Regarding the WA/AW/RF/FR (Colemak) issue, I've checked it again, and found that such sequences are less cumbersome than what I found before, provided that I don't try to type them as rolls. For instance, "was" should be typed as "w" followed by "as" instead that as a single roll. This fixes the awkwardness by slowing typing down, which would matter more or less depending on relative frequencies of such digraphs.
Regarding pinky to ring finger rolls, I've checked them again, and found them to lock my fingers only if I try to type them fast. If I slow down, I can type them. Now, it could just be that fingers should be trained to enter such sequences, which myself - a Dvorak typist - I'm not used to. Only further testing could tell.
]]>spremino said:Horizontal travel distance is not the issue here. Vertical travel distance - e.g.: pressing keys - on a standard keyboard (staggered keys) is the issue. Laptop-style keys - that is: scissor-switch keys - have shorter travel. As key-travel shortens, so do the difficult stroke-path I mentioned. Again, this is a subjective issue: DreymaR uses the same keyboard as I do, but it doesn't share my discomfort, it seems.
I don't think laptop keyboards have different vertical travel distance. They are almost the same if not a difference of one or two millimeters. Rather the dimensions of keys are different where laptop keys are bigger with lesser spacing between keys which is better I feel. But both are basically not designed scientifically in accordance with where our fingers fall naturally.
Laptop keys have 2 mm travel distance vs 4 mm of other keyboards. The former make you bottoming out at every stroke. Why bottoming out matters? Before designing a new keyboard layout, you should make yourself more knowledgeable about keyboard ergonomics. Hang out for a while in the "keyboards" section of ww.geekhack.org
spremino said:Difficult stroke paths do matter to me, because I type on a buckling-spring keyboard, which I've found to be the better for ergonomic reasons. To people who type on membrane-based o laptop-like keyboards, this issue will matter less.
On any keyboard same finger typing and home row jumping( hurdling as Dvorak calls it) are more difficult stroke path where Dvorak comes inferior.
I don't agree: some row-jumps are quite comfortable. On my netbook chiclet keyboard, even more so. I have a difficult time with WA/AW on my desktop keyboard, much less so on my netbook. Thus both kind of jump/stroke-path and choice of keyboard matter.
What does matter the most to you? Comfort or speed? Same-finger and row-jumping slow you down, but can be comfortable. Difficult stroke paths are awkward above anything else.
Apart from that, my statistics on this is slightly different. More or less same about Dvorak. But not with Colemak. One, right pinky isn't that loaded to be at 11%. Two, right ring finger isn't less used compared to right pinky.
Since he stated what books he was using as input, this shouldn't be a subjective metric. Different fingering, maybe? This is why I asked you about your statistics and tools you have used.
spremino said:What do you consider "row-jumping"? Same-finger row-jumping or different-fingers row-jumping? In the former case, you have a point; in the latter case, again, it depends.
I've incorporated both in my above calculations. It's the whole total. Both are more difficult than AW/WA. As per my calculation, Dvorak has this almost 7 times compared to my layouts.
Not at all. BL/LB, BR/RB, LM (Dvorak) are way easier than WA/AW (Colemak): my hand hardly moves from home position while typing them, therefore they don't feel as row-jumps to me. LV (Dvorak) is what I consider an awkward row-jumps.
Even PE/EP on Dvorak I couldn't stand as I begun studying such layout, but I ended up accepting that compromise because alternatives were worse.
spremino said:Home-row typing is overrated. Other keys besides home-row keys are easier enough to hit. The most easier are I, O, U (Qwerty), I think.
Can't help it friend if you find everything overrated than AW/WA. "I" is a very highly used key and if it's outside the home positions, it affects your speed. Besides I,O,U other easier spots are M,V,G,H,W,E,R (QWERTY)
By "overrated" I mean they are given too much importance than other metrics. Dvorak valued comfort more than distance (hint: that's why he placed U where it is). I prefer same-finger to awkward stroke-paths. Modern designers obsess on distance and same-finger at the expense of comfort.
spremino said:"you have to move your pinky to hit it": if you meant you have to stretch your pinky, that's wrong. You shouldn't move your fingers, you should move your hands insted. Anyway, typing distance is overrated. Yes, less is more, but floating your hands some more time is less important than other metrics.
Either way, it's more effort. That's my point. This effort should be given to stronger fingers. It skews finger load distribution as well.
Here's my stat on inward rolls and outward rolls (quick rolling over adjacent keys):
Dvorak: inward - 5%
outward - 1.14%Colemak: inward - 4.4%
outward - 2.235%mine: inward - 9.7%
outward - 3.1%my dvorak like: inward - 6.4%
outward - 2.34%
Could you please detailed statistics about the inward-rolls sequences you have considered.
spremino said:You should show us Dvorak 2010. That is, a layout which achieves the same goals Dvorak had and achieves them better than Dvorak 1936.
People mostly nowadays believe goals different from Dvorak's are better for a keyboard meant for touch-feeding inputs to a computer - something nonexistent during Dvorak's time. It would be pointless to expect me - or others- to adopt typewriter goals.
It would be pointless only as soon as you - and others - do stop saying that Dvorak's work was suboptimal because he lacked the aid of computers. You have stated that you can beat Dvorak at his own game thanks to computers. Again, please either prove your statement with detailed statistics or withdraw it.
spremino said:I do too. However, we disagree about what "load" and "more difficult parameters" are.
