• You are not logged in.

Workman Keyboard Layout????

  • Started by parkerv
  • 47 Replies:
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 03-Jul-2009
  • Posts: 189
DreymaR said:

Also, the pinkies and ring fingers are about the same I feel.

DreymaR, you must have strong pinkies indeed.  One of the issues I had with Colemak was that, on a keyboard with buckling springs, rolling motions from pinkie to ring finger were difficult (and I know that you use a keyboard with buckling springs).  I suspect that this is the reason that Dvorak favoured outward rolling motions for pinkies and ring fingers.

Maybe your pinkies and ring fingers are independent from each other?  This is the case for some people.  Other people -- like me -- have them somewhat tied to each other.

In regard to having different weights for different keys, Amuseum should specify what fingering he is considering.  The fingering that appears to be the most common does not seem the most ergonomic.

DreymaR said:

As for the layout itself, I strongly recommend giving a mild penalty to moving keys from their QWERTY positions if you're making the layout for anyone else than yourself at least – and even for your own good.

I would make this optional.

DreymaR said:

Punctuation flying all over the layout looks butt ugly, is harder to implement and probably just not worth it.

Why is it harder to implement?

I don't see it as butt ugly.  Neither did the designers of Maltron and Arensito.

I think that the least frequent consonants could be placed even further.  On the column to the right of home keys, for example.  I would rather have Enter on a closer place.

Dvorak typist here.  Please take my comments with a grain of salt.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

The pinkies are weaker, but way more independent than the ring fingers so the latter tend to tense up. This about evens out for me. Indeed, the pinkies have a bunch of keys to take care of and seem to do mostly fine with it as long as those keys aren't frequent; I even use my left pinky for the Extend modifier which means it's pressed quite often and seems to be fine. I don't know whether mine are particularly strong.

Indeed, if the pinkies are "tied to" the ring fingers as well as the other way around (which most people have) that could be a problem. I guess that my piano exercises have helped me there.

I think that Arensito is a right mess when applied to a standard keyboard! Why that and Asset are still being discussed is a bit beyond me, but I guess they were early contestants in the field. Arensito was made for a matrix board (Maltron I think) and doesn't look bad on that, though.

Symbol keys in the letter block isn't inherently harder to implement except for my Linux files where I've modularized the two separately. But the more keys you move around the more work in the implementation. Also, the symbol keys aren't quite the same for different locales. So in sum there should be a reason for moving them and I don't feel there's a good reason for that.

Last edited by DreymaR (18-Jun-2014 11:58:33)

*** Learn Colemak in 2–5 steps with Tarmak! ***
*** Check out my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks for Win/Linux/TMK... ***

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 04-Apr-2013
  • Posts: 538

Amuseum's model might deserve a new thread of its own.  As for the chart itself, I can't say I completely agree with it.  For me, at least, the middle and ring fingers already hover between the middle and top row, making those positions relatively easy to press; IMO, even easier than QWERTY V.

In one of my Widely Alternating experiments, I did try putting D on the QWERTY V position in accordance to Workman-like models.  I ended up swtiching it back to QWERTY G, however, feeling like it was causing too much... I'm not sure, twisting?

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 03-Jul-2009
  • Posts: 189
DreymaR said:

Indeed, if the pinkies are "tied to" the ring fingers as well as the other way around (which most people have) that could be a problem. **I guess that my piano exercises have helped me there.**

Indeed I think this is the case.  Pinkie to ring finger doesn't bother me much on a laptop keyboard, but on buckling springs... oh my!

DreymaR said:

I think that Arensito is a right mess when applied to a standard keyboard! Why that and Asset are still being discussed is a bit beyond me, but I guess they were early contestants in the field. Arensito was made for a matrix board (Maltron I think) and doesn't look bad on that, though.

I experimented with Arensito on a standard configuration, like this one:

http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/images/hallingstad.png

but with the left bottom row shifted and I didn't find it to be too bad.  "AL", "LA", "MO" and "OM" were deal breakers, though (I took Italian into consideration, too).

DreymaR said:

Symbol keys in the letter block isn't inherently harder to implement except for my Linux files where I've modularized the two separately. But the more keys you move around the more work in the implementation. Also, the symbol keys aren't quite the same for different locales. So in sum there should be a reason for moving them and I don't feel there's a good reason for that.

