k × 3 = 54k chars per day. With this
figure, you can get a sense of how many “hours” you actually type per
day.

I sit in front of computer on average 13 hours per day for the past
several years. I program and write several blogs. My actual typing is
probably double or triple of average day-job programers. From my emacs
command frequency log for 6 months in 2008, it seems i only type 17k
strokes per day. That's 31% of the data-entry clerk scenario above.
Or, i only type ONE hour a day!

I was quite surprised how low my own figure is. But thinking about it…
it make sense. Even we sit in front of computer all day, but the
actual typing is probably some miniscule percentage of that. Most of
the time, you have to chat, lunch, run errands, browse web, read docs,
run to the bathroom. Perhaps only half of your work time is active
coding or writing (emails; docs). Of that duration, perhaps majority
of time you are digesting the info on screen. Your whole day's typing
probably can be done in less than 20 minutes if you just type
continuously.

If your typing doesn't come anywhere close to a data-entry clerk, then
any layout “more efficient” than Dvorak is practically meaningless.

 Xah

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#7502

Xah Lee <xahlee@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, timr@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

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

#7505

On 13 Giu, 06:30, Tim Roberts <t...@probo.com> wrote:
> Studies have shown that even a
> strictly alphabetical layout works perfectly well, once the typist is
> acclimated.

Once the user is acclimated to move her hands much  more (about 40%
more for Qwerty versus Dvorak), that is.

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

#7511

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:21:53 -0700, Elena wrote:

> On 13 Giu, 06:30, Tim Roberts <t...@probo.com> wrote:
>> Studies have shown that even a
>> strictly alphabetical layout works perfectly well, once the typist is
>> acclimated.
> 
> Once the user is acclimated to move her hands much  more (about 40% more
> for Qwerty versus Dvorak), that is.

The actual physical cost of typing is a small part of coding. 
Productivity-wise, optimizing the distance your hands move is worthwhile 
for typists who do nothing but type, e.g. if you spend their day 
mechanically copying text or doing data entry, then increasing your 
typing speed from 30 words per minute (the average for untrained computer 
users) to 90 wpm (the average for typists) means your productivity 
increases by 200% (three times more work done).

I don't know if there are any studies that indicate how much of a 
programmer's work is actual mechanical typing but I'd be surprised if it 
were as much as 20% of the work day. The rest of the time being thinking, 
planning, debugging, communicating with customers or managers, reading 
documentation, testing, committing code, sketching data schemas on the 
whiteboard ... to say nothing of the dreaded strategy meetings.

And even in that 20% of the time when you are actively typing code, 
you're not merely transcribing written text but writing new code, and 
active composition is well known to slow down typing speed compared to 
transcribing. You might hit 90 wpm in the typing test, but when writing 
code you're probably typing at 50 wpm with the occasional full speed 
burst.

So going from a top speed (measured when transcribing text) of 30 wpm to 
90 wpm sounds good on your CV, but in practice the difference in 
productivity is probably tiny. Oh, and if typing faster just means you 
make more typos in less time, then the productivity increase is 
*negative*.

Keyboard optimizations, I believe, are almost certainly a conceit. If 
they really were that good an optimization, they would be used when 
typing speed is a premium. The difference between an average data entry 
operator at 90 wpm and a fast one at 150 wpm is worth real money. If 
Dvorak and other optimized keyboards were really that much better, they 
would be in far more common use. Where speed really is vital, such as for 
court stenographers, special mechanical shorthand machines such as 
stenotypes are used, costing thousands of dollars but allowing the typist 
to reach speeds of over 300 wpm.

Even if we accept that Dvorak is an optimization, it's a micro-
optimization. And like most optimizations, there is a very real risk that 
it is actually a pessimation: if it takes you three months to get back up 
to speed on a new keyboard layout, you potentially may never make back 
that lost time in your entire programming career.