We both know what load is.. We agree on this, but how does for instance Colemak score vs Dvorak? Here we go: is something you yourself said. There's no doubt a layout that distributes evenly is better. And as far as more difficult parameters are concerned, I would say BL/LB, BR/RB and likes on Dvorak are more serious than AW/WA, ES/SE (qwerty). Same finger is almost the same as AW/WA and likes. And then there's the overall effort which is given by finger travel.
I don't consider BL/LB, BR/RB and likes on Dvorak to be more serious than AW/WA, ES/SE (qwerty). Quite the opposite.
spremino said:Examples and measurements, please?
The whole essay I was saying it. Refer to the specs I posted in the previous post.
I fail to see them, then. What post of yours are you talking about? Some clumped-together data ain't a measurement. As I have stated, not all row-jumping matters the same, thus you should release detailed data. Have you considered writing a web-page about your layout?
spremino said:See? That's subjectivity. I couldn't type AR or OI (Colemak) comfortably on a keyboard: fingers almost lock. ART (Colemak) would be a killer ;-) Which is more common, your feeling or mine? We should poll users.
Haha, I think it's possible to get real world data which would tend to converge to a point. I believe inward roll is easier comparatively. Something wrong with your fingers :P
Since Dvorak reflects my feeling, I wouldn't say that I'm alone on this.
EDIT: I managed to find a copy of the article by the guy who tried to improve over Dvorak: http://web.archive.org/web/200802241359 … olved.html
]]>(I personally would like to see the keyboard die in it's current iteration. So you can send me a prototype ;) )
I'll have to send u a rough sketch :) mail id? ;)
A design for a touch pad, using finger sliding may be infinitely more ergonomic than tapping keys (I wonder if it is?)
You are in a haste to move away from this whole conventional style of typing I guess :)
Regarding the pinky, I did read some anecdote on the web (yes I know that's not helpful) about finger strength and muscle. Apparently there are no muscles in the fingers at all. It's all tendons and actually for gripping the pinky is your strongest finger. If that is true, you have to be careful when referring to finger strength. I think you'd be better using the terms dexterity and fatigue.
I too read that. But how are we going to believe it when our pinky is really the weakest :P. It's not just dexterity, but the strength too that makes our pinky the worst choice for typing. I dunno what they say. And I have not read something very authoritative. Can you post link?
]]>I do not think Dvorak's main goal was hand-alternation: inward-rolls mattered to him more than everything.
Hand alternation and inward roll technique are basically two techniques and giving either of them more importance is inevitable.
1. Dvorak designed for typewriters and it's understandable hand alternation is the desirable technique there.
2. Almost all the modern layouts designed on roll technique has vowels and consonants clubbed. And layouts with least same hand sequences have vowels and consonants on opposite sides. It's easy to conclude Dvorak employed latter technique. Though within the set of characters on one side, he tried to have more inward rolls than outward rolls which is good.
If you had to perform bidirectional rolls, then hand-alternation kicks in better.
I dunno if modern layouts are designed employing bi-directional roll principle. At least I haven't. Outward rolls are undesirable, but not as much as same finger or home row jump.
Horizontal travel distance is not the issue here. Vertical travel distance - e.g.: pressing keys - on a standard keyboard (staggered keys) is the issue. Laptop-style keys - that is: scissor-switch keys - have shorter travel. As key-travel shortens, so do the difficult stroke-path I mentioned. Again, this is a subjective issue: DreymaR uses the same keyboard as I do, but it doesn't share my discomfort, it seems.
I don't think laptop keyboards have different vertical travel distance. They are almost the same if not a difference of one or two millimeters. Rather the dimensions of keys are different where laptop keys are bigger with lesser spacing between keys which is better I feel. But both are basically not designed scientifically in accordance with where our fingers fall naturally.
Difficult stroke paths do matter to me, because I type on a buckling-spring keyboard, which I've found to be the better for ergonomic reasons. To people who type on membrane-based o laptop-like keyboards, this issue will matter less.
On any keyboard same finger typing and home row jumping( hurdling as Dvorak calls it) are more difficult stroke path where Dvorak comes inferior.
We agree on this, but how does for instance Colemak score vs Dvorak? Here we go:
Colemak finger load: 7% 7% 10% 18% - 19% 15% 9% 11%
Dvorak finger load: 8% 9% 12% 13% - 18% 13% 12% 12%I don't see that much of a difference. See "All the Books Combined" at http://viralintrospection.wordpress.com … d-layouts/
You are right, Colemak doesn't handle this rightly. I've said this in my first or 2nd post of this thread. In that respect Colemak too doesn't qualify to be that perfect layout.
Apart from that, my statistics on this is slightly different. More or less same about Dvorak. But not with Colemak. One, right pinky isn't that loaded to be at 11%. Two, right ring finger isn't less used compared to right pinky.
If your layout targets ergonomic keyboards, you should advertise it as such. Otherwise, you can't really compare it to others.
I did it. But there are certain things universal. Like same finger ( On a standard design, I admit adjacent finger strokes are equally difficult which is what Dvorak was mainly concerned about), home row jump, distance, load distribution etc. These are most important in all which Dvorak is inferior compared to mine.
I do really think same-finger is over-rated. It depends on which fingers you are considering. Again, if you are targeting ergonomic keyboards, then metrics change.