That makes sense.  When I wrote "symbols", I forgot to mention that I meant: dot, comma, single and double quotes (which I agree with the designer of Arensito that should not require Shift because they occur frequently in ordinary text)..

Dvorak typist here.  Please take my comments with a grain of salt.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 1
  • Registered: 19-Jun-2007
  • Posts: 17
DreymaR said:

I'd have more than 0 on the home row keys, although that may just result in a total penalty shift in the model? Also, the pinkies and ring fingers are about the same I feel. Maybe add 0.25 to all eight home position keys except pinkies? Also, the BK keys aren't really easier than FU I believe, so maybe 1.0 on those too? Also, I don't see why Q: should be that much harder than GJ – when trying them out they feel about the same to me.

The values are relative. I'm not sure adding a base difficulty makes a difference on reading the chart. But if I were to write a program to analyze layouts, then I would start to calculate more exact values based on various criteria, such as can be found at http://andong.azurewebsites.net/dvorak/ … iency.aspx . Another factor to take into consideration is inter-key combinations and penalties (but probably too complicated to fit on a single chart).

The pinkies are easy to tire out and cumbersome during rolls. OTOH, the ring fingers are stronger and closer to the middle of the hand, thus have better support and quicker during rolls. But since the home keys don't require reaching, the difference isn't that noticeable for single presses. Moreover in practice, there are other more important factors concerning these two keys (such same key presses with top and bottom rows).

I'm confused about the BK vs FU comment. Maybe you misread the chart? The BK keys in the middle columns require stretching the index fingers, thus the higher effort score.

Stretching the pinkies is very different than stretching the index finger. For one, the index finger is longer and stronger. Also the arms simply go in and out to reach the keys, whereas the pinkies requires more twisting of the wrist. However, these motions may be different depending on the keyboard you use. I based the chart on mainly the Kinesis where keys are aligned in columns and the hands are spread far apart from each other. On a standard keyboard, the hands are together and the arms bend towards each other. So the pinkies have easier access to the top row. Nevertheless, many Dvorak typists have complained about the placement of the L in such an awkward position at the top pinky.

lalop said:

Amuseum's model might deserve a new thread of its own.  As for the chart itself, I can't say I completely agree with it.  For me, at least, the middle and ring fingers already hover between the middle and top row, making those positions relatively easy to press; IMO, even easier than QWERTY V.

In one of my Widely Alternating experiments, I did try putting D on the QWERTY V position in accordance to Workman-like models.  I ended up swtiching it back to QWERTY G, however, feeling like it was causing too much... I'm not sure, twisting?

Obviously when your hand is moved farther away from the bottom row, the bottom keys become harder to reach. The standard keyboard design does encourage hovering between the home and top rows. However, I don't think that is the most natural or comfortable pose for the arms and fingers. On the Kinesis, my fingers and arms are extremely relaxed; I never swing or twist my arms too much or use much effort to reach with my fingers. I don't have to hover towards top or bottom row; both rows are equally accessible and neither are preferred over another except by the fingers' natural inclination.

Each finger has different lengths and curvature. Just hang your fingers in the air in front of you. You can tell that the middle and ring fingers lean away from you, whereas the index fingers and pinkies lean closer to you. Now if you compare my chart, you will see a similar pattern where the middle and ring fingers favor the top row, while the index and pinkies favor the bottom rows.

As for punctuations, using the knowledge I have now, I would place them at the corners or middle columns, accessed by the pinkies and index fingers. On my chart, they would be placed on the keys with highest difficulties (2.5 and 3.0, the reddish cells.) Period and comma would go on the top pinky keys (QP on Qwerty, Q; on Colemak, 'L on Dvorak) close to the number keys to facilitate typing arithmetic and monetary values and IP addresses. Then apostrophe and double quotes on separate keys, both unshifted. With these four unwanted corner keys taken care of, proceed with optimizing the other 26 keys for the 26 letters.

DreymaR said:

I think that Arensito is a right mess when applied to a standard keyboard! Why that and Asset are still being discussed is a bit beyond me, but I guess they were early contestants in the field. Arensito was made for a matrix board (Maltron I think) and doesn't look bad on that, though.

Arensito has a nice symmetry and intuitiveness at least on the home row. It goes VCVCC from out to in for both hands. Likewise, my layouts tend to go CVVCC from out to in. This symmetry and balance is aesthetically pleasing.

