• You are not logged in.

Keyboard Effort Grids

  • Started by stevep99
  • 29 Replies:
  • Reputation: 103
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 14-Apr-2014
  • Posts: 873

I have been working recently on creating a new model to generate keyboard effort grids.

The idea behind this is to reduce the amount of guesswork and personal preference that is involved - including in my own - and increase the amount of objective maths! To this end, I have created what I hope is a more accurate - or at least a more systematic - model of keyboard effort!

You can read about it here

My newly generated effort grid is at the bottom of the page if you want to skip over the details.

Last edited by stevep99 (21-Feb-2021 12:49:03)

Using Colemak Mod-DH with some additional ergonomic keyboard mods.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 18
  • From: CZ
  • Registered: 14-Feb-2012
  • Posts: 440

Garbage in, garbage out.

Not all fingers are created equal, and there is broad agreement that the index and middle fingers are strongest, the pinkies the weakest. Quantifying the relative strengths of each finger is a subjective matter, but in this model, the effort to type a given key is multiplied by a factor based on the finger used: [some RNG output]

Alternatively, you could at least look up studies on finger strength or something... Assuming that finger strength is actually *the* important factor.

In common with my fork of the patorjk analyzer, this model also assumes lateral motion of the hand is more costly than simply curling a finger inward or outward. Consequently, motions that are transverse to the direction of the forearm are penalized more heavily than directions that are aligned (the mesial direction).

Wait, but why?

I'm increasingly convinced that these models have very little to connection to the way people [do/should] type. The fundamental observation is that typing is not a sequence of isolated keystrokes, but a complex dynamic process that is better represented by hand positions.

[assume QWERTY labels] When a typist writes 'rt', why should they return their index finger to the home row between the two keystroke? why should they use only the index finger and not a pair of adjacent fingers? When a typist writes 'in' or 'on', why should they perform uncomfortably looking row jumps, instead of rotating their whole hand (forearm) a bit?

Sigh. It would have been easier to simply copy jacobolus' post:

All the programmatic layout analyzers I’ve seen are based on totally arbitrary heuristics, made up by their authors with little or even no support in any kind of evidence, or even convincing reasoned argument.

What’s needed to make a reasonably scientific model is to recruit a number of very experienced and effective typists, ideally across a few different logical keyboard layouts, and record the timing of their keystrokes when handling different combinations (ideally not just trigrams, but groups of 5–6 letters at a time) of letters with high precision, and then do some thoughtful and comprehensive data analysis, trying to figure out which letter combinations are fast or slow, accurate or inaccurate, and how the speed and accuracy relates to other factors like the break-down of a text into sentences, words, syllables, and common character combinations. Ideally high speed video would be captured, so that particular notable patterns in the data could have the associated hand movement patterns directly observed.

The reason this is necessary is because different typists have different fingerings for particular keys (or even varying fingering depending on context) and I suspect different ways of chunking up sentences and words into finger movements. By looking at the way typists who use different logical layouts deal with the same text, it should be possible to learn the way that word spelling chunking interacts with typing motion chunking, and figure out how to best align the two on a keyboard layout. Furthermore, it should be possible to learn (with evidentiary support) which finger motion combinations are most natural or most awkward for experienced typists at high speed, and to analyze the differences between different typists who use different fingering patterns, hold their hands differently, have different hand size/shape, etc.

But the existing layout analyzers have models such as measuring the physical distance in millimeters from the “home row” key for each finger to each other key, and then using that distance as a proxy for typing difficulty, arbitrarily assigning different fingers a score and then scoring keys based on which finger is used, arbitrarily assigning different rows on the keyboard a score, giving an arbitrary score to two-letter combinations on different hands vs. the same hand, giving a score based on the percentage of letters typed with one hand or the other, etc. All of these measures are complete crap, and should not be used for any kind of serious purpose. They have no typing data to back them up, but are purely conjectural.