This is how I could infer on it. Same finger is a bigger trouble compared to adjacent finger when it comes to stronger fingers like middle and index fingers. But on weaker fingers like pinky and ring finger, I feel same finger is easier to hit than AW/WA.
What do you consider "row-jumping"? Same-finger row-jumping or different-fingers row-jumping? In the former case, you have a point; in the latter case, again, it depends.
I've incorporated both in my above calculations. It's the whole total. Both are more difficult than AW/WA. As per my calculation, Dvorak has this almost 7 times compared to my layouts.
Home-row typing is overrated. Other keys besides home-row keys are easier enough to hit. The most easier are I, O, U (Qwerty), I think.
Can't help it friend if you find everything overrated than AW/WA. "I" is a very highly used key and if it's outside the home positions, it affects your speed. Besides I,O,U other easier spots are M,V,G,H,W,E,R (QWERTY)
"you have to move your pinky to hit it": if you meant you have to stretch your pinky, that's wrong. You shouldn't move your fingers, you should move your hands insted. Anyway, typing distance is overrated. Yes, less is more, but floating your hands some more time is less important than other metrics.
Either way, it's more effort. That's my point. This effort should be given to stronger fingers. It skews finger load distribution as well.
Here's my stat on inward rolls and outward rolls (quick rolling over adjacent keys):
Dvorak: inward - 5%
outward - 1.14%
Colemak: inward - 4.4%
outward - 2.235%
mine: inward - 9.7%
outward - 3.1%
my dvorak like: inward - 6.4%
outward - 2.34%
You should show us Dvorak 2010. That is, a layout which achieves the same goals Dvorak had and achieves them better than Dvorak 1936.
People mostly nowadays believe goals different from Dvorak's are better for a keyboard meant for touch-feeding inputs to a computer - something nonexistent during Dvorak's time. It would be pointless to expect me - or others- to adopt typewriter goals.
You - and others - have said that Dvorak is suboptimal because Dvorak didn't have computers at his fingertips. Thus, to prove your point you should devise such a layout. Saying that your layout is better than Dvorak's, when you have different metrics, isn't match.
Now going by even Dvorak's game, I would just say the one i formed with lesser finger travel, more uniform distribution of load, lesser "more serious" stroke paths (home row jump) is almost better (just one - AW/WA, ES/SE - parameter alone wouldn't decide the winner). Well, I would just say it. Can't be too certain as I admit I've to get more authentic on frequency data, and varying stroke difficulties across fingers.
nawfal said:spremino said:I'll tell it with different words, maybe it will be clearer. Do you think Dvorak could have done better had he relied on computers?
One hundred percent!! All the more when he would be relying on computers he would be designing one for computers as well :P [hint: "I" would be inside home position]. His frequency data could be much much better. He could have tried a lot more different combinations he believe can be more or less as powerful. etc. If he designed now, he would have faced the competition as well :P.. Kidding.. :)
Again, have you any proofs of this? Or are they just speculations? I think they are. Have you read "Typewriting behavior" by Dvorak? I'd bet no. You just read here and there that Dvorak valued hand-alternation and inward rolls, and that's it. As I've shown you - and I've not even read such book - there is more to the Dvorak layout than that.
Now what's the proof mate I could be giving when the question itself is of hypothetical nature? I can only speculate based on rational and commonsense.
1. He would have had different ideas if he's learning from the video footages of how touch typing works. It's a bit different from typewriter typing where hands don't rest.
2. His frequency data would have been much more authentic.
3. And he could have tried millions of possibilities which would yield better layout on his own design principles. Hand calculation of 300 plus statistics on each layout itself would
be hectic so as to find the optimal one.
I do too. However, we disagree about what "load" and "more difficult parameters" are.
We both know what load is.. We agree on this, but how does for instance Colemak score vs Dvorak? Here we go: is something you yourself said. There's no doubt a layout that distributes evenly is better. And as far as more difficult parameters are concerned, I would say BL/LB, BR/RB and likes on Dvorak are more serious than AW/WA, ES/SE (qwerty). Same finger is almost the same as AW/WA and likes. And then there's the overall effort which is given by finger travel.
[
Examples and measurements, please?
The whole essay I was saying it. Refer to the specs I posted in the previous post.
See? That's subjectivity. I couldn't type AR or OI (Colemak) comfortably on a keyboard: fingers almost lock. ART (Colemak) would be a killer ;-) Which is more common, your feeling or mine? We should poll users.
Haha, I think it's possible to get real world data which would tend to converge to a point. I believe inward roll is easier comparatively. Something wrong with your fingers :P
]]>Regarding the pinky, I did read some anecdote on the web (yes I know that's not helpful) about finger strength and muscle. Apparently there are no muscles in the fingers at all. It's all tendons and actually for gripping the pinky is your strongest finger. If that is true, you have to be careful when referring to finger strength. I think you'd be better using the terms dexterity and fatigue.
It might very well be, but besides gripping is not related to typing, the index and middle finger can get additional help from the thumb while gripping. Every pianist can confirm that the pinky is the weakest finger for pressing stuff down, though.
]]>Surely a keyboard design for something like a touch pad, flat or even a different physical keyed layout will make comparisons with 'typewriter' layouts difficult.
I guess you are designing a layout for use on some hybrid of the conventional keyboard. With an idea that touch typists could move over to it?
(I personally would like to see the keyboard die in it's current iteration. So you can send me a prototype ;) )
A design for a touch pad, using finger sliding may be infinitely more ergonomic than tapping keys (I wonder if it is?)