DreymaR said:

As for the layout itself, I strongly recommend giving a mild penalty to moving keys from their QWERTY positions if you're making the layout for anyone else than yourself at least – and even for your own good. Punctuation flying all over the layout looks butt ugly, is harder to implement and probably just not worth it.

I don't see why QWERTY has to be favored, especially when you're trying to wean away from it. Another popular camp is Dvorak style: all vowels on one hand, punctuations moved to the top. It really depends on your usage. On your own computer at home or work, you can set up your favorite layout without having to resort back to QWERTY. If you say it makes it easier and faster to transition out of, then again it really depends on how much you still use QWERTY for fast typing. I'm an IT guy who helps others with their computer troubles. Of course they still use QWERTY, but I don't need to type fast when I'm at their computers. I can still look down at the keyboard to remind me where the keys are.

These alternative layouts are for the most part purely theory-crafting on the interaction between humans and keyboards. There would be little progress if we keep trying to tweak QWERTY, instead of starting from scratch and working towards a goal. Dvorak's goal is hand alternation and inward rolls, and the result looks nothing like QWERTY. Colemak's goal is to be like QWERTY but improve on home row, among other things. Workman improves on that using a strain/difficulty model. Some programmers also like to optimize their keyboards for their profession. Yet others try to find the layout that scores the highest based on some contrived, nonstandardized metrics. And other designers may have other goals, such as best layout from genetic algorithms, new physical design like Maltron, air typing or touchpad or smartphone (which BTW I have also worked on http://shenafu.com/smf/index.php?topic=88.0) etc. My own goals include not just metrics, speed, and comfort, but also balance, intuitiveness, and aesthetics.

So if your goal is maximum comfort and least effort, then it makes sense to move every key to their optimal position regardless of how other layouts have done before. Since that's what you're going to use the majority of the time you're at your own keyboard, you should use the layout that feels best for you. Nevertheless, if someone wanted me to recommend them an alternative layout, I'd just show them Dvorak because it's a standard layout that can be configured almost as readily as QWERTY on many devices. Custom layouts that people make are really for the hardcore enthusiasts who are dedicated and have the time and patience to learn a new layout anyway. Of course it would be nice if others picked up your layout, like Colemak. Even though it's touted as being not much different than QWERTY and performs very well on most metrics, however, that's still not enough appeal for the masses and corporations to change from the industry standard. So in that regard, I don't see much value in retaining QWERTY like features. It's an option that looks good on paper, but in itself is not a deal breaker for people looking for the most comfortable layout. (And if you're thinking about functions like copy and paste, etc. then I highly recommend assigning mouse buttons for these functions in this era of GUIs. You could also reassign unused keys like Insert, Delete, etc. so that you rely less on agility while reducing strain due to reaching and holding down Control. Not to mention that one-press copy or paste is so much better and faster.)

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

Sorry, I didn't mean BK but VM – corrected. To me, the FU keys are extremely easy to hit and require almost zero movement so they're like home row keys, but it does depend on your finger lengths.

The ring fingers, as mentioned, while stronger than the pinkies also are (even) less independent which may cause them to tense up in some combos. That's my experience at least.

QWERTY only has to be favored if you want to make a layout that more than a few people actually want to use. This was one of the mistakes Dvorak made, changing too much. By imposing a mild penalty on moving from the QWERTY positions, keys like QZX and symbol keys will likely not move at all and you'll end up with a layout that's "99.9%" as efficient in your model while being much easier for people to use (and preserving some shortcuts in the process). Keep in mind that most don't change layouts because of inertia, so if you want success you'll have to consider inertia and not just the elite fans.

You say yourself that one of your goals is intuitiveness, and yet you don't see this argument? That's odd to me. There's no position for the Q key that's more intuitive than where QWERTY already has it, so why change it if the result is good? "Don't change it if it ain't broken"! If you're looking for an elusive "optimal position" for that key, that may just be it, right there! And there is a way of letting your algorithm tell you what needs to be changed and what really doesn't.

Punctuation in the corners would be more easy on the eye. I already have punctuation in the middle of my board, since I use a Wide mod. So a few more symbols in, say, the GJ positions wouldn't be a problem. But the Q position may not be the best candidate as the comma and period are more frequent than Q iirc. I'd say let the algorithm handle that, preferably with the aforementioned mild change penalty.

