Yup, technical specs-wise. But in my books, not by much. Moreover that depends on how big you people consider each hurdle really is. Same finger is something that's talked about the most, but i feel it's the home row jump thats hampers typing speed the most. Giving it twice the weightage of a same finger, I find my layout to be better, albeit slightly. It's not true for a standard horizontally aligned keyboards we confront daily. But I find it awful which almost limits the usage of pinky( keys under pinky doesnt fall under its natural position/movement). My ergonomic design looks like two rainbows under both ur fingers. Hope you get what pattern it form on a desk when you drum naturally.. And thats it.
         Secondly it can also be 'cos of the slightly different frequency data we have. Very much possible. Come on, we are talking about differences in 1/100th or 1/1000th decimal positions ! :)
         And lastly, the biggest advantage for both you and Shai, as to improving technical specs, is that you could be placing a punctuation under letter E. We know letter E is the most dangerous to handle, and same finger considerably drops when you have a punctuation under E. In my design where two "rainbows" are wide apart, a clubbed design with punctuations coming together with alphabets is not so pleasing for eyes. I personally feel it looks bad on a standard keyboard too, though not much in conventional Colemak like designs. I still feel I've made specs better (low) with this disadvantage of having to place an alphabet under E. ....... In short, what I'm saying is, the advantage you claim abt Colemak and Mtgap, if ever in reality, is also 'cos of same finger minimizing technique you have employed.
     If I'm sounding too pompous or you prefer concise replies I'm sorry. I hope you'll love such detailed discussions as well. I do.. Sorry for the late reply. I was busy.

I dunno how dis/non-elegant TH combination makes in my layout. I would love to hear what you have to say on this. There's hardly anything that disturbs the regular way of touch typing, except the fact that touch typing is made more efficient. Colemak, Mtgap (3.5 version), Asset and few other lesser known ones have placed H as in my layout. Moreover everyone outside the Workman school of thought wouldn't have a problem in having H where i placed it. We anyway have to move our index finger/wrist a bit to reach out to H. Now our middle finger would be on T (in my layout). Why wouldn't we utilize this undesired movement by pressing the T as well (in TH digraphs).
       It depends on how we touch type as well, is it more scientific just to extend our index finger to H position without moving wrist? or is it desirable to hit H by moving wrist so that middle finger fall on T?? I dunno, but it's true that faster way of typing is moving the wrist which is also more comfortable.
           My point is not about one TH "digraph", rather it's about T-H and R-L "positions" in my layout which has to be a high frequent combination contrary to the belief  many have established. These aren't same finger positions in short...

You are right, that position requires something more common, and again switching K and Z would increase same finger. So now this depends on which contributes to  speed more, optimizing for the digraph frequency or letter frequency. It has to be both of these. But I have a reason to place it this way. That is, placing an uncommon letter in a relatively easier position is not wrong, what matters is if we are placing a more used letter under a difficult spot. In that respect I've an idea of my own which i'll list later. If we are placing all letters according to their frequency and ease of hitting, I feel we would get only a few layouts to talk about. Rather we have almost infinite layouts 'cos we give some tolerance level. So here, we have to think about which are the characters that really deserve the Z spot in my layout; and then see if those characters are given any worse place. That's the way to go. B is one such letter I've misplaced in my view which is not a serious glitch in my opinion. Moreover the difference E-K would make from E-Z is huge. So i would stick with digraph theory..

My take on some popular (among us :P) layouts with regard to positioning :
Maltron :
serious glitch - L

Dvorak:
serious glitch - I, L
minor glitch - F, R, Y

Arensito:
serious glitch - W, M, Y
minor glitch - C, P

Colemak:
minor glitch - C, .

Klauser:
serious glitch - C
minor glitch - W, P, .

Capewll:
serious glitch - H
minor glitch - C, F, .

MTGAP2:
serious glitch - Y
minor glitch - .

[your 3.5 version is too good in this regard imho, but some I could find Y on left pinky on INESRTAO layout on your site! ]

mine:
minor glitch - B

So this is how i gauge. Hope i could drive the point.