Could you utilise a computer to create a layout/input device that didn't evolve from the constraints of a typewriter (which was the basis of Dvorak's design)?
I think also there is a huge difference between typing and touch typing and care should be taken when using the term.
Regarding the pinky, I did read some anecdote on the web (yes I know that's not helpful) about finger strength and muscle. Apparently there are no muscles in the fingers at all. It's all tendons and actually for gripping the pinky is your strongest finger. If that is true, you have to be careful when referring to finger strength. I think you'd be better using the terms dexterity and fatigue.
]]>spremino said:As you have learned, modern designers think same-hand rolls win over inward-rolls a-la Dvorak.
I did not understand at all. Badly want clarification :(. What's same hand rolls? bi-directional?
https://colemak.com/Hand_alternation
I do not think Dvorak's main goal was hand-alternation: inward-rolls mattered to him more than everything. If you had to perform bidirectional rolls, then hand-alternation kicks in better. I tried Colemak when I was just learning Dvorak - so I don't think I was biased - and found bidirectional rolls awkward on my keyboard. They worked on laptop keyboards, though.
spremino said:On a laptop keyboard, whose keys are flat and have short travel, same-hand rolls work good. But on a keyboard whose keys have longer travel, I have found that same-hand rolls are awkward.
Again, how is this? The travel distance is the same in both cases right? Your fingers fall on the same spots right. Or I did not get you?
Horizontal travel distance is not the issue here. Vertical travel distance - e.g.: pressing keys - on a standard keyboard (staggered keys) is the issue. Laptop-style keys - that is: scissor-switch keys - have shorter travel. As key-travel shortens, so do the difficult stroke-path I mentioned. Again, this is a subjective issue: DreymaR uses the same keyboard as I do, but it doesn't share my discomfort, it seems.
spremino said:A similar issue happens regarding what the designer of Carpalx calls "stroke path". That's what I thinking about when I talked about the "static left hand" in Dvorak. Sequences like WA/AW, ES/SE, RD/DR (Qwerty), are difficult to type - less so on a laptop keyboard - yet both Colemak and your layout have them. Dvorak hasn't, and that is a big win to me. Carpalx fully optimized layouts have not stroke-path issues, but still I think are inferior to Dvorak regarding inward rolls. All the above said, I don't mind Dvorak having a little more same-finger, awkward placement of L, or worse; it's still better than the alternatives.
This is gonna be elaborate. This is the heart and soul of our talk. And i want you to assimilate this perfectly. No more room for lengthy rebuttals and explanations. I'm sorry to say this that I'm fed up of making this same point over and over and again - major advantages of non-dvorak layouts - yet you point one minor advantage Dvorak layout possess.
Now let me admit that a keyboard layout design is more than few spec's I have stated here. Acknowledging this fact, let me add that these( same finger, row jump etc) are some of the important aspects of typing that I have posted here. Of course it's the final score (or the fitness as more knowledgeable people say) that matters. Now this value is different for different evaluators based on what they feel is a better typing model. I personally feel there is just one best way, though. My point is ( as I stated in my 2nd post of this thread) I haven't designed this bearing all the awkward stroke paths (which would require a computer), but a few important ones, manually, and that a complete design might look radically different from what I could reach now which might even resemble Dvorak. But can Dvorak be better even after a full design, say for instance vis-a-vis a completed layout like Colemak? A big no. Sorry if I'm sounding harsh.
At last, you nailed it down, Nawfal. Better typing model is a subjective matter. "Subjective" does not mean such model cannot be agreed, it means you need a lot of feedback and observation to evaluate it. Difficult stroke paths do matter to me, because I type on a buckling-spring keyboard, which I've found to be the better for ergonomic reasons. To people who type on membrane-based o laptop-like keyboards, this issue will matter less.
1. A layout that doesn't distribute finger load uniformly in accordance with finger strength doesn't even deserve to be talked about. As a person who has devoted a bit of time into this area, I can tell you effort and speed doesn't go hand in hand "always"; and it's easier to achieve better technical specs if you can mis place a key (which won't be palpable for end user in real world). Dvorak is a layout designed for speed and effort isn't given its due. I might sound too bold to say that, but I believe it. Your middle finger is stronger than your ring finger which in turn is stronger than your pinky. A layout that doesn't maintain this distribution is not a good typing model. Period. Experiences from real world is worthless, as 98% qwerty users wouldn't have thought about alternatives. In other words, if Dvorak doesn't seem to be problematic for users, they would find it even easier on a layout that does a better job, although these minute percentage differences need not be palpable. Theory matters. Colemak is "really" better.
We agree on this, but how does for instance Colemak score vs Dvorak? Here we go:
Colemak finger load: 7% 7% 10% 18% - 19% 15% 9% 11%
Dvorak finger load: 8% 9% 12% 13% - 18% 13% 12% 12%
I don't see that much of a difference. See "All the Books Combined" at http://viralintrospection.wordpress.com … d-layouts/
Ehi, according to the same page, when it comes to pinkies-load Qwerty blows both Colemak and Dvorak out of the water:
Qwerty finger load: 7% 8% 17% 20% - 19% 8% 11% 5%
2. I said same finger is higher in Dvorak compared to Colemak. Now you can assess which is a more difficult stroke path - AQ/QA, SW/WS, ED/DE, HY/YH, UJ/JU, IK/KI or the one you mentioned - WA/AW, ES/SE, RD/DR ?? Former is same finger sequence on same hand, latter lot is different finger sequence on same hand. I feel both are equally difficult because of the awkward structure of our conventional keyboard and weird placement of keys. But on a smooth ergonomic design (which is what I've designed upon), latter lot is easier to stroke. Hence I would say a layout that minimizes same finger more is better than a layout which minimizes WA/AW, ES/SE, RD/DR. Hope you got it.
