It seems to me that you're being pointlessly aggressive in your advocation. There's not necessarily any functionality conflict between the letter layout and shorthand tools. Optimising the layout still makes sense – as do the many other improvements we're discussing here. Why alienate Colemak users on the Colemak board by claiming that their efforts are "outdated" when you certainly don't have to and could've worked with them instead?

(You might want to re-title the thread as it has meandered somewhat.)

I think the reason you don't see much adoption of shorthand is that it's a pain in the backside to implement and it isn't cross application or even cross platform.

I used to translate (for want of a better word) english documents into their HTML equivalents.  And I littered my HTML editor with shortcuts.  I optimised my tools for the job.  When using another un-customised PC/software, I felt stranded.

Currently if I set my laptop up for shorthand, or with shortcuts, I'd want that on each machine and device that I visited.  Even if I could fall back to normal typing I'd still be frustrated.  That's akin to when I'm stuck with a keyboard set up with Qwerty.  It's an ill feeling, I can make do for a little while, but it's grating.

Right now I get the same feeling when text messaging and trying to use touch screens.

Accessibility to me is about universality.  And I'd love to see better input method customisation, selection and support across platforms.  This should include layouts, dictionaries and shorthand/shortcuts and other input methods.

Sane defaults and standardisation can help.

I like the point you (Shaan) raise about online users and the kids' hack of using unexpanded universal written contractions as recognised shorthand;  for text messaging and online conversation.  Which makes for easier, faster and less clumsy text input on those limited devices.

There was an important point in that T9 link, which mentioned that people once showed how to use it, got it, and got on with it.  Peer education goes a long way.  So does a well written man page, tutorial or set of instructions.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you will do it.  Even if it is beneficial.

I don't know why people bother with English at all, they should use a far more optimised language like Esperanto ;)

@Dry, RFOL.

Yes.

It's my experience that just trying to flip between language, regions and keyboard layout isn't that simple.  Even mainstream layouts.  On popular OSs.

I should have added that there's nothing wrong in championing alternative input methods.  Far from it.

If it's difficult to adopt an alternative or supplement an existing method, people will be less inclined to give it a go.

Portability is a big issue for me.

PhraseExpress might be portable for Windows, but I mainly use OSX and Linux, and different versions of each.

It's not (PhraseExpress) 'free' either.

> I don't know about you but all I have to do to swap between Dvorak and QWERTY is press Alt and Shift. It's easy.

Perhaps once you have it setup (which is a dance in itself) it is easy.  There are a myriad of issues with layout switching on Windows and its different incarnations.

I've never experienced them. Maybe you're just unlucky?

I've always ignored those disclaimers. Do you think they're going to send the FBI over to arrest you for using it at work or something? If anything they could use the attention! And if you really wanted to be careful, why not use another program like AutoHotkey? I believe that is free as in freedom.

Shortcuts are unaffected with shorthand.

Autokey is that expansion program. Not only does it allow for text expansion, but you can use python scripting with it. I'm saying there is no conversion tool for phrase express. If you're happy with your current setup, then there's really no reason to switch. I prefer it for reasons unrelated to text expansion.

Because it just works. 

The "windows way" often seems very roundabout: sketchy programs from cnet rather than just "apt-get install" (or whatever), terminal being swept under the rug whereas on GNU/Linux it's a reasonable (and often, much faster than GUI) method, complete with online help.  Just a little bit of terminal curiosity lets you build up knowledge pretty well; over months of occasional tinkering, you end up making the system your own, so to speak.  Also, I'm pretty sure programs like emacs were designed for GNU/Linux to start with; most references clearly assume that, and trying to run my config in Windows hasn't worked so well so far.

I guess it's a lesser example of the allure behind open, modular programs like emacs or vim.  You start off as a new user, not knowing very much, then after a while there's some feature you must have, so you install the package, but you want it to work a little differently, which forces you to open up the source and try to figure it out, and before you know it, you've programmed your own customizations like the operator to unicode strikethrough text on those forums that don't have the feature.  Suddenly, you've found yourself with your own personalized editor, tailored specifically to your practice and needs. Very little could convince you to give that up.

Currently, I'm using Ubuntu with Xfce (rather than unity).  Very nice for a lighweight computer, though LXDE is even lighter (128MB RAM minimum requirement?) and there are tons of other options, including the minimalistic window managers of radical mouse haters.

https://askubuntu.com/questions/65083/w … -available

If you're into eye-candy, though, you might check out Elementary OS, which only recently came out.

Also feasible (and necessary when you don't know the package name), but it's really sort of misguided.  You have to open up the repository manager, run a search for that app, then click.  Sure, it's nice to have the option, but after about 5-50 times of doing this... yeah, just "apt-get install" the bloody thing.

(Still better than the windows way of googling for the binary on a sketchy website, though.)

A very different flavor from android tinkering, in my experience.  Android's a lot more restrictive (both in apps and in OS), and customization is usually limited to installing ROMs or apps as a whole with those options they happen to give you.  What I'm referring to involves minor, gradual changes to an OS' config and its userspace.  You don't necessarily intend to do it; it's just that one day you wake up and find that the OS has been personalized for you.

Googling for a program to install may - occasionally - not be a big deal.  Having to do it for every program, though?  I don't think I could go back to that.

Centralized updates are also another feature of the repository.

Well, nobody wakes up in the morning and says "I want to do that", but the occasional customization does add up.

I haven't mentioned anything about freedom or money, only about capacity for change, really.  Still, you may have a point in that philosophical leanings toward freedom might facilitate such a process. If the GNU/Linux community, in general, is more open toward modifying under-the-hood, it's more likely to get those programs with highly customizable config files, leaving windows mainly with inflexible, GUI/mouse-based programs (or, at best, ports of the former like emacs).

Edit: I meant android's "restrictiveness" in a technical sense: it's harder to make those small, useful changes to an app or ROM, or to access an app with a terminal and perform repeated actions because, well, they're mostly GUI-based, like windows'.

Heh, I woke up one morning and thought "Hey – I want to improve the config of XKB!". Pretty much. ;)

Shaaniqbal, you're right about one thing: This is reminiscent of the many 'vs BS' arguments. Only have them if you're interested. Otherwise, live and let live is the wise way of treading for proponents of "oddball" improvements that not everybody get such as Linux or, say, shorthand. :þ