It's way too simplistic to say that Colemak's goal is to be like QWERTY! That's just one of many design criteria used. On these fora Colemak gets flak both from people who resent similarity to QWERTY and people who would like more similarity to QWERTY, so at least it's got some balance to it. The fact that it scores so well on a majority of analyses shows that Colemak at least is a balanced approach and accomplishes *far* more than moving fewer keys!!!

Last edited by DreymaR (19-Jun-2014 08:27:37)

*** Learn Colemak in 2–5 steps with Tarmak! ***
*** Check out my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks for Win/Linux/TMK... ***

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 04-Apr-2013
  • Posts: 538
Amuseum said:

There would be little progress if we keep trying to tweak QWERTY, instead of starting from scratch and working towards a goal.  Dvorak's goal is hand alternation and inward rolls, and the result looks nothing like QWERTY. Colemak's goal is to be like QWERTY but improve on home row, among other things.

It's a common fallacy (which I myself was guilty of at the start) to assume that layouts similar to QWERTY are worse than those dissimilar to QWERTY.  In reality, Colemak "beats" Dvorak in many analyses.

That said, there are some interesting optimizations if you go all out.  Notably, I've experimented with putting z and q on the number row, replacing their old positions with punctuation.  (My displacement of the low numbers 2/3 probably wouldn't work very well for vim users, however!)

Amuseum said:

Even though it's touted as being not much different than QWERTY and performs very well on most metrics, however, that's still not enough appeal for the masses and corporations to change from the industry standard. So in that regard, I don't see much value in retaining QWERTY like features. It's an option that looks good on paper, but in itself is not a deal breaker for people looking for the most comfortable layout. (And if you're thinking about functions like copy and paste, etc. then I highly recommend assigning mouse buttons for these functions in this era of GUIs. You could also reassign unused keys like Insert, Delete, etc. so that you rely less on agility while reducing strain due to reaching and holding down Control. Not to mention that one-press copy or paste is so much better and faster.)

There's a huge positive that you've possibly not noticed: Tarmak. Between Tarmak and preserved/improved shortcuts, I can see Colemak dislodging Dvorak in the long-run.

If you're only worried about copy/paste, maybe your alternative solution could work (though I'm sort of dubious; far-away buttons like Insert aren't usually preferred for common operations).  What about undo, cut, select all, reload, save, new tab, quit, close tab, find, and print (okay, maybe not print), however?  Are you going to assign new keys for all of them?

Last edited by lalop (20-Jun-2014 08:55:26)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

For the nav/edit functions I can't state strongly enough how much I recommend an Extend mapping layer! Check out my sig topic to learn more about that, but basically it's an added modifier that brings all those keys to your home position. But yes, mapping the most used functions to mouse buttons can be nice too.

I just learned today that I can hit Caps+T+J to switch tabs in my browser, and Caps+T+4 to close tabs! Those chords may look daunting at first glance but it's really efficient and just as importantly, really intuitive (once you learn your shortcuts like Ctrl+F4 which I didn't know before today). Chording commands is a winner, since it lets you do a bunch of commands with few keys.

Last edited by DreymaR (19-Jun-2014 09:48:53)

*** Learn Colemak in 2–5 steps with Tarmak! ***
*** Check out my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks for Win/Linux/TMK... ***

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 1
  • Registered: 19-Jun-2007
  • Posts: 17

It's a common fallacy (which I myself was guilty of at the start) to assume that layouts similar to QWERTY are worse than those dissimilar to QWERTY.  In reality, Colemak "beats" Dvorak in many analyses.

I'm sure it does. In reality, there is maybe 3 to 10% difference in metrics between these two. And with just a few modifications to Dvorak, it could match the Colemak in the same analyses. Colemak also has the huge benefit of modern computers to assist in finding an optimal layout without having to spend millions of dollars and hiring people to test every permutation over months and years on original research. I'd say Dvorak is pretty successful considering it was created long before computers were invented and he painstakingly did his own research on improving typing practices which we take for granted today. Not to mention a Dvorak typist actually made the Guinness Book of World Records.

I'm not saying QWERTY based are necessarily bad. Since the keys that are kept are at some of the worst positions, those keys make negligible difference in terms of performance. Most of the work is done on the home row, anyway. What I care about is thinking about improving other areas besides typing English text. Such as Dvorak puts comma and period at the top row, which makes typing IP addresses much easier. Such as unshifting double quotes which is used a lot in novels, in newspapers, and in programming.

There's a huge positive that you've possibly not noticed: Tarmak. Between Tarmak and preserved/improved shortcuts, I can see Colemak dislodging Dvorak in the long-run.