-- 
Steven

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

#7512

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:

> The actual physical cost of typing is a small part of coding. 
> Productivity-wise, optimizing the distance your hands move is worthwhile 
> for typists who do nothing but type, e.g. if you spend their day 
> mechanically copying text or doing data entry, then increasing your 
> typing speed from 30 words per minute (the average for untrained computer 
> users) to 90 wpm (the average for typists) means your productivity 
> increases by 200% (three times more work done).
>
> I don't know if there are any studies that indicate how much of a 
> programmer's work is actual mechanical typing but I'd be surprised if it 
> were as much as 20% of the work day.

I'd agree that while programming, typing speed is not usually a problem
(but it has been reported that some star programmers could issue bug
free code faster than they could type, and they could type fast!).


Now, where the gain lies, is in typing flames on IRC or usenet.

If they can do it faster, then it's more time left for programming.

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.

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

#7536

On 13 Giu, 15:19, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:21:53 -0700, Elena wrote:
> > On 13 Giu, 06:30, Tim Roberts <t...@probo.com> wrote:
> >> Studies have shown that even a
> >> strictly alphabetical layout works perfectly well, once the typist is
> >> acclimated.
>
> > Once the user is acclimated to move her hands much  more (about 40% more
> > for Qwerty versus Dvorak), that is.
>
> The actual physical cost of typing is a small part of coding.
> Productivity-wise, optimizing the distance your hands move is worthwhile
> for typists who do nothing but type, e.g. if you spend their day
> mechanically copying text or doing data entry, then increasing your
> typing speed from 30 words per minute (the average for untrained computer
> users) to 90 wpm (the average for typists) means your productivity
> increases by 200% (three times more work done).
>
> I don't know if there are any studies that indicate how much of a
> programmer's work is actual mechanical typing but I'd be surprised if it
> were as much as 20% of the work day. The rest of the time being thinking,
> planning, debugging, communicating with customers or managers, reading
> documentation, testing, committing code, sketching data schemas on the
> whiteboard ... to say nothing of the dreaded strategy meetings.
>
> And even in that 20% of the time when you are actively typing code,
> you're not merely transcribing written text but writing new code, and
> active composition is well known to slow down typing speed compared to
> transcribing. You might hit 90 wpm in the typing test, but when writing
> code you're probably typing at 50 wpm with the occasional full speed
> burst.
>
> So going from a top speed (measured when transcribing text) of 30 wpm to
> 90 wpm sounds good on your CV, but in practice the difference in
> productivity is probably tiny. Oh, and if typing faster just means you
> make more typos in less time, then the productivity increase is
> *negative*.
>
> Keyboard optimizations, I believe, are almost certainly a conceit. If
> they really were that good an optimization, they would be used when
> typing speed is a premium. The difference between an average data entry
> operator at 90 wpm and a fast one at 150 wpm is worth real money. If
> Dvorak and other optimized keyboards were really that much better, they
> would be in far more common use. Where speed really is vital, such as for
> court stenographers, special mechanical shorthand machines such as
> stenotypes are used, costing thousands of dollars but allowing the typist
> to reach speeds of over 300 wpm.
>
> Even if we accept that Dvorak is an optimization, it's a micro-
> optimization. And like most optimizations, there is a very real risk that
> it is actually a pessimation: if it takes you three months to get back up
> to speed on a new keyboard layout, you potentially may never make back
> that lost time in your entire programming career.
>
> --
> Steven

I don't buy into this.  For one, could you possibly lose so much time
while learning a new layout, time you won't recover in an entire
career, if entering text were such a little time consuming task of
yours?

In my experience, an inefficient layout would disrupt my flow of
thought whenever I would sit at the keyboard and type something.
That's the reason I use a Vim-like editor, as well.

Sure, better is worse, once you push beyond a certain limit, and
that's exactly what Xah was talking about.

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

#7550

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:21:53 -0700, Elena wrote:
> 
>> On 13 Giu, 06:30, Tim Roberts <t...@probo.com> wrote:
>>> Studies have shown that even a
>>> strictly alphabetical layout works perfectly well, once the typist is
>>> acclimated.
>> Once the user is acclimated to move her hands much  more (about 40% more
>> for Qwerty versus Dvorak), that is.
> 
> The actual physical cost of typing is 

more than dollars and cents.

The difference for me is not typing speed, but my wrists.  The Dvorak 
layout is much easier on me than the QWERTY one was.