Yup, still there's a difference in design principles. And that gives room for a debate when u get slightly different scores. I tell you, the difference these minute dissection of typing characteristics yields you is silly. after all we know Dvorak, or Colemak or MTGAP or any modern layout is as good as the other; all much better than qwerty. It's the minute details we are indeed talking about which anyway is a fair point still. Same applies to how effective the same layout is on both conventional and an ergonomic one. Of course it's the same more or less.
     On a conventional keyboard, stretching would be effortless, but quicker would be bending(bottom row typing) for index finger as its a short finger. Similarly more error free would be typing on bottom row with pinky (u got to type very differently when pressing with pinky on top row as its a short finger. Touch typing is not possible without looking the keyboard and moving your whole hand and hence all the hassle. Error prone in my opinion)  though its easier and comfortable to stretch with it than bend. You don't face these hassles on a curved design where easier and quicker would be to type on top row. The weightages in algorithm changes hence in both designs. I would copy paste some differences I posted here before..
•    I left the spots under H and L blank as in my ergonomic design, there's no room for those spots which will collide with the thumbs (mind you, H and L doesn't fall in straight line, instead they curve downward in a suitable stroking fashion along the home row; so the spots under H and L fall a bit more downwards which will collide with thumb. It's a subjective thing, so leave it to my personal preference).
•    I try to keep hurdling the least possible (of course I can design a layout with even less home row jump, but loses out on other facets then). The reason is, a home row jump is twice a hurdle compared to same finger usage. It is not true on a standard keyboard as we already incline our hands on horizontally aligned letters, so stroking with index finger on bottom row and with ring finger on top row in succession is easy. But in my already curved ergonomic layout, a same finger is just half the hurdle as that of a home row jump (which moves twice).

Thanks for appreciation friend, truly heartening. You are after all a super star among few others having developed something ;) I could talk to others as well :)

Here's my explanation:-
1. I dunno how to reach the best performing layout unless we use a large cluster to "super-compute" the whole layouts existing :)Some big guns can/may  help :O.  'cos I feel these random evaluation may not yield the best always. There are chances they escape our attention (I understood what simulated annealing is after reading you people, never understood during my graduation :P). Yeah but, the layouts possible need not be 30! or 26! of course. We can reduce it greatly by applying constraints. We can talk more if needed.

2. Algorithm - haha, i feel its not really right to give some random numbers as cost or penalty to settle on diagraphs n positions. That can always vary from person to person. Cant we really calculate the time required in stroking keys from a pool of decent strength, normalize and then apply to algorithm accordingly? I'm pissed off when i see a cost of 50 for same finger and only 10 for home row jump :) This is how i differ. A and D on qwerty isn't inward roll IMO, so goes the differences. the way to calculate it is only by having real world data and employ a "just" penalty methodology. I didn't mean I know these values. It's just my idea to tackle which makes it incontestable, what say?? I know all these takes some patience and hard work which wont happen until we devote our whole time to it, but who has.. Not something we can finish off as a part time hobby.

3. And the corpus, whew.. This is something that caught my attention from long back and i dunno if there's been a study made like this, ie, take samples from real world excluding the non-english terms. I feel non-english terms disturbs the frequency pattern greatly and this is where differences arise. Of course a good size has to be ensured. The more the better. 100MB would do just perfect perhaps. I think the idea is conveyed. And of course its just not about that, the quality and nature of text matters. Say for instance, programmers don't type that fast. It's the reporters and likes who do. Incorporating programs in corpus disturbs the values with terms like autoform, sqrt,nodename what not.. which are not english terms. Fortunately they dont code so fast for a long duration. They do,if ever, in short intervals which they can do on any keyboard. I mean we dont have to optimize the whole system for them if that alters the pattern. The punctuation and symbol frequency is what that should be calculated from programs. So and so. If you could leave a word or two, we can talk more :)