The carpalx method, to take one example, is a total joke. It has no reasonable basis for any of its scoring model, but it masks that by making the model so complex to understand that it’s impossible to guess what the relative scores will be for two letter combinations without explicitly working out the details. (Then if you actually compare specific combinations of letters and do work out the details, the scoring bears no relation whatsoever to real-world experience typing the same combinations on a physical keyboard.)

Get yourself an ergonomic keyboard. Learn Maltron. Or stenography.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 2
  • Registered: 04-Aug-2019
  • Posts: 9

Looks interesting Steve. I will have a read through this at the weekend. Thanks for sharing!

Offline
  • 1
  • Reputation: 157
  • From: Oslo, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,058

It's a very interesting effort, but your results so far puzzle me. I fear that much insight remains to be found?

keyb_calc_iso_scores.png

Do I interpret your figure right, in that a weight of 2 is considered "twice as hard" as a weight of 1, etc? If so, that figure doesn't scan at all. Hitting Colemak F is nowhere near twice as hard as hitting S, and hitting the right Enter key certainly isn't 12 times as hard as S/T/N/E! Come on, which would you rather do – hit Enter once or type TN six times (or STNE three times to avoid same-finger fatigue, whatever)? This doesn't scan. Please enlighten me.

Using the Curl home position, my middle finger rests at the top of the key. The distance to the key above is very low. I suspect that the distance varies between typists depending on habits, technique and finger lengths. I'm really not sure how to reflect those factors.

Last edited by DreymaR (22-Feb-2021 14:55:00)

*** Learn Colemak in 2–5 steps with Tarmak! ***
*** Check out my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks for Win/Linux/TMK... ***

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 103
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 14-Apr-2014
  • Posts: 873
davkol said:

Garbage in, garbage out.

I don't think your aggressive and dismissive tone is warranted, but anyway, to address your points:

davkol said:

Assuming that finger strength is actually *the* important factor.

The model doesn't claim the finger strength is *the* important factor, it includes it as one factor amongst others. Yes, the assignment of relative strengths is subjective, a point I acknowledged, but I don't think it's controversial to say index fingers are strong, pinkies are weak, so the question at issue is to what extent and how it should be quantified. I also wish there were more good studies of keyboard use. If you are aware of a study that could better inform how to treat relative finger strengths, please post a link to it instead, at least that would be constructive...

davkol said:

Consequently, motions that are transverse to the direction of the forearm are penalized more heavily

Wait, but why?

I'm increasingly convinced that these models have very little to connection to the way people [do/should] type. The fundamental observation is that typing is not a sequence of isolated keystrokes, but a complex dynamic process that is better represented by hand positions.

The lateral hand motion being more costly is not novel, but increasingly mainstream - the Colemak-DH and Workman layouts are both based around it, and there are plenty of people around who agree with this premise, so for those people including this is perfectly valid. I agree with your other point about sequences of keystrokes being significant, this keyboard effort grid is one part of a complete model, something I did mention on that page.

davkol said:

[assume QWERTY labels] When a typist writes 'rt', why should they return their index finger to the home row between the two keystroke?

Again the model isn't saying that. Yes, it's assigning a value for each key representing the how easy it is to reach on average from the home position, which I'd argue is a useful piece of information to include.

davkol said:

(posts long rant)

For some reason you seem to think that unless people are able to recruit a team of typists and fund a huge study, that they shouldn't be allowed to think about and attempt to quantify what factors they think are relevant to typing efficiency and comfort based on a combination of their own experience, discussions with others, and the application of mathematics. I've critiqued many of the existing models that are out there previously, including the carpalx, workman and beakl ones - indeed, this piece of work is attempting to address some of what I see as some of the flaws and relevant but missing factors in other models.

Yes, it's just a model, no-one is claiming it's perfect. As with any model, the extent to which you accept its conclusions depends on how much you agree with its premises. People are free to agree or disagree with elements of the model, or suggest changes - it is still a WIP and I'm open to suggestions, hence my posting it here. No need to be triggered by it.