~Ethan~

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

#7590

On Jun 13, 6:19 am, Steven D'Aprano 〔steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info〕 wrote:

│ I don't know if there are any studies that indicate how much of a
│ programmer's work is actual mechanical typing but I'd be surprised
if it
│ were as much as 20% of the work day. The rest of the time being
thinking,
│ planning, debugging, communicating with customers or managers,
reading
│ documentation, testing, committing code, sketching data schemas on
the
│ whiteboard ... to say nothing of the dreaded strategy meetings.

you can find the study on my site. URL in the first post of this
thread.

 Xah

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

#7613

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:21, Elena <egarrulo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 Giu, 06:30, Tim Roberts <t...@probo.com> wrote:
>> Studies have shown that even a
>> strictly alphabetical layout works perfectly well, once the typist is
>> acclimated.
>
> Once the user is acclimated to move her hands much  more (about 40%
> more for Qwerty versus Dvorak), that is.
>

And disproportionate usage of fingers. On QWERTY the weakest fingers
(pinkies) do almost 1/4 of the keypresses when modifier keys, enter,
tab, and backspace are taken into account.

I'm developing a QWERTY-based layout that moves the load off the
pinkies and onto the index fingers:
http://dotancohen.com/eng/noah_ergonomic_keyboard_layout.html

There is a Colemak version in the works as well.

-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com

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

#7839

On Jun 14, 7:50 am, Dotan Cohen <dotanco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:21, Elena <egarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 13 Giu, 06:30, Tim Roberts <t...@probo.com> wrote:
> >> Studies have shown that even a
> >> strictly alphabetical layout works perfectly well, once the typist is
> >> acclimated.
>
> > Once the user is acclimated to move her hands much  more (about 40%
> > more for Qwerty versus Dvorak), that is.
>
> And disproportionate usage of fingers. On QWERTY the weakest fingers
> (pinkies) do almost 1/4 of the keypresses when modifier keys, enter,
> tab, and backspace are taken into account.
>
> I'm developing a QWERTY-based layout that moves the load off the
> pinkies and onto the index fingers:http://dotancohen.com/eng/noah_ergonomic_keyboard_layout.html
>
> There is a Colemak version in the works as well.

u r aware that there are already tens of layouts, each created by
programer, thinking that they can create the best layout?

if not, check
〈Computer Keyboards, Layouts, Hotkeys, Macros, RSI ⌨〉
xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/keyboarding.html

on layout section. Lots people all creating layouts.

also, you want to put {Enter, Tab}, etc keys in the middle, but I
don't understand from ur website how u gonna do that since it requires
keyboard hardware modification. e.g. r u creating key layout on PC
keyboard or are you creating hardware keyboard Key layout? The former
is a dime a million, the latter is rare but also there are several
sites all trying to do it. Talk is cheap, the hardest part is actually
to get money to finance and manufacture it. The latest one, which i
deem good, is Truely Ergonomic keyboard. It sells for $200 and is in
pre-order only now.

 Xah

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

#7861

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 20:43, Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:
> u r aware that there are already tens of layouts, each created by
> programer, thinking that they can create the best layout?
>

Yes. Mine is better :)
Had Stallman not heard of VI when he set out to write Emacs?


> if not, check
> 〈Computer Keyboards, Layouts, Hotkeys, Macros, RSI ⌨〉
> xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/keyboarding.html
>
> on layout section. Lots people all creating layouts.
>
> also, you want to put {Enter, Tab}, etc keys in the middle, but I
> don't understand from ur website how u gonna do that since it requires
> keyboard hardware modification. e.g. r u creating key layout on PC
> keyboard or are you creating hardware keyboard Key layout? The former
> is a dime a million, the latter is rare but also there are several
> sites all trying to do it. Talk is cheap, the hardest part is actually
> to get money to finance and manufacture it. The latest one, which i
> deem good, is Truely Ergonomic keyboard. It sells for $200 and is in
> pre-order only now.
>

I ordered the Truley Ergonomic keyboard, I waited for half a year
after delivery was supposed to happen to request my money back. Too
many delays, so in the end I bought a Ducky mechanical (Cherry Browns)
instead.