You are right, the feel you get is important, but that's bound to happen more or less. The poignant question here would be " is there any modern layout which lost out just because there was the "feel" missing??"... As I said, all of these modern layouts are too good and the benefits their proponents claim are marginal. We have millions of qwerty users and they don't ever complain. If they don't, are we expecting users of Dvorak or Colemak or anything like that to complain about something seriously? But some do. And they are being so critical of the minutest details. That's what. Dvorak users get used to its L, and it's too less a problem compared to what qwerty offers us. Same applies with I. It's not the best thing to place one of the most used keys outside home position. Now that wouldn't matter much, but still it's not the best idea. This is what I'm trying to convey. Getting the theory part right is very important before waiting for practical results. Practical results wont be so substantial to our senses to be it anything palpable. It's hard to gauge that way. Still having L and I under wrong spots is bad right. This is why i believe Colemak is a better layout compared to Dvorak, however comfortable a Dvorak user is with it. The feel falls in place with time. If 99% of qwerty users don't complain, if a nice share of Dvorak users don't complain about the 10th most used letter placed on right pinky, I feel keying one more key(T) when already moving to press a key(H) is just gonna be smoother.
   Come on, the gonna be effect of rolling over TH is just too small compared to pressing L or I on Dvorak. Pressing any key outside home position is undesirable. Why not press an additional easy to hit key when going for this undesired movement there by utilizing our effort to its maximum.
     

I didn't get you. What stats? Sorry.

Did not get you. Some spelling mistake right..

Now what exactly is the reason? The theory behind Dvorak is as public as it can get. As long as we don't have anything conclusive and concrete, we are not obliged to fall under their view. Atleast an explanation is what we are begging for. The only reason i can see for L is to reduce same pinky usage. And for I is to have OU combination right. Disregarding I for OU is not at all the way to go. Take any corpus, I comes a lot more than OU as a combination. Dvorak must be intelligent and he would have seen something else. But i tend to believe when something eludes us in spite of hundreds racking their brains, we shouldn't be relying on a 1930's man's brilliance neglecting all our intellect. As simple as that. Dvorak was successful in explaining his design principles. And we bought it not because we found his layout so easy to type, but because he could so beautifully explain it why. This is where I is a mystery. Same goes with L.

We wouldn't be. So closing such gaps is the way to get something better. And  we are on course of finding "that something" which is always better right.  I talked only because he had not swapped. May be Dvorak was designing for a typewriter and he must have not given a fixed position for our hands, of course it doesnt rest somewhere when typing on a typewriter. So he could have expected our hands to move along the entire horizontal row, which is possible if u can visualise the way we type on a typewriter. So for him the entire home row would have been home positions. Which wont hold true for today's touch typing. I'm just seeing some reason. To err is human.

We wouldn't disagree. But I don't think it's not possible to better it. I and L are paramount in this direction. And this is what, you find it really easy to type on it. That's the whole thing I'm saying too. These are all near optimal layouts on which typing is a breeze. Same applies to Colemak or mine. I said the differences are marginal. A Dvorak user would find it easy to type on Dvorak, a colemak user would find it easy to type on Colemak. I said these aren't palpable when it comes to level of pure personal experience. Now to pick one to be better, theories should come supporting it. This is where modern layouts score.
    And half-baked? A modern software could do all the possible evaluations in a matter of minutes what Dvorak has done whole his life. It can calculate a number of parameters and optimize it for all of them. A software generated layout is one that is the winner from a million layouts, how many could hav Dvorak tested? I can in a matter of seconds find a much more comprehensive frequency data than what Dvorak could find. Which are the principles of Dvorak modern layouts ignore? We are just maximizing Dvorak's own design principles with modern technology. Come on we respect the past one's for their great endeavor and the inspiration they are to us, but doesnt mean we just have to embrace them whole heartedly.

I don't find it perfect. It emphasizes more typing on right hand, which is ok by the way. Workman has a 50-50 distribution. And it does no good because finger load distribution is more important. Now here is the answer for you - Dvorak emphasizes on bettering the load distribution to fingers and see what he has managed to. Now do we really believe our eyes or rely blindly on one man's obscure principles?? The same should have happened to I and L. He deserves all praise for innovating something this cool, but his successors have given us better. That's something happening across globe, across fields.

Yup, now thats true. But are these major causes towards better typing? these are minor in my books.

Let see the scenario:

Very important - home row jump - winner Colemak
                         same finger - winner Colemak
                         distance traveled - winner Colemak
                         load distribution - winner Colemak
                         awkward spots - winner Colemak
                         inward rolls - winner Dvorak

Minor factors -   same hand - winner Dvorak
                        more home row typing for left hand - winner Dvorak

If u don't disagree with me on these, we both have just one winner here.

