Yes, less common characters on the pinkies does increase same-finger. There seems to be an unavoidable trade-off there--either you can have low pinky use or low same-finger, but not both. (Makes sense, I guess--less pinky use means cramming more common characters into a smaller area.) I've very recently had a change of heart on the issue, and have retooled my algorithm to match.
Here's an interesting potential competitor that popped out of my program:
qygb m j pdu;
oesn r l thai
zxcv f k w,./
It has the regrettable property of the middle fingers being underused and pinkies being overused (IMO), as well as some aesthetic defects (such as the positions of E and R). However, when I test drove it, it actually felt pretty good. It has a bit of an "airy" feel to it, probably due to all the pinky/index pairs.
I'll post if anything better pops out.
]]>Phynnboi, placing not-so-common letters on the home row under the pinkies, as you do in your "Colemak competitor", increases same-finger digraphs (you have oi, ge, ce, ec). So you too don't mind same-finger digraphs that much? Because if you want to reduce them people really need to train their pinkies and use them even though it may feel awkward. Shai thought same-finger digraphs slowed him down the most.
bsdhacker, maybe you don't mind, but placing the apostrophe there makes n't and 's not very comfortable to type. I think the semicolon needs to be on the left (as it is in your layout), because for programmers the semicolon is usually followed by Enter.
]]>Some things that feel uncomfortable may not actually be flaws. For someone new to touch typing everything will feel uncomfortable. Eventually people get used to it and it's now comfortable, but that doesn't mean that every movement is flawed. If a layout contains technique that you are not used to, such as a heavier pinky load, that may or may not be an actual flaw. Note: May or may not be; I believe Shai for instance thinks Dvorak loads the pinkies too much. Other people have no problems with it.
It's a bit like your taste example; If you acquire a taste and now like it, does the food taste bad except you are now oblivious to it? I would say not; You got used to it and now the food tastes good. Other situations will be more analogous to the screaming baby example - they truly are flaws that you have now tuned out.
It follows that when you pick up a new layout, you will naturally be using the techniques you are used to from your qwerty typing. That means you are implicitly comparing the layout to "difference to qwerty technique". Flaws in the layout that are the same as for qwerty will not stick out as badly as the ones that aren't present in qwerty.
As I've said many times, it's still perfectly legit to quickly evaluate which layout suits you best. So what if it happens to be the one that allows you to employ your qwerty technique instead of starting over? But if you want to opine on flaws, you will be doing so from a precariously subjective position unless you give each layout more time.
One last question. If qwerty is perfectly comfortable, why bother switching? You probably won't beat the speed of qwerty, and you can't beat perfectly comfortable in the comfort department either. After all, the proof is in the pudding - perhaps for you qwerty is a good layout.
]]>Indeed, too much familiarity can mask flaws and prevent a fresh approach. I often see this in software: Some functions can be very unintuitive and user-unfriendly but the old users don't mind anymore. In that case, it takes a new user to spot the flaw.
However, it also takes a new user who knows what to look for. As I mentioned above, a typing expert might be able to assess layouts very speedily in comparison with others. With your 100+ WPM you're definitely in the upper segment of typists. Maybe your experience cannot be compared to, say, mine - which took a number of months to mature (then again, I had to unlearn Dvorak which is a harder transition to Colemak; then again again, I had experience with learning another layout fully before switching...). It's not easy to answer summarily.
But you have given the impression that you did something too hastily and/or improperly - both with your guitar learning and your keyboard learning. It's not only how long you stick with it, but the approach.
And of course, your massive experience with QWERTY will also mean that you need to work past a LOT of muscle memory before you can say that you've 'learnt' a new layout. Tricky.
]]>I've used QWERTY for 16 years. Sequences like "SWEATERDRESSES" and "FASTED FADS" and "RECEDED" fell smooth and natural to me (no joke). A few months ago (before tinkering with multiple layouts), I could average 105 WPM on hi-games and 120 WPM on keybr's random sentences, no warm-up, no problem. While not world class, it'd be an understatement to say I just "got by." I could have been perfectly content typing QWERTY for the rest of my life, dismissing those who complained of awkwardness or pain as lazy, inexperienced, poor learners (if they stuck with QWERTY anyway), rebels without a clue (if they switched), too old, etc. (And I did for most of that 16 years.)
Clearly, since I have *16* years of experience with QWERTY--far more than anyone could possibly have with Colemak (and some of them can have opinions about that layout!)--that means I'm right! QWERTY must be smooth and comfortable to type on, because it is for me and I have so much experience to back me up! If you have a comparable length of experience and disagree, that just means you practiced wrong, or are rationalizing, or for some other reason aren't as good as me. :P
Or MAYBE, maybe it's that experience actually HIDES flaws from us! Maybe we get so used to those flaws and working around them that we become blind to them! Maybe our first impression is MORE accurate than our 365th impression because it's pure--untainted by habit (and other, less flattering mechanisms). Stuff like "you did not spend sufficient time to allow your motor skills and muscles to get accustomed" reads exactly to me like "just get used to the awkwardness and you won't notice it anymore!" Yeah, no kidding, I did exactly that with QWERTY. Do you really think that means the awkwardness doesn't exist?