Last edited by stevep99 (22-Feb-2021 18:35:44)

Using Colemak Mod-DH with some additional ergonomic keyboard mods.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 103
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 14-Apr-2014
  • Posts: 873
DreymaR said:

I interpret your figure right, in that a weight of 2 is considered "twice as hard" as a weight of 1, etc?

I wouldn't interpret it quite as literally as that, from a keyboard layout algorithm perspective what matters is that the relative values of the different keys rather than some absolutely strict measure of difficulty. Remember, we are coming from a situation where people tend to score the best home keys at some base value (usually 1) and then the scaling factor is somewhat arbitrary after that:

keyboard_scores_ergonomic.png

400px-Keyboard_effort_grid.png

keyboard_graded1.png

czKUnv5.png

Perhaps that's why people like davkol are so against doing this kind of this thing, but I still think there is some value to be had if the parameters of the model have a reasonable basis, and are adjustable to reflect personal preference and experience.

DreymaR said:

Hitting the right Enter key certainly isn't 12 times as hard!

Yeah, I'm not happy with that either, it does seem excessive. Nonetheless, it's fair to say enter should be penalized heavily, as you entire hand loses the home position, which massively ruins your flow. Especially the ISO enter without the wide mod, which is what we are talking about here.  But I'd agree the transverse penalty and pinky penalties are combining here in a unfair way, so I will certainly look to tweak the algorithm there. Update: Yes, there was effectively a double-penalty for pinky keys far out on the sides. I have addressed this, the results are more reasonable - but I also think the model should mainly be used to consider keys closer to the home position. There comes a point where keys are so far away they are not useful practically for comfortable, flowing typing.

In the most part the result has come out similar to my original (guesswork) values on the DH analyzer page, which gave me confidence that it wasn't miles out, but obviously the analyzer is designed around the 30 main keys only.

DreymaR said:

I suspect that the distance varies between typists depending on habits, technique and finger lengths. I'm really not sure how to reflect those factors.

This is an absolutely valid point. By moving your entire default hand position higher or lower, you can affect the relative scoring of the top vs bottom rows. If you were using a layout that heavily emphasized the top row for example, you may well have your hands higher, and so the scores would reflect this. Personally my hands tend to be somewhat lower, my index fingers are on the edge of T and N, and the middles aren't really at the top of S and E.  Perhaps an adjustable parameter is needed which would model this hand positioning factor.

Last edited by stevep99 (22-Feb-2021 19:07:57)

Using Colemak Mod-DH with some additional ergonomic keyboard mods.

Offline
  • 1
  • Reputation: 157
  • From: Oslo, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,058

The relative weighting of keys near and far away will also have a measure of individuality to it. When you see top QWERTY typists at it, they don't seem to mind having their fingers fly all over the board like crazy angry birds. When you talk to the endgame mech board people they seem to detest having more than 30 keys so it's a totally different game. For most of us, neither of those extremes will be the right answer.

As mentioned your effort is very interesting but it has to be interpreted right of course. Davkol's GIGO comment is unwarranted, but its core of truth is that any modeling will be subjective and hard to interpret and do just right. I think this is a promising step forward from just plopping subjective numbers into a matrix: Even if such number-picking can take into account more complexity whether consciously or subconsciously, it's more opaque and highly subjective "mathemagicks".

I'd still paste a disclaimer with rather large letters on your analysis as such, at least for now! It seems to me that an increasing number of people use your analyzer to create a layout with the highest possible score they can get, and then tell the world – or at least the Monkeytype Discord #layouts channel – that this is now the new best layout ever! You need to lower their expectations a bit, and make them aware of the challenges of modeling. At the very least, make them understand that a difference of less than, say, 1 point score may just as easily stem from a model bias or differences in corpus or keyboard geometry as from a real difference in layout quality! Probably a bit more than 1 points, actually, as Viper's layout analysis showed us.

And again, Davkol isn't wrong when he points out that most of this is still conjectural and not backed in hard science. Which we don't have the resources to perform. Much of it makes sense intuitively, but solid proof is very hard to come by. Let's have fun and gain insights in whatever way we may, but never lose sight of the limitations to it.