If your layout targets ergonomic keyboards, you should advertise it as such. Otherwise, you can't really compare it to others.
Yes, on an ergonomic keyboard, difficult stroke-path issues are absent.
Here's stats as I could calculate. Different evaluators give radically different values though normailzed figures would be more or less same. And my corpus is far from perfect, so I understand the underlying problems in these values. But difference with Dvorak is too much so that it still gives an idea :)
Same finger: Colemak - 0.96%
Dvorak - 2.1 %
Workman - 2.1%
Arensito - 3.5%
MTGAP2 - 1.16%
mine - 1.3%
my Dvorak like - 1.54%
I do really think same-finger is over-rated. It depends on which fingers you are considering. Again, if you are targeting ergonomic keyboards, then metrics change.
3. Home row jumping strokes are much more difficult than WA/AW, ES/SE, RD/DR on any keyboard. Compare ZQ/QZ, ZE/EZ, NY/YN, MO/OM to WA/AW, ES/SE, RD/DR. The BR/RB and BL/LB sequences in Dvorak adds to this. Your opinion? Colemak has a better percentage score than Dvorak.
Colemak - 0.5%
Dvorak - 0.78 %
Workman - 1.3%
Arensito - 0.98%
MTGAP2 - 0.63%
mine - 0.1%
my Dvorak like - 0.12%
What do you consider "row-jumping"? Same-finger row-jumping or different-fingers row-jumping? In the former case, you have a point; in the latter case, again, it depends.
4. More home row typing is on Colemak. It means lesser finger travel distance over all. It means lesser effort.
Home-row typing is overrated. Other keys besides home-row keys are easier enough to hit. The most easier are I, O, U (Qwerty), I think.
5. Frequently hit keys shouldn't be in awkward spots (as in mine or Colemak). That is more effort. Letter frequency has a say on effort. Digraph frequency has a say on speed. An L on top row assigned for pinky means every time you have to type a frequent letter, you have to move your pinky to hit it. That's more effort, though it won't be impeding speed. I would say Dvorak layout doesn't have the best mix of speed and effort. A better model is to first fix positions for characters based on their frequency and ease of stroking.
"you have to move your pinky to hit it": if you meant you have to stretch your pinky, that's wrong. You shouldn't move your fingers, you should move your hands insted. Anyway, typing distance is overrated. Yes, less is more, but floating your hands some more time is less important than other metrics.
6. I see only my two layouts with better inward roll percentage than Dvorak though. Which is not a big factor anyway
Could you please post measurements?
8. Regarding your point on static typing, I feel total effort is what that matters rather than how quickly you can type with left hand. I must admit that there are not many layouts that stresses the importance of this.But I don't think this is a very serious point. Normally people are ambidextrous when typing. Anyway you can find that there's more home row typing for left hand in my two layouts compared to Dvorak, and they move only as much as Dvorak away from home row (on left).
Maybe there is a misunderstanding. I don't think a static left hand is good, I think a more static left hand can be a result of trying to work around the shortcomings of standard (staggered) keys.
spremino said:When I said "Talk is cheap", I wasn't dismissing constructive exchange. What I was dismissing is this attitude of saying someone - Dvorak in this case - is wrong, without providing evidence.
So what's the evidence I can be providing? Bring in a Barbara Blackburn of Colemak?? I was right from start backing my claim with the theory involved in determining a better layout..
You should show us Dvorak 2010. That is, a layout which achieves the same goals Dvorak had and achieves them better than Dvorak 1936. You - and others - have said that Dvorak is suboptimal because Dvorak didn't have computers at his fingertips. Thus, to prove your point you should devise such a layout. Saying that your layout is better than Dvorak's, when you have different metrics, isn't match.
spremino said:I'll tell it with different words, maybe it will be clearer. Do you think Dvorak could have done better had he relied on computers?
One hundred percent!! All the more when he would be relying on computers he would be designing one for computers as well :P [hint: "I" would be inside home position]. His frequency data could be much much better. He could have tried a lot more different combinations he believe can be more or less as powerful. etc. If he designed now, he would have faced the competition as well :P.. Kidding.. :)
Again, have you any proofs of this? Or are they just speculations? I think they are. Have you read "Typewriting behavior" by Dvorak? I'd bet no. You just read here and there that Dvorak valued hand-alternation and inward rolls, and that's it. As I've shown you - and I've not even read such book - there is more to the Dvorak layout than that.
spremino said:Show us this improved "Dvorak" layout.
IMHO, Colemak, MTGAP. Hopefully I can contribute as well.
Nope: they are better only according to different metrics.
I tend to believe a layout which finishes off your work traveling lesser, with a uniform distribution of load, with lesser "more difficult" parameters is a better typing model, in short.
I do too. However, we disagree about what "load" and "more difficult parameters" are.
spremino said:How can one say his layout beats Dvorak when Dvorak's only difficult stroke-path is the least difficult RD/DR (Qwerty) and his layout has that plus all others?