Ever been writing the same paper for days and days, see it as grammatically flawless, and then hand it to someone to proofread and they find something like a repeated word in in the first sentence? (Ahem.) Same phenomenon. I'm sure the C and Java coders among us have stared at the same piece of buggy code for hours, seeing nothing but flawless code, yet when we hand the code to someone else, it turns out the bug was a comma instead of a semicolon, or missing braces on an if-statement (which was "properly indented"), or something of that nature. Same phenomenon. Ever see one of those parents in the supermarket with an unbearable child, yet the parent seems completely oblivious to it? Same thing. Ever hear a crappy song on the radio that you found yourself humming after the 50th time you heard it? Same. Was there ever some food or beverage you hated at first, but were forced (or forced yourself) to eat or drink, and you eventually developed a taste for it? Same. Been stuck some place with a horrible smell and eventually be unable to smell it? Same. Guess why companies spend millions of dollars to keep telling you day after day about their products. I mean, you heard them the first time, right?
Familiarity breeds acceptance.
Just something to think about.
EDIT: I acknowledge that further experience can REFINE one's opinions (e.g., adding new insights, exceptions to rules, etc.). What I do not accept is that one's first impression OF FLAWS is always wrong because those flaws tend to "disappear" with experience. As a rule of thumb, flaws ALWAYS tend to "disappear" with experience, because we get used to them and learn to ignore them (or, in some cases, even admire them).
]]>As for the stationary XCV on the new layout... I have no need of making a layout easier to learn by keeping some things the same. I have completely retrained my mind once already, I can do it again. In fact, having them be in the qwerty positions is causing me to relearn again because my mind has been branded with the dvorak seal for the past 2 years. They just happen to work well in those positions for this layout. Although I did end up moving V elsewhere - I recently shuffled Q, K, V, -, " I'm quite pleased with the core of the layout so far.
As for the digraphs PL, OL, LO, PH, HO... For me, PL is actually very comfortable and fast to type. The most annoying one I think is OL because the index finger is a bit short, so (at least for me) it forces you to shift your whole hand up. At first I thought HO was going to be a problem, but I can now type it very fast and it doesn't bother me at all. I'm definitely enjoying the layout so far - the flow is really good and I feel like I'm exerting very littly effort when typing. However, I won't know the layout's real limitations until I reach that magic threshold - at which point I hope it still continues to sing.
Here's my current modification:
Q B U L P K M Y F V Z = |
R I A O H D T E N S ?
: X C _ J G W < > "
For anyone curious about the dash/underscore just below O, I'm a software developer (C/C++), and I type a whole lot of '->' sequences to dereference my pointers. I also use VI a lot, so having the colon nearby is very useful. L and H are backwards for VI, but I can live with that since I mostly use B & W for left/rigt navigation.
]]>Jammycakes, I think you're right... in part. Whether you are a good judge of a layout in a month would be very individual I think. A typing master going from 150 WPM and having tried both QWERTY and, say, Dvorak, could probably assess any layout in a week or two, whereas a non-accomplished typist well could need several months to form a really balanced opinion.
]]>However I agree with him that it shouldn't take anywhere near as long as a year to be able to come to an assessment of whether it's going to get you anywhere or not. Personally, I'd think that after a month, or at most six weeks, you should certainly be able to tell whether or not Colemak is right for you, even if you aren't quite up to full speed with it yet.
You are certainly right, and well put at that. Trying a layout for a month should be sufficient time to get at least a good idea if it's going to work out for you. Don't waste any more time than that at any single layout! Then pick one - whatever seemed to work best for you - and stick with it! (Or in your case - pick two!)
What I meant is that to become truly proficient in a layout I think you do have to stick to your guns for a year, and you will probably not realise your full potential until a few years in. People are definitely in a position to pick a good choice of layout for themselves much sooner, but if you want to opine about which layout is the best (and not just for you) then I think you had better have a lot more time to soak in the layout so you can say with confidence you know what you are talking about.
I am still picking up speed after a year. Speed seems to come in quanta of about 5 wpm every two or three months or so without me doing any particular practice or anything. I surpassed my (perhaps not so impressive 80 wpm) qwerty speed only fairly recently, and I wouldn't be surprised if I hit 100 wpm in another year or two. At the same time, I am still getting more and more comfortable with the layout. For me, it really does take time for the muscles and brain to mature, and I hazard to guess other people are the same.
I believe Dreymar has had a similar experience. He would have to verify this, but I seem to recall he was stuck at 50 wpm for several months and only recently jumped to 70 wpm.
]]>However I agree with him that it shouldn't take anywhere near as long as a year to be able to come to an assessment of whether it's going to get you anywhere or not. Personally, I'd think that after a month, or at most six weeks, you should certainly be able to tell whether or not Colemak is right for you, even if you aren't quite up to full speed with it yet.
