That's correct. After trying out different arrangements, I found that 1&2 on index finger, 3 on middle finger, 4 on ring finger, and 5 on pinkie, is immediately intuitive; other arrangements aren't. Doesn't mean other arrangements are not necessarily as good, just that I would have to spend a lot more time getting familiar with them. I'm actually not using a Wide mod, by the way; it doesn't work too well with my keyboard since Colemak-O and the two keys to the right of it are very narrow. I did earlier say I was using the ColemakCAW mod, but that was due to confusion regarding the proper terminology :-/  Anyway, I have thought about the points you've both made, and I do agree it's unfortunate that my mapping doesn't have comma and period on the same layer as the numbers. Especially if one types a lot of numbers (which I don't), it's a bit of a hassle. And, yes, it's perhaps a little awkward having 0 on the pinkie, as it's one of the most common numerals. Since I don't use numbers so much, an intuitive numerical layout may still be an advantage to a predominantly ergonomical one. But I'll think about it.

Personally, I think the best alternative, other than my present one, (for a non-Wide setup) might be along the lines of:

← 6 7 8 9
  1 2 3 4 5
    0 *  ,  .

(Backspace on Colemak-J, 1 on Colemak-H, and 0 on Colemak-K.)

On the other hand, I do at present, on the numerical layer, use Colemak-LUYJ for " ' ( )  respectively. I find it quite convenient to use this layer for both my most frequent symbols and for numerals, so I'm a little reluctant to make changes in which I would lose symbol keys (as I would, if two of the keys on this layer were given to comma and period)...

Seems like this is a case of "intuitive and quick to learn & get familiar with" versus "less intuitive and slower to learn but more ergonomic". For the letters I would definitely be in favour of the latter approach, at least for anyone who will be touch-typing and plans to type more than a sentence a day. (For those who type less, an "ABCDEF..." layout might be the simplest option! :)  ). As for numbers, I guess it depends a lot on one's needs. It makes me think of the Dvorak layout. If I remember this correctly: In the original layout, the positioning of the numerals had been changed from standard qwerty so as to make it more ergonomic. Later on, however, it was changed back to the less ergonomic, standard layout; presumably because most people use them so seldom that an easy-to-remember intuitive layout is preferable. Then, in Programmer's Dvorak, the positions of the numerals were changed back to the original, ergonomic layout; presumably because programmers type a lot of numbers, and it's worth it for them to spend the extra time and effort to learn an ergonomic version.

I still think my version is quite helpful in terms of being intuitive and quick to learn. The only experiential comparison I've been able to make so far, though, is between it and the standard positions of the numerals on the numeric row. Compared to that, my version is—at least for me—MUCH easier to use. But if I found myself typing numbers all the time, then I might have changed to something else...

Thanks, BTW, for replying to my posts :)

The number pad layout is great. But it requires one to reach all the way up to the numerical row. Being of a lazy nature, that's something I'd rather avoid, if possible. Number pad arrangements as well as many other arrangements on keyboards, such as the placement of some of the function keys, seem to be visually determined, not tactilly. They all make perfect sense if the eyes are involved. From a tactile point of "view", they're not, IMHO, not all that intuitive. I've tried in the past to develop a tactile memory of number pads on phones etc., but in the end I always gave up and had to use my eyes. So for me, the only intuitive memory I have of such arrangements is a visual one; once I don't look at the keys, it doesn't seem to be very much part of my memory at all. Since part of the concern is to create an arrangement which will be useful to large numbers of people, the question as I see it is whether or not it's the case that "for most people, the NumPad layout is already known so that'll be the 'intuitive and quick' solution...". I don't think it is for me, but then again my preferences are not always in tune with those of the majority :)

Nice. Just trying it out casually on the keyboard, it feels fairly intuitive. The zero's in an unusual position, perhaps, but it's easy to reach. I'll give it some thought.

I totally agree that losing access to the dot and comma in the same layer is incovenient. But to me it's a more than reasonable price to pay in order to avoid having to reach up to the numerical row.

I've had some time now to get used to my extend layer mapping, as reported earlier in this thread, and also to mull over the feedback I've received.

It seems to me that we're coming from slightly different positions in two ways: As you said, you're looking for a standard mapping that can be applied across the board by a large number of people, whereas my interest is primarily in finding something that works for me personally—and, through that, come up with general frameworks which other people can tweak in accordance with their own particular needs. The other difference is that you're probably more of a number cruncher than I am. What you said about 0—that, being one of the most frequently used numerals, it should be in a better position; i.e. index and/or middle finger—makes perfect sense for someone who deals a lot in numbers, such as an accountant. I, too, would not relish having to type a lot of "10,000,000,000.00"-type numbers with my pinkie on the 0. And having comma and dot on a different layer would also, I agree, be slightly inconvenient. On the other hand, I've been using my new mapping for a few weeks now, and this is probably the first time since then that I type a number like that. If one mainly writes letters home or writes about religious history and social sciences and that kind of stuff, 0 is not really all that frequent used. Furthermore, what I wanted in this case was not so much a numerical pad, so much as an easy way of accessing my most frequently used non-letter characters and symbols, of which the numerals are part. And, sor those seriously in need of a numerical pad, wouldn't it be just as convenient to get a keyboard that comes with a separate one instead of implementing it into the standard keyboard?

Concequently, I don't think I would personally opt for alternatives that put comma and dot on the same layer (fig. 3),  as that would mean having to sacrifice two other symbols keys. I could modify the 6–7–8–9–0 row and re-map it as 0–6–7–8–9, instead. Unlike numbers 1–5, with numbers 6–0 the finger–numeral correspondence is probably not so crucial. But seeing how seldomly I actually type multi-zero numbers, I may also just stick with what I've got.

So my point is that, in this case, the needs of different people are really quite different. To my mind, the ideal would be for each user to chose the arrangement that works best for him/her, rather than opt for a one-size-fits-all solution...

Anyways, I personally like the three following schemes the best (all of which avoid using the numerical row). In figure 1 and 2 I've included the symbols of my choice for the remaining easily accessible keys. But this is just my personal preference; I'm not proposing that anyone else should map the symbols in that particular way.

1) My present scheme; for non-math types.

2) Same, except that 0 is on the far left for index finger access. For the slightly more number-friendly types.

3) Number cruncher's version. Comma and dot in same layer.

You mean to the left of the comma? That would be no problem, but we'd still be on the index finger, wouldn't we? Or were you perhaps thinking that Colemak-M in this particular case could also be accessed by the middle finger to take the strain off the index finger? Hmm. Well, I guess I can see that—if you'd have to type a lot of zeros. But in that case you'd probably also have to access the comma every three zeros—using the middle finger—in which case you'd be right back in a same-finger bigram...

Hmm. Interesting .... :)

But that means putting the comma in a different place than its usual one. That's a bit radical, isn't it? But I guess, if the idea is to have a numerical pad and nothing else, then it makes sense. As for 1—0 same-finger bigrams, are  10/01 sequences really all that common? I mean, it's only in "simplified" numbers—e.g. 10,000,000.00—that they occur more frequently than other number combinations, and even there it usually only happens once per number.

I changed the "+" on my numpad to be the comma, because I rarely use that plus. It works great. I have a post about it here somewhere.