Not unless Colemak becomes an ANSI standard like Dvorak, which comes with almost every OS by default. So that changing layouts is a simple matter of going into the OS settings or typing a simple command or shortcut to switch between layouts, and that you can use the same layout on every device you encounter without unnecessary steps (like downloading modmaps or KBLs or PKLs or whatever.) Then at that point can Colemak make more headway into mainstream awareness and adoption.

Tarmak may work for some people, but I think it's mostly unnecessary for people who don't touch type to begin with. Typing tutors are not much different than what Tarmak is essentially: learning to type step by step. There are quite a few Dvorak typing tutors out there. Conversely, some people would rather just deal with one layout rather than relearn 4 or 5, even if they are only transitional.

Dvorak may seem daunting on the surface, but with an online typing tutor (that's very old but still serviceable; there should be better ones out by now), I learned the layout within a week, spending only an hour per day. Truly, once you learn the home row and how many cool sentences you can type with just those keys and how smoothly it feels without fingers jumping everywhere, it'll boost your confidence in making the switch. The remaining keys will fall in place pretty soon after. Then maybe a month of actual usage (typing emails, message boards, chatting, typing tutor practice, etc.) to bring up my speed and accuracy. All you need is one hour per day to practice to reach a decent speed (note only 30 to 40 wpm is required to pass most official typing certification requirements). As you type more, your speed and accuracy will naturally improve over time.

This is about the same time period as most of your testimonials claim about Tarmak. Actually, did I read someone took a year on Tarmak and still haven't jumped to the last step? That may be a disadvantage of Tarmak: procrastination, or not knowing when to move on to the next step. As you say, most of learning a new layout is about muscle memory. So the sooner you take the dive and learn all the keys--especially the home row--then you spend more time on improving speed and accuracy.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 04-Apr-2013
  • Posts: 538

My point was not to imply that Dvorak was unsuccessful, but rather to observe that QWERTY-like layouts can still be highly optimized. In fact, since it's widely believed (though unproven, finding global maxima being a hard problem) that Colemak, Dvorak, etc are close to ideal, the implication is that you can both be [near enough to] optimal and QWERTY-like.

Out of curiosity, where can I find this Dvorak with a "few modifications"?  Swapping U and I is obvious, of course, but I'm not sure what else is supposed to be done.

Concerning optimizations that move common punctuation: I don't mind them (and have experimented with them myself).  That being said, they are difficult to justify under the usual corpus, considering punctuation's relative infrequency:

Letter  Frequency  Period
     ,      1.08%      93
     .      0.94%     106
     "      0.25%     407
     '      0.24%     418
     ;      0.19%     524
     :      0.10%    1034

comma/period being beaten by all except the rarest letters:

Letter  Frequency  Period
     v      0.82%     122
     k      0.60%     167
     x      0.21%     473
     j      0.13%     799
     q      0.11%     946
     z      0.08%    1285

With these numbers, it's hard not to be irked by Dvorak's comma/period placements, a waste of their relatively easy (for a standard keyboard) positions. 

Narrowing down the corpus can indeed make ,.'" more common and justify those more exotic placements, but by then you're just making a layout for yourself (unless we ever get to the point where people choose keyboard layouts by occupation).


Amuseum said:

Not unless Colemak becomes an ANSI standard like Dvorak, which comes with almost every OS by default. So that changing layouts is a simple matter of going into the OS settings or typing a simple command or shortcut to switch between layouts...Then at that point can Colemak make more headway into mainstream awareness and adoption.

While I would hardly begrudge Colemak (or better yet, Tarmak) becoming an ANSI standard, there's a lot wrong with these sentences:

  1. The only factor that might matter is availability, not ANSI.

  2. Perhaps surprisingly, Colemak is already widely available by default, the only big exception being Windows.

  3. I seriously doubt that availability makes that big a difference, designed as it is. In the best case, rather than being easily accessible from the start (which is what would really make a difference), the layout option is hidden behind layers of menus and confusing behaviors. In the worst case, I've seen complaints from users not having privileges to change to Dvorak at work, putting them back to square one.

Ironically, PKL may actually be easier than the default method in Windows: just insert a thumbdrive, and run a program.


RE Tarmak: I'll continue in the Tarmak thread (about time for it to get any topical discussion!).