I am writing a software keyboard layout. I'm actually having a hard
time moving the modifier keys (Alt, Ctrl) to a new location. If you
know how to do that I would much appreciate some advice, I'll post the
problem here or in private mail.

Thanks, Lee. (or should that be Thanks, Xah?)

-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com

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

#7866

On Jun 17, 2:26 pm, Dotan Cohen <dotanco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 20:43, Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > u r aware that there are already tens of layouts, each created by
> > programer, thinking that they can create the best layout?
>
> Yes. Mine is better :)
> Had Stallman not heard of VI when he set out to write Emacs?
>
>
>
>
>
> > if not, check
> > 〈Computer Keyboards, Layouts, Hotkeys, Macros, RSI ⌨〉
> > xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/keyboarding.html
>
> > on layout section. Lots people all creating layouts.
>
> > also, you want to put {Enter, Tab}, etc keys in the middle, but I
> > don't understand from ur website how u gonna do that since it requires
> > keyboard hardware modification. e.g. r u creating key layout on PC
> > keyboard or are you creating hardware keyboard Key layout? The former
> > is a dime a million, the latter is rare but also there are several
> > sites all trying to do it. Talk is cheap, the hardest part is actually
> > to get money to finance and manufacture it. The latest one, which i
> > deem good, is Truely Ergonomic keyboard. It sells for $200 and is in
> > pre-order only now.
>
> I ordered the Truley Ergonomic keyboard, I waited for half a year
> after delivery was supposed to happen to request my money back. Too
> many delays, so in the end I bought a Ducky mechanical (Cherry Browns)
> instead.
>
> I am writing a software keyboard layout. I'm actually having a hard
> time moving the modifier keys (Alt, Ctrl) to a new location. If you
> know how to do that I would much appreciate some advice, I'll post the
> problem here or in private mail.
>
> Thanks, Lee. (or should that be Thanks, Xah?)

thanks. didn't know about Ducky keyboard. Looks good. Also nice to
hear your experience about Truly Ergonomic keyboard.

no actually i don't know how to make normal letter keys as (ctrl, alt)
modifiers. You'll need a usb hid remapper. (there's a couple for mac
os x i linked on my site but i couldn't verify cuz am now on a 6 years
old powerpc with outdated mac os x) For Windows, Microsoft made a
layout maker. I haven't used it so i don't know if it allows mapping
letter keys as modifier. Have you tried it?

i don't know much about the subject but from what i read am guessing
it's possible, because each key just send up/down signals. (whether
you are using usb or ps/2 makes a difference too.)

(am assumbing above that you want to put modifiers in normal letter
key positions. But if all you want to do is swap modifier among
themselves, that's pretty easy. Lots of tools to do that for mac and
windows.)

But even if you succeded in putting modifiers to letter key positions,
you may run into problems with key ghosting, because the circuits are
desigend to prevent ghosting on qwerty layout only (with mod keys in
their normal positions). Unless your keyboard is actually full n-key-
roll-over.

maybe some of these are useful info, but maybe you are quite beyond
that. Thanks for your info too. Good luck.

 just Xah

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

#7898

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 01:09, Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:
> thanks. didn't know about Ducky keyboard. Looks good. Also nice to
> hear your experience about Truly Ergonomic keyboard.
>

I like it, see my first-hour review here:
http://geekhack.org/showwiki.php?title=Island:18154


> no actually i don't know how to make normal letter keys as (ctrl, alt)
> modifiers. You'll need a usb hid remapper. (there's a couple for mac
> os x i linked on my site but i couldn't verify cuz am now on a 6 years
> old powerpc with outdated mac os x) For Windows, Microsoft made a
> layout maker. I haven't used it so i don't know if it allows mapping
> letter keys as modifier. Have you tried it?
>

I use Kubuntu Linux.


> i don't know much about the subject but from what i read am guessing
> it's possible, because each key just send up/down signals. (whether
> you are using usb or ps/2 makes a difference too.)
>
> (am assumbing above that you want to put modifiers in normal letter
> key positions. But if all you want to do is swap modifier among
> themselves, that's pretty easy. Lots of tools to do that for mac and
> windows.)
>

Actually, most of the modifiers are just switched among themselves.
Only Win is in a normal-keyboard location.


