Texting is horrible. Something MUCH better is necessary - but it'd take more buttons than the mere number pads of today. When will our phones come with buttons along the side, for instance? Those could be modifiers for the thumb buttons on the main pad.

Meanwhile, I think that a layout like yours may be too complex for most people to learn. What'd be really cool would be something looking like your keyboard but with less buttons. If the pad had 4*4 or ideally 4*5 buttons, one could make a layout that looked like the Colemak (or Dvorak if you'd prefer that) so you'd mostly already know it. That'd be nice. I'm wishing...

What to do with the hardware we have already then? Not sure, but if the pad could be somehow made to resemble the Colemak it'd be nice. If the left hand uses buttons 1/4/7/8/0 then those could start with A/R/S/T/D and as second/third layer have QWFPG and ZXCVB maybe? As an example.

Or one could use the numbers in conjunction with their keyboard positions. That'd mean reaching over to the right-hand side of the number pad for left-hand keys and vice versa; not sure whether that'd be too hard - or whether it'd be simple to use the right thumb for those normally left-hand keys.

1) AQZ1!     2) RWX2@     3) SFC3#
4) TPV4$     5) DGB5%     6) HJK6^
7) NLM7&     8) EU<8*     9) IY>9(
             0) O?;0)

I believe that what this setup lacks in optimisation it may make up for in ease of learning and remembering. Not yet positive as to how the remaining keys/symbols should be handled; I guess they need to be sprinkled around the keys in some possible-to-remember fashion.

In addition to ease of learning (I still think it'd hold true for me at least), I was thinking that such a layout would get some of the Colemak's advantages 'for free' - such as same-button, hand alternation and most-common-letters.

I think your way of putting the buttons on their right sides is better - apart from the slight confusion it'd cause when doing the numbers (and their associated symbols?). One could still ponder exact placements in that context I suppose. Maybe the 3 button is too good for a mere O?; key for instance? Maybe the 0 button's too poor for DGB - or is it just me thinking that some buttons are more easily reached? If the 4 and 6 buttons are indeed the thumb's home position then I guess they should have the most common letter keys; which are the next-in-line buttons? 7 and 9? Maybe...

1) R   2) A   3) N
4) S   5) H   6) E
7) T   8) O   9) I
       0) D

??? This looks like it'd be fairly easy to memorize since the Colemak rows are simply 'folded up' as ARSTD -> 21470 and HNEIO -> 53698. Geometrically, that doesn't look too bad.

1) R   2) A   3) I
4) S   5) O   6) E
7) T   8) H   9) N
       0) D

ARSTD -> 21470 and HNEIO -> 89635. If you want to keep the consonants together while also keeping the Colemak rows, maybe that's better. I didn't want to put the HNEIO on 58963 as that'd demote the 'E' to the bottom row. On the downside, the right-hand row is a bit more folded up on this one; not sure whether that matters.

I for one don't, it was just theoretical.

A phone such as a Blackberry or iPhone that has a full keyboard is far superior to a mere number pad. I think that in ten years or so, nearly all cell phones will use those. So we need a good layout.

The optimal method of typing on a miniature keyboard is with the thumbs. The criteria are vastly different.

-Same finger is no longer a problem, since each hand only has one finger.
-Hand alternation should be optimized.
-Because of the size of the keyboard, most positions can be reached equally easily.
-How are finger rolls to be done? Should combos like "th" be placed next to each other, or be on opposite sides of the keyboard?

@DreymaR: I think the speed texting record is 60 wpm.

There are MessagEase layouts!

1) A  2) N  3) I
4) H  5) O  6) R
7) T  8) E  9) S
      0) D