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 7
  • Registered: 21-Apr-2010
  • Posts: 818
lalop said:
Amuseum said:

Not unless Colemak becomes an ANSI standard like Dvorak, which comes with almost every OS by default. So that changing layouts is a simple matter of going into the OS settings or typing a simple command or shortcut to switch between layouts...Then at that point can Colemak make more headway into mainstream awareness and adoption.

I seriously doubt that availability makes that big a difference, designed as it is. In the best case, rather than being easily accessible from the start (which is what would really make a difference), the layout option is hidden behind layers of menus and confusing behaviors. In the worst case, I've seen complaints from users not having privileges to change to Dvorak at work, putting them back to square one.

Yes, changing keyboard layouts is hardly trivial.  It's very esoteric.  On the Linux console it requires root access.  Having to fart around with binary blobs isn't much fun either.  I've muttered it before, but I really think it's worth badgering the OS/device makers into making alternative layout adoption and switching between layouts much easier.  You'd be better to push for an agreed portable keyboard layout format (if it doesn't exist already).  I'd love to carry around a tweaked layout, but currently that is way too much effort for me.  And I don't see why Workman users and those of other esoteric layouts shouldn't get access to their desired input method also.  The mainstream vendors should be quite ashamed of themselves.  It really is an accessibility issue.

I used a version or two back of OSX last week, and there were no layout switching options at the login screen.  I'm running Debian stable with Xfce, and the layout switcher continually craps out on me.  It's annoying to have to think and fuss about.  It's an embarrassement and almost enough for me to deter others from even trying an alternative.

--
Physicians deafen our ears with the Honorificabilitudinitatibus of their heavenly Panacaea, their sovereign Guiacum.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 1
  • Registered: 19-Jun-2007
  • Posts: 17

if you can't switch layouts already provided by the OS, you need to bring that up to your HR and IT personnel. that's an accessibility issue and there should be laws regarding that.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 117
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 14-Apr-2014
  • Posts: 975

Was just reading through this old thread on the Workman layout, as the problem of awkward movement to type D and H was one I also experienced when I first started with Colemak. Although I have largely become adapted it to it now, I would still recognise it as one of Colemak's (very few) weaknesses.

But it occurred to me that if the objective is to de-prioritize the centre-column, as is the aim of Workman, this could be done with a much less drastic change to Colemak. You could for example, switch H - M and also move D > P > G.  This does not change key-fingering at all, but would probably make both D and H easier to type, especially those HE digraphs.

For clarity:

Q  W  F  D  P  J  L  U  Y
A  R  S  T  G  M  N  E  I  O
Z  X  C  V  B  K  H  ,  .

Last edited by stevep99 (27-Aug-2014 10:01:02)

Using Colemak-DH with Seniply.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

The D>P>G switch might be good for people who dislike the center column! One major advantage with it is that it keeps everything on the same finger as Colemak so it's quite safe to do.

The H>M switch must be reserved for those who really hate the center column, as it moves a only somewhat more common letter into an at best marginally better position at the cost of two more moved keys! I personally cannot see how that could be worth it. It would make the HE/EH bigrams nice, granted.

*** Learn Colemak in 2–5 steps with Tarmak! ***
*** Check out my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks for Win/Linux/TMK... ***

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 19-Jul-2014
  • Posts: 27

After I had gotten to 80 wpm on Colemak and my right hand and forearm was in a lot of pain (from the dreaded HE combo), I actually tried this mod and immediately liked it.  Unfortunately my pain didn't go away.  To be fair, I only used it for a week, and that probably wasn't enough time to really give it a chance.

But that's in the past.  I am now completely sold on Workman.  It is *WAY* more comfortable to type than Colemak and Dvorak.  Within two days of switching back to Workman, my pain was gone.  I had originally thought that Workman was bottlenecked on speed, but I am up in the 90's now, which is really close to my old Dvorak speed.  Given time, i'm sure I will break my old speed records.