> But even if you succeded in putting modifiers to letter key positions,
> you may run into problems with key ghosting, because the circuits are
> desigend to prevent ghosting on qwerty layout only (with mod keys in
> their normal positions). Unless your keyboard is actually full n-key-
> roll-over.
>

I doubt that this is n-key rollover, but it is I think 6-key rollover
and in any case I personally use sticky keys as I have difficulty
pressing more than one key at a time. But in the general sense that is
good to know, if other people use the layout they will need to be
aware of that. Thanks!


> maybe some of these are useful info, but maybe you are quite beyond
> that. Thanks for your info too. Good luck.
>
>  just Xah

Thanks Xah! I will not be online for the next three weeks, so a reply
will be much delayed!


-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com

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

#7901

On Jun 18, 4:06 am, Dotan Cohen <dotanco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 01:09, Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > thanks. didn't know about Ducky keyboard. Looks good. Also nice to
> > hear your experience about Truly Ergonomic keyboard.
>
> I like it, see my first-hour review here:http://geekhack.org/showwiki.php?title=Island:18154

very nice review! and on geekhack.org too — the hardcore keyboard mod site!
I enjoyed reading it.

> > no actually i don't know how to make normal letter keys as (ctrl, alt)
> > modifiers. You'll need a usb hid remapper. (there's a couple for mac
> > os x i linked on my site but i couldn't verify cuz am now on a 6 years
> > old powerpc with outdated mac os x) For Windows, Microsoft made a
> > layout maker. I haven't used it so i don't know if it allows mapping
> > letter keys as modifier. Have you tried it?
>
> I use Kubuntu Linux.

i only started to use linux this month, from 10 years hiatus. First
thing to do there is remap keys to the way i like of course. But am
not familiar on how-to there. Seems xmodmap is becoming obsolete and
XKB is in place. There's a couple nice sites about XKB but havn't had
a chance to study them yet. May i ask you a few questions down the
road? (maybe we can add each other on google talk or some social
network)

(off to email)

 Xah

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

#7903

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 14:40, Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:
> very nice review! and on geekhack.org too — the hardcore keyboard mod site!
> I enjoyed reading it.
>

Yes, that is some forum! Wait until I post my mods. You've never seen
such abused input devices, I hope.


> i only started to use linux this month, from 10 years hiatus. First
> thing to do there is remap keys to the way i like of course. But am
> not familiar on how-to there. Seems xmodmap is becoming obsolete and
> XKB is in place. There's a couple nice sites about XKB but havn't had
> a chance to study them yet.

XKB is pretty configurable but some stuff is not well documented. Here
are some of my bookmarked resources, to get you started:

// Making new layouts
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Altering_or_Creating_Keyboard_Maps
http://www.x.org/wiki/XKB
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/XKeyboardConfig
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Configuring_keyboards
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Background:_How_keyboards_work
http://www.xfree86.org/4.2.0/xmodmap.1.html

// Enabling multimedia keys (also useful for the former)
http://abesto.host22.com/2009/04/microsoft-ergonomic-4000-and-linux.html
http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Microsoft_Natural_Ergonomic_Keyboard_4000
https://wiki.kubuntu.org/KDEMultimediaKeys
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/keys.html
http://cweiske.de/howto/xmodmap/allinone.html
http://linux.die.net/man/8/setkeycodes
http://rick.vanrein.org/linux/funkey/
http://juliano.info/en/Blog:Memory_Leak/Linux,_KDE:_Mapping_functions_to_extra_keys
http://linux.playofmind.net/extra_keys/
http://dev-loki.blogspot.com/2006/04/mapping-unsupported-keys-with-xmodmap.html

And as I know you to be an Emac man:
https://github.com/r0adrunner/Space2Ctrl


> May i ask you a few questions down the
> road? (maybe we can add each other on google talk or some social
> network)
>

Sure, I'll email you from my personal email account soon. But after a
few more hours, I won't be available until late July.