But for now: Again, kudos on an interesting effort.

Last edited by DreymaR (23-Feb-2021 10:46:06)

*** Learn Colemak in 2–5 steps with Tarmak! ***
*** Check out my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks for Win/Linux/TMK... ***

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 103
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 14-Apr-2014
  • Posts: 873

Fair points DreymaR. The truth it we are working from a low base of hard knowledge - modern typing practices and keyboard usage are not a fashionable things to spend research budgets on, and in any case most ordinary people are extremely resistant to even modest changes to their keyboard, which means there's little demand for such research anyway. So in the main it's left to self-selecting enthusiasts who have developed an interest. I wasn't aware my analyzer is popular on Monkeytype discords, but TBH there aren't actually many user-friendly analyzers out there to choose from so if so it's probably only popular by default! That said, the fact that it's transparent with the assumptions it makes and has adjustable parameters so that people can customize it reflect what they believe are important factors for them, does count in its favour.

As we know, the effort grids that are out there are generally just arbitrary numbers invented by their creators, including the (default) values in my DH analyzer. I think having the values calculated rather than just declared is a step forward, as there is then an algorithm that people can debate the merits of / improve etc. That way people can evaluate the underlying mechanism that gave rise to the result, rather than the end result itself. It is already caveated with disclaimers I feel - including the important point that a keyboard effort grid is just one tool that can be used to evaluate layouts, and should not be thought of as a complete model of keyboard of itself.

Last edited by stevep99 (23-Feb-2021 12:40:13)

Using Colemak Mod-DH with some additional ergonomic keyboard mods.

Offline
  • 1
  • Reputation: 157
  • From: Oslo, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,058

Surely you've seen the same effect at the Colemak Discord: Your analyzer is interpreted as ground truth. I just wish people would read the fine print more closely.

I'm not sure exactly how common it is right now, but after first Nyfee and then NotGate based their layout evaluation on your analyzer it's had lots of traction it seems. Congratulations on your celebrity status, mate!  (✿◠‿◠)

Last edited by DreymaR (23-Feb-2021 14:58:00)

*** Learn Colemak in 2–5 steps with Tarmak! ***
*** Check out my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks for Win/Linux/TMK... ***

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 6
  • Registered: 18-Nov-2017
  • Posts: 51
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 6
  • Registered: 18-Nov-2017
  • Posts: 51

See diagram at top left ... this is how the clever people say your finger spacing should be, ideally.

Attachments:
Offline
  • 1
  • Reputation: 6
  • Registered: 18-Nov-2017
  • Posts: 51

Hi

I think we need to look at some combo of "strength" and "flexibility".

Index and pinky can move sideways a lot better than the other two.

I am still conflicted about the pinky ... pianists don't have an issue with their pinkies, but I guess they use a lot more arm power than typists, so the biomechanics are different...

Cheers ,Ian

Offline
  • 2
  • Reputation: 157
  • From: Oslo, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,058
iandoug said:

See diagram at top left ... this is how the clever people say your finger spacing should be, ideally.

That's exactly how I rest my hands on a trad keyboard using Colemak-CAWS: Index fingers pretty much on the triple point between the QWERTY F/C/V and K/M/, keys. Middle fingers at the upper edge of the next key, and pinkies at the middle of their keys. Wrists straight.

I don't think any current models uses travel from such a specific position? The ones I've seen have assumed the traditional mid-key starting position.

As a pianist, I do have several issues both with pinkies and ring fingers. They're not the fingers of choice for trills for sure, but the pinkies are good at dashing about as long as they're not used for long.

Last edited by DreymaR (22-Mar-2021 15:36:14)

*** Learn Colemak in 2–5 steps with Tarmak! ***
*** Check out my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks for Win/Linux/TMK... ***

Offline
  • 1
  • Reputation: 103
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 14-Apr-2014
  • Posts: 873

My new effort grid is based in part on distance from non-central key positions, with the "home points" being somewhat offset. I was thinking of applying this idea in my version of the patorjk analyzer too, as that heavily relies on centre-of-key positions - which is also flawed when considering large keys like shift. I mean, I'm pretty sure people don't hit the shift keys right in the middle.