Hope I was clear when I said Dvorak has more serious stroke paths. Just reiterating.
Examples and measurements, please?
spremino said:1 - Mostly inward rolls (except pinky to ring finger, where I find outward rolls to be better, at least on home row, and it seems Dvorak would have agreed with me);
2 - few difficult stroke paths;You find outward rolls to be better? Oh my GOD. In fact ring to pinky o-rolls is the toughest of rolls I find to hit :)
See? That's subjectivity. I couldn't type AR or OI (Colemak) comfortably on a keyboard: fingers almost lock. ART (Colemak) would be a killer ;-) Which is more common, your feeling or mine? We should poll users.
EDIT: I managed to fix the syntax errors which were forbidding to post the BBCode formatted text.
]]>Where are ':;- - especially ' -and other symbols used in regular texts?
I could place it on number row of qwerty. The shape I have in mind is a split shape, where number keys can be placed in between the two hands.
Since you have compared this layout to Dvorak, I'm comparing it too: this layout has difficult stroke paths that Dvorak hasn't: GA/AG, OU/UO. IF/FI matches Dvorak's EP/PE: which one is more frequent?
I'm not talking too much again. Both are almost similarly frequent. IF/FI though is very slightly more.
Could you please share some numbers about your evaluation of this layout? It would help understand some choices. For instance, I don't understand why you placed , in such a difficult position. Maybe it is less frequent in your statistics?
Thanks.
"," is less frequent in any statistics compared to Y and F. I would say F and Y are twice as frequent as ",". Dvorak has worse choice in that regard.. "," fits perfectly where I placed it, considering the frequency of "," and ease of hitting it at that position.
I hope i posted stat in previous post. Apart from that what I have is inward and outward roll percentage.
It's just that I realized keyboard layout design seems such a subjective science.
I have to agree to that. But I feel there's a way to tackle this by learning typing pattern from a pool of users. Yup it takes time and dedication.
As you have learned, modern designers think same-hand rolls win over inward-rolls a-la Dvorak.
I did not understand at all. Badly want clarification :(. What's same hand rolls? bi-directional?
On a laptop keyboard, whose keys are flat and have short travel, same-hand rolls work good. But on a keyboard whose keys have longer travel, I have found that same-hand rolls are awkward.
Again, how is this? The travel distance is the same in both cases right? Your fingers fall on the same spots right. Or I did not get you?
A similar issue happens regarding what the designer of Carpalx calls "stroke path". That's what I thinking about when I talked about the "static left hand" in Dvorak. Sequences like WA/AW, ES/SE, RD/DR (Qwerty), are difficult to type - less so on a laptop keyboard - yet both Colemak and your layout have them. Dvorak hasn't, and that is a big win to me. Carpalx fully optimized layouts have not stroke-path issues, but still I think are inferior to Dvorak regarding inward rolls. All the above said, I don't mind Dvorak having a little more same-finger, awkward placement of L, or worse; it's still better than the alternatives.
This is gonna be elaborate. This is the heart and soul of our talk. And i want you to assimilate this perfectly. No more room for lengthy rebuttals and explanations. I'm sorry to say this that I'm fed up of making this same point over and over and again - major advantages of non-dvorak layouts - yet you point one minor advantage Dvorak layout possess.
Now let me admit that a keyboard layout design is more than few spec's I have stated here. Acknowledging this fact, let me add that these( same finger, row jump etc) are some of the important aspects of typing that I have posted here. Of course it's the final score (or the fitness as more knowledgeable people say) that matters. Now this value is different for different evaluators based on what they feel is a better typing model. I personally feel there is just one best way, though. My point is ( as I stated in my 2nd post of this thread) I haven't designed this bearing all the awkward stroke paths (which would require a computer), but a few important ones, manually, and that a complete design might look radically different from what I could reach now which might even resemble Dvorak. But can Dvorak be better even after a full design, say for instance vis-a-vis a completed layout like Colemak? A big no. Sorry if I'm sounding harsh.
Here are few reasons why. In detail. I want a reply (if you do) precisely to the point I make and not just casual statements like "Dvorak has his reasons" "you think you can beat at his own game" etc. Otherwise this discussion is only gonna prolong. Here I go.
[tip:
1) characters I post here are located as in familiar qwerty positions.
2) when I say Colemak, I mean by it modern layouts like Colemak, MTGAP or the one I could roughly design]
1. A layout that doesn't distribute finger load uniformly in accordance with finger strength doesn't even deserve to be talked about. As a person who has devoted a bit of time into this area, I can tell you effort and speed doesn't go hand in hand "always"; and it's easier to achieve better technical specs if you can mis place a key (which won't be palpable for end user in real world). Dvorak is a layout designed for speed and effort isn't given its due. I might sound too bold to say that, but I believe it. Your middle finger is stronger than your ring finger which in turn is stronger than your pinky. A layout that doesn't maintain this distribution is not a good typing model. Period. Experiences from real world is worthless, as 98% qwerty users wouldn't have thought about alternatives. In other words, if Dvorak doesn't seem to be problematic for users, they would find it even easier on a layout that does a better job, although these minute percentage differences need not be palpable. Theory matters. Colemak is "really" better.