]]>All the trigraphs you mention I think are supremely comfortable although I didn't like all of them at first. My right pinky does not get tired. At the risk of beating a dead horse, your experience is likely because you did not spend sufficient time to allow your motor skills and muscles to get accustomed.
Note that I never suggested, nor do I greatly care if you stick with Colemak. I adviced you should pick the one layout you fancy and stick with it. You're still welcome to post here about it once you have had time to form an opinion on it.
]]>Common trigraphs like YOU, THE, AND, AST, ION, and ING were all rather awkward to type.
Actually, I find all those trigraphs quite efficient and comfortable. In fact early on, I discovered that "ion" and "ing" were two of my fastest and favorite sequences. (really "tion" ). However, that wasn't something I discovered in the first week or first 40 hours.
comparing something involving motor leaning to tastes in passive entertainment doesn't exactly make much sense.
While you are welcome to your view, I agree with DreymaR and you attitude to learning the guitar pretty much proves it.
I happened to learn guitar in my college years. I learned piano in my 40's because I found someone to teach me in way that motivated me to learn. I am far from some natural talent. What mattered was not just time and practice, but continually looking to learn better ways to practice and learn more efficient. Making sure I was practicing in a way that would foster progress, however slow or fast it might be at times. The kool-aid you swallowed was that practice alone is enough.
In most things, success lies just below frustration. As a martial arts teacher, I have seen again and again people rationalize quitting in the way you have done. I have seen others start with less ability and hit frustrations and push through. Some come in thinking they are going to be like Bruce Lee in a month and when reality sets in they look to lay blame for their expectations on the system rather than re-examining the realism of the view they brought in the door. (in martial arts you find people jumping from art to art, school to school, never spending enough time to really get good at anything, though you can bet they can offer up detailed opinions about every art they have dabbled in and detailed rationalizations why they moved on).
It really doesn't come down to anything other than desire and attitude. Just admit your desire to learn was so low that the first sign that it was NOT going to be like getting an instant download, you quit. Consider you may simply have read some enthusiasts who had a much higher desire to learn and therefore perceived the inevitable frustrations as relatively insignificant.
]]>Saying one should spend a whole year with something they're unimpressed with after 40 hours sounds like a common trick I've seen employed by fans of certain book, movie, and television series. The argument is, dissenters don't appreciate the series simply because haven't spent as much time with it as the fans have. The end goal is either to dismiss all dissenters (thus increasing the series's positive mindshare), or to get the dissenter to invest as much time into the series as the fan has (thus increasing that series's total mindshare). Most recently, all the tween girls are using this argument with the Twilight series. "Don't judge the series by the first book/movie! You have to read all four books several times to really get it." Yeah, right--let's all go through the motions of being fans of something we're not fans of. *eye roll*
(Incidentally, I tried guitar for a week and was poor at it. People served me up heaping pitchers full of that "you can't know after a week" Kool-aid and I, in my youthful naivete, drank it: I went on to practice it for over a year, often several hours a day. The end result? I could (poorly) play parts of a few songs and a couple of box scales. Technically, I was little better than I was after a week. To this day I'm unable to reliably play the A-E-D-E open chord progression. One week was more than enough to prove to me that I didn't have the fingers/touch/coordination/dexterity/whatever to be any good at the instrument, but I thought maybe the people telling me the grass was blue and the skies were green knew something I didn't. Pfft.)
Personally, I think 40 hours is WAY more than enough time to develop a reasonable opinion about something as simple as a keyboard layout, especially one that's only 17 keys different from one you already know! Heck, even a few minutes can tell you a lot. Simply type some example passages as if on the new layout, but still using the old layout. Then, go back and type the character sequences that resulted, using the layout you know. That'll give you a pretty good idea of what the new layout would feel like were you proficient with it. I like to start with the "man from Nantucket" limerick, since it's particularly awkward to type on QWERTY (and that's saying something).
Anyway, I'm not trying to rip on Colemak, here; I'm just trying to explain (and defend) my experience with it. I have more respect for the layout than is coming through in this post: If I saw no merit in the layout, I wouldn't be here. (Although, perhaps like vVv, I think the whole ZXCV thing is a bit smoke and mirrors. But then, I grew up old-school, when copy was CTRL+INS, cut was SHIFT+DEL, and paste was SHIFT+INS, and we liked it that way, because we selected text with the arrow keys, dammit! Personally, I still do it that way; trying to select text with a mouse in Windows is like trying to herd cats across a frozen pond, especially when scrolling is involved!)
]]>The only thing I'd worry about are the CA and VO digraphs. Not so much fun in those positions, but I don't know exactly how common they are. But I'm starting to come to terms with the analogous (and thankfully quite rare) CS on Colemak these days - it's one of those digraphs that just call out for alternative fingering (I let the index finger slide in for the S).
]]>What bothers me in your layout is that XCV<> are kept in their QWERTY places. I would consider switching to a custom layout, but only if it is fully optimized for typing.
]]>