Last edited by stevep99 (22-Mar-2021 18:35:30)

Using Colemak Mod-DH with some additional ergonomic keyboard mods.

Offline
  • 1
  • Reputation: 6
  • Registered: 18-Nov-2017
  • Posts: 51
stevep99 said:

My new effort grid is based in part on distance from non-central key positions, with the "home points" being somewhat offset. I was thinking of applying this idea in my version of the patorjk analyzer too, as that heavily relies on centre-of-key positions - which is also flawed when considering large keys like shift. I mean, I'm pretty sure people don't hit the shift keys right in the middle.

I was thinking that the spot for shift and enter should be 1/3 of way from edge, towards the rest of the keys.

Spacebar probably too, for those layouts that use thumbs for other things.

Cheers, Ian

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 157
  • From: Oslo, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,058

I hit both Shift keys as if they were 1u keys next to Z and Period/Slash, pretty much. Space is hit right below the V/K keys, as per the natural curve of my fingers.

*** Learn Colemak in 2–5 steps with Tarmak! ***
*** Check out my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks for Win/Linux/TMK... ***

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 1
  • Registered: 20-Mar-2021
  • Posts: 7
stevep99 said:

My new effort grid is based in part on distance from non-central key positions, with the "home points" being somewhat offset. I was thinking of applying this idea in my version of the patorjk analyzer too, as that heavily relies on centre-of-key positions - which is also flawed when considering large keys like shift. I mean, I'm pretty sure people don't hit the shift keys right in the middle.

You may want to check this research to determine where people press on average for larger than 1U keys. The participants aren't necessarily fast typists, but its results may be a good starting point.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 6
  • Registered: 18-Nov-2017
  • Posts: 51

Stumbled across....

https://www.academia.edu/19828619/_To_S … B%8C%D8%AF

Last edited by iandoug (04-Apr-2021 22:13:35)
Attachments:
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 103
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 14-Apr-2014
  • Posts: 873

Shame only the abstract is in English, but they do have this image which looks like a sort of effort grid.

Attachments:

Using Colemak Mod-DH with some additional ergonomic keyboard mods.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 6
  • Registered: 18-Nov-2017
  • Posts: 51

Attached image from Eggers:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … nt_Problem

I loaded their layout years ago, it's not very good, but their evaluation/scoring approach seems reasonable, even if their ant colony result was not so good.

https://www.keyboard-design.com/letterl … .en.matrix

Can't remember why I put it on matrix not Ergodox ... must have had a reason.

Cheers, Ian

Attachments:
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 6
  • Registered: 18-Nov-2017
  • Posts: 51

Another approach: preferred order for pressing the keys.
Once again their resulting layout is pretty bad.

Image lifted from
https://figshare.com/articles/journal_c … f/12135858

Cheers, Ian

Attachments:
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 6
  • Registered: 18-Nov-2017
  • Posts: 51
iandoug said:

Another approach: preferred order for pressing the keys.

And curiously, index home is preferred to middle home ...

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 6
  • Registered: 18-Nov-2017
  • Posts: 51

See also page by Håkon Hallingstad, inventor of Arensito layout.

http://www.pvv.org/~hakonhal/main.cgi/keyboard/optimal/

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 6
  • Registered: 18-Nov-2017
  • Posts: 51

Finally got around to looking at what Den did with KLATest, and was a bit shocked ... in particular by the left hand penalty.

He has finger use weighting and finger distance weighting. Not sure why both needed, must still try to decipher what the analysis / scoring does.
I know he wanted to penalise sideways movement more than vertical.