2. I said same finger is higher in Dvorak compared to Colemak. Now you can assess which is a more difficult stroke path - AQ/QA, SW/WS, ED/DE, HY/YH, UJ/JU, IK/KI or the one you mentioned - WA/AW, ES/SE, RD/DR ?? Former is same finger sequence on same hand, latter lot is different finger sequence on same hand. I feel both are equally difficult because of the awkward structure of our conventional keyboard and weird placement of keys. But on a smooth ergonomic design (which is what I've designed upon), latter lot is easier to stroke. Hence I would say a layout that minimizes same finger more is better than a layout which minimizes WA/AW, ES/SE, RD/DR. Hope you got it.
Here's stats as I could calculate. Different evaluators give radically different values though normailzed figures would be more or less same. And my corpus is far from perfect, so I understand the underlying problems in these values. But difference with Dvorak is too much so that it still gives an idea :)
Same finger: Colemak - 0.96%
Dvorak - 2.1 %
Workman - 2.1%
Arensito - 3.5%
MTGAP2 - 1.16%
mine - 1.3%
my Dvorak like - 1.54%
3. Home row jumping strokes are much more difficult than WA/AW, ES/SE, RD/DR on any keyboard. Compare ZQ/QZ, ZE/EZ, NY/YN, MO/OM to WA/AW, ES/SE, RD/DR. The BR/RB and BL/LB sequences in Dvorak adds to this. Your opinion? Colemak has a better percentage score than Dvorak.
Colemak - 0.5%
Dvorak - 0.78 %
Workman - 1.3%
Arensito - 0.98%
MTGAP2 - 0.63%
mine - 0.1%
my Dvorak like - 0.12%
4. More home row typing is on Colemak. It means lesser finger travel distance over all. It means lesser effort.
5. Frequently hit keys shouldn't be in awkward spots (as in mine or Colemak). That is more effort. Letter frequency has a say on effort. Digraph frequency has a say on speed. An L on top row assigned for pinky means every time you have to type a frequent letter, you have to move your pinky to hit it. That's more effort, though it won't be impeding speed. I would say Dvorak layout doesn't have the best mix of speed and effort. A better model is to first fix positions for characters based on their frequency and ease of stroking.
6. I see only my two layouts with better inward roll percentage than Dvorak though. Which is not a big factor anyway
7. What matters is outward rolls which has to be a minimum. Dvorak wins hands down.
[outward rolls are still not as important as row jump or same finger;
by inward rolls and outward rolls i mean rolls over adjacent keys]
8. Regarding your point on static typing, I feel total effort is what that matters rather than how quickly you can type with left hand. I must admit that there are not many layouts that stresses the importance of this.But I don't think this is a very serious point. Normally people are ambidextrous when typing. Anyway you can find that there's more home row typing for left hand in my two layouts compared to Dvorak, and they move only as much as Dvorak away from home row (on left).
When I said "Talk is cheap", I wasn't dismissing constructive exchange. What I was dismissing is this attitude of saying someone - Dvorak in this case - is wrong, without providing evidence.
So what's the evidence I can be providing? Bring in a Barbara Blackburn of Colemak?? I was right from start backing my claim with the theory involved in determining a better layout..
I'll tell it with different words, maybe it will be clearer. Do you think Dvorak could have done better had he relied on computers?
One hundred percent!! All the more when he would be relying on computers he would be designing one for computers as well :P [hint: "I" would be inside home position]. His frequency data could be much much better. He could have tried a lot more different combinations he believe can be more or less as powerful. etc. If he designed now, he would have faced the competition as well :P.. Kidding.. :)
Show us this improved "Dvorak" layout.
IMHO, Colemak, MTGAP. Hopefully I can contribute as well.
To this day, I haven't seen a layout better than Dvorak (according to Dvorak's priorities, which I share).
Though I can't be very sure, I would believe my Dvorak version is better. For the reasons i stated above. AW/WA, ES/SE is not as difficult as same finger (strictly on my ergonomic design where keys fall very comfortably under our natural position of drumming. Otherwise you are right here).
Similarly home row jump is more difficult than AW/WA, ES/SE on any keyboard. These two are Dvorak's own priorities. I believe these two would have come on top for him too.
I tend to believe a layout which finishes off your work traveling lesser, with a uniform distribution of load, with lesser "more difficult" parameters is a better typing model, in short.
How can one say his layout beats Dvorak when Dvorak's only difficult stroke-path is the least difficult RD/DR (Qwerty) and his layout has that plus all others?
Hope I was clear when I said Dvorak has more serious stroke paths. Just reiterating.
Nawfal, maybe you forgot that Dvorak took years - ten if I remember correctly - to design his layout. Now, I understand that computers can aid design, but I think it would be difficult anyway to beat Dvorak's dedication by working on your spare time.
That's a fair point. I would agree to you saying that a manual design formed after yrs of hectic dedication can be better than something formed in spare time even if it involves computers. But I believe, Shai and Michael has done their research as well.
In fact, nobody has managed to beat Dvorak to this time.
I have to agree Dvorak scores well in certain areas. And I stated before it's possible to get such results if we are not adamant on controlling the finger load distribution. I first formed a Dvorak like layout which performed better than what i posted here, but I canceled it right there when it had more work for ring finger compared to middle. In my books Dvorak has already lost before anyone could beat owing to this concern..