Not bi directional, only inward rolls are faster, and error free compared to alternate hand typing. outward rolls are always undesirable  and hence minimized. Same applies to all other awkward same hand typing.

which is not true. Both are in effect the same. Only two characters are pressed with one hand before alternation. This is the better way.

Good observation. But then I was concentrating on English :). Moreover many layouts have only one vowel along with consonants. All the rest lie on one side together.

And that's my point too. Had it been too tough on them, they would have pondered about alternatives. They didn't but. They are happy that means. 99% dunno about alternatives; add to that, though 100 pc would have wondered why the keys are jumbled on their keyboard, 98% wouldn't have even thought of possibility of having alternatives or they wouldnt have felt the need to think of something new. This is how Spremino we go by if we think about how comfortable people are. As much as you are comfortable on Dvorak like on no other, some hundreds are with Colemak. Now to think about which's better, theories matter. This is where Colemak "really is" better..

If you hit more keys with your pinky, and yet you don't find it problematic, you can realise how worthless the real world test is to find something better. To overload pinky than your stronger fingers is bad and which ever layout  doesn't do that is better. Period! It won't make that difference to your experience in real world, so is the case with our million qwerty siblings :) It doesn't matter to them.

No friend, thanks for the concern though. I haven't. I seconded you too saying that's right. I was just saying I'm super confident if L, I and bad loading of fingers of Dvorak can go unnoticed, TH trick is just gonna be even smoother for users :)

I've, but I don't say it openly 'cos I know it isn't anything perfect but just the varying numbers you see with different evaluators. Moreover another reason is, I've seen drastically different specifications when different evaluators evaluate, though when we normalize we get almost the same thing. Do I need to really??

Yup, and I've not considered that factor as it could become too complex to calculate different layouts. I did manually right, not with the help of software. It's important to see these factors. There's not any penalty system I've incorporated. Which's why I believe mine is not perfect layout :)

Hope you don't mind me just chipping in here.

I really want to praise Dvorak.  But as I've mentioned on this forum, I still have pain in my neck and hands, and I can't rule out my layout.  Also I have only good experience in one layout.

I have been in an environment where I helped beginners get acquainted to computers and the Internet.  Those with and without typewriter experience are puzzled by the Qwerty layout (UK Qwerty in this case).  Punctuation is a real gotcha.  Not all people learn to touch type immediately, they can't be bothered - I put it off for over a decade!

Anyway the point I'm trying to get across is that they get loosely acquainted with Qwerty probably on a subconscious level.  You don't hear people arguing for a better hunt and peck arrangement apart from those new to the keyboard - who'd rather an alphabetical layout (which would have not been possible on mechanical writers).  Having said that I think Dvorak would be advantageous to the hunt and pecker.  I wonder if it would even harm Qwerty touch typists to have the layout printed in Dvorak as a western standard.

I've practiced a lot this year with my touch typing - probably too much.  Dvorak has become more comfortable.  I'm trying to spot troublesome words in Dvorak - but to be honest there aren't many -  I can only put that down to good design.  I have more issue with the weirdness of hand placement than anything else.

Taking the most frequently used English words (the top 500) there are only a few that I find awkward.  The word 'people' is one of them.  It's left hand heavy and involves an outward role.  I can already see 'start' being an issue in Colemak.

Regarding the pinky, I feel that I'm not doing Dvorak any favours with my alias.  I actually enjoy typing with my pinky these days.  There is a nice rocking motion for the right hand with words like: should and would.  These are even satisfying to type.  Having said that some people have pretty pathetic pinkies - I've seen some quite stunted little fingers - and these may prove difficult to type with.

I like the 'melody' approach of Dvorak - I might consider adopting the left thumb for spacing.  The left hand side of my body doesn't experience pain, unless I twist the wrist left a little.  I'm glad the hand doesn't do much.  I have no problem with the y or i.

I think my issue is more with my keyboard and typing style rather than my layout, but then again you never know.  My spelling lets me down probably more than the layout.  It's funny how I still repeat the same mistakes of old.