KB.dScoring = [];
// lower multiplier means less effort
KB.dScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_PINKY] = 2.0;
KB.dScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_RING] = 1.3;
KB.dScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_MIDDLE] = 1.0;
KB.dScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_INDEX] = 1.0;
KB.dScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_THUMB] = 1.3;
KB.dScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_THUMB] = 1.3;
KB.dScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_INDEX] = 1.0;
KB.dScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_MIDDLE] = 1.0;
KB.dScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_RING] = 1.3;
KB.dScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_PINKY] = 2.0;
KB.dScoring[KB.finger.BOTH_THUMBS] = 1.3;
KB.dMod = KB.dScoring.reduce(sumArray, 0); // sum of all values above

KB.fScoring = [];
 lower multiplier means less effort
 KB.fScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_PINKY] = 4.0;
 KB.fScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_RING] = 1.4;
 KB.fScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_MIDDLE] = 1.0;
 KB.fScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_INDEX] = 1.0;
 KB.fScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_THUMB] = 1.4;
 KB.fScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_THUMB] = 1.4;
 KB.fScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_INDEX] = 1.0;
 KB.fScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_MIDDLE] = 1.0;
 KB.fScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_RING] = 1.4;
 KB.fScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_PINKY] = 4.0;
 KB.fScoring[KB.finger.BOTH_THUMBS] = 1.4;

KB.hScoring = []; // effort rate by hand
KB.hScoring[KB.hand.LEFT_HAND] = 1.540;
KB.hScoring[KB.hand.RIGHT_HAND] = 1.0;
KB.hScoring[KB.hand.BOTH_HANDS] = 1.540;

For now, while I explore and see how this all works together, I've replaced the finger use scores with these numbers, taken from a scientific paper. For the hands, have reverted to the generally accepted 10% load for the left hand, assuming right-handed person.

KB.fScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_PINKY] = 3.67;
KB.fScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_RING] = 2.9;
KB.fScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_MIDDLE] = 2.0;
KB.fScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_INDEX] = 1.85;
KB.fScoring[KB.finger.LEFT_THUMB] = 1;
KB.fScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_THUMB] = 1;
KB.fScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_INDEX] = 1.85;
KB.fScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_MIDDLE] = 2.0;
KB.fScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_RING] = 2.9;
KB.fScoring[KB.finger.RIGHT_PINKY] = 3.67;
KB.fScoring[KB.finger.BOTH_THUMBS] = 1.4;

KB.hScoring[KB.hand.LEFT_HAND] = 1.10;
KB.hScoring[KB.hand.RIGHT_HAND] = 1.0;
KB.hScoring[KB.hand.BOTH_HANDS] = 1.10;

I don't know what to do about distance ... my gut tells me the weighting should be exponential not linear. Many things (eg gravity, light) reduce at the square of the distance, but this is the reverse ... moving a finger further from home will mean hand/arm needs to move, so the effort involved is NOT linear... but I don't know if "squared" is good or not ... Google won't find any relevant papers (because these days Google insists on incorrectly guessing what it thinks I want instead of just answering the actual question... so much for AI </rant>).

Any inputs welcome ...

Thanks, Ian

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 103
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 14-Apr-2014
  • Posts: 873
iandoug said:

He has finger use weighting and finger distance weighting. Not sure why both needed, must still try to decipher what the analysis / scoring does.

I considered doing that as well, but decided against it for now. But I do consider them to be two separate things: (i) moving the finger by curling it inward/outward to reach the required key and (ii) the actual pressing of the key. But I can see how if you consider the weightings for those two actions to be different, that would justify have two different sets of values.

iandoug said:

don't know what to do about distance ... my gut tells me the weighting should be exponential not linear.

If by exponential you mean log, then that would be consistent with Fitts' Law. I have used Fitts' Law in my keyboard effort grid calculation. But if doing that, I would definitely suggest accounting for sideways and vertical movements separately, because small vertical movements are simple finger curling motions but sideways movements require whole hand.

Last edited by stevep99 (16-Apr-2021 14:15:07)

Using Colemak Mod-DH with some additional ergonomic keyboard mods.

Offline
  • 0