1 - Mostly inward rolls (except pinky to ring finger, where I find outward rolls to be better, at least on home row, and it seems Dvorak would have agreed with me);
2 - few difficult stroke paths;
You find outward rolls to be better? Oh my GOD. In fact ring to pinky o-rolls is the toughest of rolls I find to hit :)
]]>You have said before that good technique involves economy of movement. What I meant by a static position, is that you lock up your body. A piano virtuoso moves up and down a keyboard. The gap between hands changes too. I'd guess that this keeps you flexible - exercise is good! There is much mention about piano technique - it has to be worked at, and it's more than a straight back at the computer.
Yes, I agree. Indeed, an ergonomic chair which I'd like to buy is designed to keep your spine straight and your body in constant movement: http://www.ceccherini.com/images/ergonomia_balans.jpg
Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce the Stokke Varier Variable Balans: http://www.ceccherini.com/shop_skeda.as … 01&L=I&cl=
It's an expensive piece of hardware, and I should stop being cheap and buy one. I've tried a knock-off of this cheaper version: http://www.ceccherini.com/shopping-onli … sp?L=I&cl=
but I wouldn't recommend it: it doesn't make your body move.
Also consider using an hand exercise ball to make a bit of stretching during pauses: http://www.amazon.com/Cando-Gel-Hand-Ex … B000B69S5G
Regarding typing heros: I found for the first time Ron Mingo the other day, and it's a joy to watch him type:
Great video, thanks!
]]>You have said before that good technique involves economy of movement. What I meant by a static position, is that you lock up your body. A piano virtuoso moves up and down a keyboard. The gap between hands changes too. I'd guess that this keeps you flexible - exercise is good! There is much mention about piano technique - it has to be worked at, and it's more than a straight back at the computer.
Regarding typing heros: I found for the first time Ron Mingo the other day, and it's a joy to watch him type:
]]>However I have a friend that plays the piano and he practices for about 7 hours a day. It made me question why I was having issues with keyboarding when some piano players are quite energetic.
Bad technique and bad keyboard, that's why.
Regarding technique, as soon as you post a video of your typing, I'll comment on it. Let me know when you do, since I do not hang on this forum often, and I only subscribe to topics to which I take part. Again, look for videos of accomplished Dvorak typists (Barbara Blackburn, etc.), as well as the old video I posted before.
Regarding keyboards, an ergonomic keyboard would be ideal, but using one will break your ability to type on laptops. If that's not an issue for you, good. For me it is, thus I prefer a good standard keyboard. If you are located in USA, by all means buy an Unicomp Spacesaver with buckling springs. If outside USA, try to get your hands on an used clicky IBM Model M in good condition (it has buckling springs too). These keyboards give you feedback while typing, just like piano keyboard do when you play. That matters a lot.
I'm not so sure that a static position is good.
I don't understand what do you mean. Of course you shouldn't force your fingers to be static, you should just avoid unnecessary movements.
I tried to find some piano playing tips on the web, and there was a suggestion to curve the fingers (more like a clenched fist).
Again, good technique matters. You have just learned how good typing technique is like.
I know there are tools like auto correct. Again operating systems really need to centralise this as a core service, I want to train software and take those settings with me, i.e. dictionary. We should be using our optimised editors for text entry even when we are on the web. I digress.
Sadly, this is not the case. Modern applications tend to rely on their own lousy editors to let you enter text, and you have to jump through hoops to overcome this.
For instance, here is a list of common misspelled words for the Emacs editor (which I use): https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/autocor … bbrev_defs
]]>I must admit I do fancy the look of that keyboard, but I'd want to split the thing in two.
The 'rainbow' approach certainly seemed preferable at first glance for me.
However I have a friend that plays the piano and he practices for about 7 hours a day. It made me question why I was having issues with keyboarding when some piano players are quite energetic. I'm not so sure that a static position is good. My friends fingers and hand tremble occasionally but in the main he appears to cope. I tried to find some piano playing tips on the web, and there was a suggestion to curve the fingers (more like a clenched fist). If you do this (unless my touch typing has warped my hands), the fingers fall into line. I used to type with a more flattened hand, but I'm beginning to appreciate the gains of having more of an arch (imagine clawing something).
Which brings in yet another variable - which would effect your choice of keyboard.
Your Dvorakish layout looks far more familiar to me! Now I understand part of the rational for switching to a Qwerty variant like Colemak (for Qwerty touch typists.)
I will video myself at some time and throw it in another thread.
I know there are tools like auto correct. Again operating systems really need to centralise this as a core service, I want to train software and take those settings with me, i.e. dictionary. We should be using our optimised editors for text entry even when we are on the web. I digress.
]]>Q G U F . , M C P B A O I E L H T S N R X K Y Z D W V J
To appease opposite hand typing brigade, I've created this. I don't think it's as good as my original. But I find this better than Dvorak. BR digraph would be a limitation but I've my point vis-a-vis Dvorak.
Thank you for sharing. Hint: if you wrap your layout into a "code" tag - as I've done - it will displayed with monospaced font, making alignment of letters easier. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBCode#BBCode_tags
Where are ':;- - especially ' -and other symbols used in regular texts?
Since you have compared this layout to Dvorak, I'm comparing it too: this layout has difficult stroke paths that Dvorak hasn't: GA/AG, OU/UO. IF/FI matches Dvorak's EP/PE: which one is more frequent?
Could you please share some numbers about your evaluation of this layout? It would help understand some choices. For instance, I don't understand why you placed , in such a difficult position. Maybe it is less frequent in your statistics?
Thanks.
]]>