colemak or qgwmlb ? (Page 2) - General

bsdhacker
Member

Reputation: 0
Registered: 14-Nov-2008
Posts: 11

15-Nov-2012 19:06:00#26 Re: colemak or qgwmlb ?

As someone who has typed many different layouts over the years, I'll add my two cents.

The "efficiency" of a keyboard layout is extremely subjective. No one layout will every be crowned as the king of layouts. You may argue that for a given person, there may theoretically exists an optimal layout. I think that's what the CarpalX project is all about, but ultimately falls short of. I don't think its configuration parameters are sufficient to truly measure the "effort" of typing on that layout. There are so many factors, and those factors are all weighted differently depending on the person.

So with that said, you could either put a lot of effort into optimizing a keyboard layout that really models you and how you type, or you can pick a canned layout such as Colemak/Workman/Dvorak, whichever one feels the most comfortable to type on for you. I have proficiently typed using all three of those layouts. From MY (subjective) experience:
*Dvorak
- took by far the longest to become proficient with
- stresses my right pinky more than I like (especially bad when using Linux shell)
- works very well with VIM without modification
- overall an great improvement over qwerty
- preinstalled everywhere
*Colemak
- relatively quick to learn
- causes my index fingers to become exhausted rather quickly
- several common key combos are very uncomfortable for me to type
- doesn't work very well with vim without heavy key remapping
- overall a great improvement over qwerty
*Workman
- relatively quick to learn
- can feel bottlenecked when typing at high speeds (this would likely get better with time)
- generally the most comfortable layout for me to type on
- 1 key is problematic in vim (J)
- overall a great improvement over qwerty

For the record, I have also proficiently typed on one of the optimized CarpalX layouts. It was the BULPKM layout that was later replaced by the one you mention. That layout was also very comfortable to type on, but it had the same problem that I had with colemak where my index fingers were over-used and became exhausted too quickly.

My advice is to try a few different ones, find the one that is most comfortable for you and stick with it. All of them are significantly better than qwerty and you can't really go wrong with any of them.

Offline

0

UltraZelda64
Member

Reputation: 0
From: Ohio, U.S.
Registered: 09-Dec-2012
Posts: 101

09-Dec-2012 10:49:14#27 Re: colemak or qgwmlb ?

This is an interesting discussion, and I agree with nil for the most part regarding optimization. I really don't care about the Ctrl+Z/X/C/V shortcuts; after maybe a week off and on Dvorak, I rarely find myself truly wanting them back in their original locations. Besides, my most-used of those four shortcuts are the Z and V keys--which in Dvorak, are nicely packed away on the opposite bottom corner of the board. I frequently use a related shortcut, Ctrl+Y, which is probably in one of the worst places possible even on QWERTY. Of all the Ctrl+[letter] combinations, the ones I tend to use most are A/S/F/N/T/W/L/K... and those ones are already all over the map anyway. What's a few more going to hurt? Might as well go all-out on optimization, screw "backwards compatibility" with QWERTY.

That said, availability was a key factor that influenced my decision to start off with either Dvorak or Colemak, and also partially the reason Dvorak won out as my first alternative to try out. Colemak, being the runner-up when it comes to availability, will no doubt be my next choice as it appears to have much better support for my preferred class of operating systems (Linux, BSD) than I originally thought, even coming pre-installed with many of them. I also have an interest in CarpalX's partially-optimized QWKRFY/QWYRFM, as well as the fully-optimized QGMLWB.

Problem is, even assuming I can get myself to be efficient at both Dvorak and Colemak and remain adequate with QWERTY for whenever it's needed, I don't know if I'd be able to handle any more layouts really. Does anyone on these forums regularly use more than two layouts?

Last edited by UltraZelda64 (09-Dec-2012 10:53:07)

Offline

0

pafkata90
Member

Reputation: 1
From: Sofia, Bulgaria
Registered: 05-Mar-2011
Posts: 387

09-Dec-2012 16:38:30#28 Re: colemak or qgwmlb ?

I use Colemak and every now and then Qwerty for English and a custom layout for my own (Bulgarian) language, if you'd count that multi-layouts. Since we use Cyrillic in Bulgarian, the change of layout (not being phonetic, I mean) is flawless and doesn't cause any problems. But I can also type fluently with phonetic Colemak.

For the same language, I don't see a reason why you would want to use more than one layout. Maybe two, if your layout choice isn't Qwerty, and you're required to use other Qwerty machines. Any more than that would be just a brain exercise and a fun experiment. That being said, I don't think it's impossible, as long as you give it enough effort to maintain them all with decent accuracy.

Last edited by pafkata90 (09-Dec-2012 16:39:09)

Hi-games profile: http://hi-games.net/profile/4663
TypeRacer profile: http://data.typeracer.com/pit/profile?user=patcm

Offline

0

UltraZelda64
Member

Reputation: 0
From: Ohio, U.S.
Registered: 09-Dec-2012
Posts: 101

09-Dec-2012 22:08:12#29 Re: colemak or qgwmlb ?

pafkata90 said:

Any more than that would be just a brain exercise and a fun experiment.

That, right there. :)

Right now curiosity of the unknown (ie. non-QWERTY layouts) is driving me. In the end, if I can only remember two layouts with good speed and accuracy... well, I'd probably choose the more efficient yet more popular ones that I'll personally actually want to use. Something less... bad for the wrists, as well as more likely to be available (or easily obtainable) on "outside" machines.

As for QWERTY? Well, its letters are going to be printed on virtually every in existence anyway (that will most likely never change), and if I can remember Colemak--a very similar layout by design--then my line of thinking is that the changes back to QWERTY (and therefore the effort required to do it) should be minimal.

Plus, given that Dvorak has even been included with Windows since Windows 95, it would more likely be my fallback option whenever possible if I need to do a decent amount of typing on a computer other than my own (assuming the layout is allowed to be changed).

Offline

0