I personally think there is a better/simpler/faster alternative to the current crop of keyboards and layouts.  Input software could assist with word composition - and this could be used across your operating system.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could replace the left hand side of Dvorak with one button, and use software to guess and fill in the words.

There could be other tricks, like utilising the number row.  Or having keys that have duplicitous meaning.

Not wanting to dishearten those pursuing perfection.

(I am sure I would find the 'th' trick in nawfal's layout difficult at first, namely due to the gaps on my keyboard.)

Oh, I missed it then. 'Cos I'm always critical of myself and would have loved to see what you have to say. More so when it's anything regarding keyboards, we only acquire valuable info which is valuable for all those who ponder over keyboards :). Moreover, as usual, I wonder what's wrong with what I said :) But to tell you friend, there's not one thing i say here with an intention to offend or be satirical. It's all healthy and constructive and I read posts here with a very neutral mind..

Talk in fact has too much potential, often gone unrealised. Yeah an ego-less open heart is paramount. I think it's always possible to beat/better. Do u think Shai can't beat Dvorak? or Michael? It's pointless to ask. There's always room; more so when it's no rocket science at all as you acknowledge. Bear in mind Dvorak was developed for a typewriter which is still hunt and peck typing in a way.

Actually I feel you are under estimating human brain. Computers are not meant do something smartly. They are meant to do something quickly. Humans are smart, and its the same smartness we feed into a computers brain. Computers can't be smarter than what we teach them to be, but we can be smartest to the possible maximum and teach a computer that exactly. To get the desired result in such short time. This is what programs do. Is there any human element that we cant incorporate in a program, may I know??I think everything is programmable depending on the quality of the programmer and this is where i don't underestimate the smartness of humans.

I dunno how.

I personally found it not right too. That can be bettered. I didn't find MTGAP system to be perfect too, though it was better than Capewell's. No idea on how Colemak was developed. But its still possible for "us humans" to be smarter and make computer do those.. The point u make has nothing to do with the dumbness of a computer evaluation methodology, but it's about how less smart the developers of those programs were.

Yes, this is where we have room for improvement. You stated that not all same finger sequences are equally awkward to type. Such complications make it very difficult to score a layout by hand. How many different possibilities would have Dvorak been able to evaluate, calculating the complete effect?? Add to that, how perfect would have been dvorak's frequency data?

Which are those? I asked you which are Dvorak's design principles modern designers tend to ignore? I see only two things. One is same hand usage. I excuse it as they are designed with a different approach (quick roll) which I feel is a better approach. Second one is less movement for left hand away from home row, which IMO isn't a serious factor. What about Colemak, MTGAP, mine etc which has lesser same finger, lesser home row jump, better finger load distribution , more home row typing etc which are factors Dvorak himself wanted to maximize.

To me, a layout that doesn't distribute load uniformly doesn't qualify to even talked about. 'Cos its easier to get better technical specs by skewing load distribution

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.

Few things:
1. Same finger is lower than Dvorak
2. Home row jump is lower than Dvorak
3. Distance traveled is lesser (more home position typing I mean)
4. Better load distribution
5. Better moving to center column
6. Frequent keys not under awkward spots.
7. More inward rolls
8. Worse outward rolls compared to Dvorak though.
9. Same hand typing (or hand alternation) isn't as good as Dvorak, but I can't help it further where I don't design clubbing alphabets along punctuations. Moreover i don't consider this a serious factor compared to other factors.
10. Another minor factor would be lesser typing for left hand away from home row. This layout fares almost on par with Dvorak as I calculate.

I would like to present my main layout this way.

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

Makes more sense.

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.

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 don't understand what do you mean.  Of course you shouldn't force your fingers to be static, you should just avoid unnecessary movements.

Again, good technique matters.  You have just learned how good typing technique is like.

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

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

Great video, thanks!

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.

I'm not talking too much again. Both are almost similarly frequent. IF/FI though is very slightly more.

"," 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.

@nawfal, It seems to me that your parameters are changing.  I think therefore you need to revisit and clearly state your design goals.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On any keyboard same finger typing and home row jumping( hurdling as Dvorak calls it) are more difficult stroke path where Dvorak comes inferior.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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%

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.

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.

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.

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.

[

The whole essay I was saying it. Refer to the specs I posted in the previous post.

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