-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com

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

#7651

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> wrote:
> And disproportionate usage of fingers. On QWERTY the weakest fingers
> (pinkies) do almost 1/4 of the keypresses when modifier keys, enter,
> tab, and backspace are taken into account.

That's true on a piano too, though. My pinkies are quite accustomed to
doing the extra work now, so whether I'm playing the church organ or
typing a post here, they're put to good use. It's the longer fingers
in the middle that aren't pulling their weight...

Chis Angelico

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

#7666

On Jun 15, 5:11 am, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Dotan Cohen <dotanco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And disproportionate usage of fingers. On QWERTY the weakest fingers
> > (pinkies) do almost 1/4 of the keypresses when modifier keys, enter,
> > tab, and backspace are taken into account.
>
> That's true on a piano too, though. My pinkies are quite accustomed to
> doing the extra work now, so whether I'm playing the church organ or
> typing a post here, they're put to good use. It's the longer fingers
> in the middle that aren't pulling their weight...

For keyboarding (in the piano/organ sense) the weakest finger is not
the fifth/pinky but the fourth.
Because for the fifth you will notice that the natural movement is to
stiffen the finger and then use a slight outward arm-swing; for thumb,
index and middle, they of course have their own strength.

The fourth has neither advantage.  IOW qwerty is not so bad as it
could have been if it were qewrty (or asd was sad)

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

#7671

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:00, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> For keyboarding (in the piano/organ sense) the weakest finger is not
> the fifth/pinky but the fourth.
> Because for the fifth you will notice that the natural movement is to
> stiffen the finger and then use a slight outward arm-swing; for thumb,
> index and middle, they of course have their own strength.
>
> The fourth has neither advantage.  IOW qwerty is not so bad as it
> could have been if it were qewrty (or asd was sad)
>

Thank you rusi! Tell me, where can I read more about the advantages of
each finger? Googling turns up nothing. My intention is to improved
the Noah ergonomic keyboard layout. Thanks!

-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com

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

#7687

On Jun 15, 9:35 am, Dotan Cohen <dotanco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:00, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For keyboarding (in the piano/organ sense) the weakest finger is not
> > the fifth/pinky but the fourth.
> > Because for the fifth you will notice that the natural movement is to
> > stiffen the finger and then use a slight outward arm-swing; for thumb,
> > index and middle, they of course have their own strength.
>
> > The fourth has neither advantage.  IOW qwerty is not so bad as it
> > could have been if it were qewrty (or asd was sad)
>
> Thank you rusi! Tell me, where can I read more about the advantages of
> each finger? Googling turns up nothing. My intention is to improved
> the Noah ergonomic keyboard layout. Thanks!

Dont know how to answer that! I only have my experience to go by :-)

If you've spent a childhood and many of your adult hours breaking your
hands on Czerny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Czerny
and Hanon eg exercise 4 http://www.hanon-online.com/the-virtuoso-pianist/part-i/exercise-n-4/
you will come to similar conclusions.

I should warn however that even for a modern electronic piano the
action is larger and heavier than a typical (computer) keyboard and
for a real/acoustic piano with a foot long slice of wood moved for
each keystroke its probably an order of magnitude heavier.

So its not exactly clear how much the experience of one carries over
to the other

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

#7689

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 15:19, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thank you rusi! Tell me, where can I read more about the advantages of
>> each finger? Googling turns up nothing. My intention is to improved
>> the Noah ergonomic keyboard layout. Thanks!
>
> Dont know how to answer that! I only have my experience to go by :-)
>
> If you've spent a childhood and many of your adult hours breaking your
> hands on Czerny
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Czerny
> and Hanon eg exercise 4 http://www.hanon-online.com/the-virtuoso-pianist/part-i/exercise-n-4/
> you will come to similar conclusions.
>
> I should warn however that even for a modern electronic piano the
> action is larger and heavier than a typical (computer) keyboard and
> for a real/acoustic piano with a foot long slice of wood moved for
> each keystroke its probably an order of magnitude heavier.
>
> So its not exactly clear how much the experience of one carries over
> to the other
>

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!

-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web