I am more and more convinced that the typing efficiency model that is used to "optimize" so many different keyboard layouts is fundamentally flawed.  When Shai commented on the Workman layout, he cited a bunch of reasons why it was worse than Colemak.  Yet as one who has typed Colemak, Dvorak, and Workman at a high level, I can say with complete certainty that Workman is superior, especially for those who are prone to RSI.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 117
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 14-Apr-2014
  • Posts: 975

Looking at Workman layout, I had another thought (yeah, dangerous I know).
Here is another idea which is in the same vein as Workman, but more Colemak-like:

Q  W  H  D  P  J  L  U  Y  ;
A  S  R  T  G  F  N  E  I  O
   Z  X  C  V  B  K  M  ,  .  /

- Effectively solves the Workman complaint with H (and D).
- 11 keys same as Qwerty (more than Colemak or Workman)
- S and G return to Qwerty locations (yay, easy to learn S)
- Same finger bigrams 1.9% - lower than Workman, not quite as low as Colemak.
- But: angle mod must not be applied, C must be hit with index finger (otherwise CH bigram)

Hmm, with 26! ways to arrange letters, just think of the fun that can be had!

Last edited by stevep99 (16-Nov-2014 18:03:10)

Using Colemak-DH with Seniply.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

Saying that you should use alternative fingering (re your 'no angle mod') effectively means the same as moving more keys from their original positions.

Last edited by DreymaR (16-Nov-2014 19:32:54)

*** Learn Colemak in 2–5 steps with Tarmak! ***
*** Check out my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks for Win/Linux/TMK... ***

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 117
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 14-Apr-2014
  • Posts: 975

Well, I suppose it depends on what the users existing technique is. I suspect there are a lot (majority?) of people out there who hit C with their index finger! Anyway, I'm not seriously proposing it, I'm satisfied with my current layout.  It's a shame changing anything requires such an investment of time to learn though, otherwise it would be quite fun to experiment.

Last edited by stevep99 (17-Nov-2014 11:54:37)

Using Colemak-DH with Seniply.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

So, how many changed keys from QWERTY depending on previous technique? I'm not used to seeing it presented as keys kept in place, but as keys moved. That's, ummm, 25 keys you're counting then, which means 14–17 keys moved depending on your ZXC technique?

Sounds like a serious competitor to Workman at least, then. Then again, so is your Colemak-DH right?!

One reason the S was finally uprooted from its old position in the final Colemak was some bigrams really needed fixing. I can see at once that SW is painful if you keep both S and W (and WS too on some keyboards). The whole thing made me wonder why the W wasn't moved instead, but I don't know enough to say.

Last edited by DreymaR (17-Nov-2014 12:29:53)

*** Learn Colemak in 2–5 steps with Tarmak! ***
*** Check out my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks for Win/Linux/TMK... ***

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 04-Apr-2013
  • Posts: 538
DreymaR said:

The whole thing made me wonder why the W wasn't moved instead, but I don't know enough to say.

Probably due to:

https://colemak.com/Easy_to_learn#Compatible_shortcuts said:

  • Potentially destructive shortcuts: Some users in Dvorak intend to hit Ctrl+V (Paste) but instead hit accidentally the adjacent Ctrl+W (Close window), thus losing everything they've typed. Colemak has been designed so most of the potentially destructive shortcuts (Q - Quit, X - Exit, Ctrl+Z - Undo, Ctrl+X - Cut, Ctrl+W - Close Window), will remain the same as QWERTY.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

Good point, Lalop. Indeed, moving fewer keys is a boon but in this case it's a question of whether to move the much-used S (also the site of Ctrl+S) or the much-less-used W (and while Ctrl+W closes stuff it's usually not disastrous – although I did have some swearing bouts over it back in my Dvorak days!).

*** Learn Colemak in 2–5 steps with Tarmak! ***
*** Check out my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks for Win/Linux/TMK... ***

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 117
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 14-Apr-2014
  • Posts: 975

If you swap S and R, there is also the problem of fairly common CR bigram (assuming "correct" typing method).

If you use the "wrong" technique (C index finger) then you still have to contend with FR and CT bigrams. Total same finger bigrams rise from 1.5% to 1.9%. Not massive but not ideal.

Although I complained about S a lot at first, the S move does actually make sense if you also want R on the left-side home row.
It is a bit of shame though as the S move can be a potential deterrent for new users.

Last edited by stevep99 (18-Nov-2014 15:19:28)

Using Colemak-DH with Seniply.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: -5
  • From: Banned
  • Registered: 02-May-2015
  • Posts: 116
Amuseum said:

Workman is on the right track as far as difficulty. But his chart is too simplified. Thus I have made a more detailed strain/difficulty/effort chart based on his:

http://www.shenafu.com/code/keyboard/ke … t_grid.png

Workman chart distinguishes QWERTY W/G and H/O.

Banned from Colemak

Offline
  • 0