• You are not logged in.
  • Index
  • Experiences
  • My transition to Colemak, with a lot of re-mapping along the way!

My transition to Colemak, with a lot of re-mapping along the way!

  • Started by Bee Jay
  • 43 Replies:
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

At that point, I feel we may be back to that old NumPad layout as the most logical option. ;-)

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

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 20-Mar-2016
  • Posts: 26
DreymaR said:

I read it as having 3-4-5 on fingers 3/4/5, so the index finger hits both 1 and 2. Maybe I'm wrong; it depends on whether BeeJay was referring to a Wide setup or not...

That's correct. After trying out different arrangements, I found that 1&2 on index finger, 3 on middle finger, 4 on ring finger, and 5 on pinkie, is immediately intuitive; other arrangements aren't. Doesn't mean other arrangements are not necessarily as good, just that I would have to spend a lot more time getting familiar with them. I'm actually not using a Wide mod, by the way; it doesn't work too well with my keyboard since Colemak-O and the two keys to the right of it are very narrow. I did earlier say I was using the ColemakCAW mod, but that was due to confusion regarding the proper terminology :-/  Anyway, I have thought about the points you've both made, and I do agree it's unfortunate that my mapping doesn't have comma and period on the same layer as the numbers. Especially if one types a lot of numbers (which I don't), it's a bit of a hassle. And, yes, it's perhaps a little awkward having 0 on the pinkie, as it's one of the most common numerals. Since I don't use numbers so much, an intuitive numerical layout may still be an advantage to a predominantly ergonomical one. But I'll think about it.

Personally, I think the best alternative, other than my present one, (for a non-Wide setup) might be along the lines of:

← 6 7 8 9
  1 2 3 4 5
    0 *  ,  .

(Backspace on Colemak-J, 1 on Colemak-H, and 0 on Colemak-K.)

On the other hand, I do at present, on the numerical layer, use Colemak-LUYJ for " ' ( )  respectively. I find it quite convenient to use this layer for both my most frequent symbols and for numerals, so I'm a little reluctant to make changes in which I would lose symbol keys (as I would, if two of the keys on this layer were given to comma and period)...

Last edited by Bee Jay (08-May-2016 11:09:39)
Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

Check out a little more how I've solved the AltGr layers. I do believe that the US symbol setup is the best for most; not because it's inherently so much more superior (although some national layouts have really muddled things up!) but because the symbols that are easy to reach in that layout are the symbols that will be used much. So, symbols like @ $ ' ` ~ pop up everywhere because they're favorably placed in the US layout! In contrast, the Norwegian layout places @ on an AltGr mapping and ~ on a dead key – which makes emails impractical and sometimes even breaks java/flash applets (that don't support dead keys where single-symbol entry is expected)!

Furthermore, I ended up with a very practical solution for some accent dead keys in my opinion. The umlaut/diaeresis is the prime example: In my Colemak[eD], this very common accent is much more easily found than in most of the competitors, on AltGr+;. Thät's jüst äwesömë! ;-)

That said, it's nice to have some Extend parentheses like yours.

The more I think about it, the more I'm against making 1 and 2 a same-finger bigram; and 0 even more so. 1 is the most common digit alongside 0, but 2 comes after that. So, the three most common digits are bunched on the same finger. That doesn't sound right. Well, in truth the standard Fn-NumPad does bunch 0 and 1 in most cases so that's still not quite perfect...

In retrospect I now realize why the 0 is a fat key on the NumPad. This means that an experienced typist can alternate between using index and middle fingers for it! Cool. Time to fix my own Extend numerical layout...

Last edited by DreymaR (09-May-2016 09:51:13)

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

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 20-Mar-2016
  • Posts: 26
DreymaR said:

The more I think about it, the more I'm against making 1 and 2 a same-finger bigram; and 0 even more so. 1 is the most common digit alongside 0, but 2 comes after that. So, the three most common digits are bunched on the same finger. That doesn't sound right. Well, in truth the standard Fn-NumPad does bunch 0 and 1 in most cases so that's still not quite perfect...

Seems like this is a case of "intuitive and quick to learn & get familiar with" versus "less intuitive and slower to learn but more ergonomic". For the letters I would definitely be in favour of the latter approach, at least for anyone who will be touch-typing and plans to type more than a sentence a day. (For those who type less, an "ABCDEF..." layout might be the simplest option! :)  ). As for numbers, I guess it depends a lot on one's needs. It makes me think of the Dvorak layout. If I remember this correctly: In the original layout, the positioning of the numerals had been changed from standard qwerty so as to make it more ergonomic. Later on, however, it was changed back to the less ergonomic, standard layout; presumably because most people use them so seldom that an easy-to-remember intuitive layout is preferable. Then, in Programmer's Dvorak, the positions of the numerals were changed back to the original, ergonomic layout; presumably because programmers type a lot of numbers, and it's worth it for them to spend the extra time and effort to learn an ergonomic version.

I still think my version is quite helpful in terms of being intuitive and quick to learn. The only experiential comparison I've been able to make so far, though, is between it and the standard positions of the numerals on the numeric row. Compared to that, my version is—at least for me—MUCH easier to use. But if I found myself typing numbers all the time, then I might have changed to something else...

Thanks, BTW, for replying to my posts :)

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

Yes, well, but. For most people, the NumPad layout is already known so that'll be the "intuitive and quick" solution for many – in my opinion.

Then, our newest insight that if you're serious about number entry (which is the case for NumPad entry in general, as casual number entry may as well use the number row) you should beware of the 0-1-2 same-finger combos. I'll stick to the Extend-NumPad myself, and modify it so the keys below both KP_1 and KP_2 are KP_0 keys. This'll be useful for people who are used to the fat KP_0 key and people who want to enter lots of numbers with lots of zeroes in them.

There's even one more point for the experienced keypadist: Entering strings of zeroes is a lot easier if you can alternate between the index and middle fingers! Typing up a trillion using same-finger is murder; I'll have ,00. on the lower row so you could even use index-middle-ring-middle-etc to produce numbers like '1,000,000,000,000,000'. :-)

Your version is cool, and I'm sure it'll be practical and useful to you! But I want something that'll fit as many as possible as well as possible, to put in my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks. And I do believe that for most, a NumPad is it:

+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|6     |7     |8     |9     |0     |-     |=     |
|      | KP_7 | KP_8 | KP_9 | KP_* | KP_- | KP_= |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|J ### |L     |U     |Y     |;     |[ {   |] }   |
| PgUp | KP_4 | KP_5 | KP_6 | KP_+ |  (   |  )   |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|H ### |N     |E     |I     |O     |' "   |\ |   |
| PgDn | KP_1 | KP_2 | KP_3 | K_Ent|  '   |  \   |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|K ;   |M     |,     |.     |/     |Spc   |Entr  |
|  ,   | KP_0 | KP_0 | KP_. | KP_/ | Spc  | K_Ent|
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
Last edited by DreymaR (11-May-2016 13:12:40)

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

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 20-Mar-2016
  • Posts: 26

The number pad layout is great. But it requires one to reach all the way up to the numerical row. Being of a lazy nature, that's something I'd rather avoid, if possible. Number pad arrangements as well as many other arrangements on keyboards, such as the placement of some of the function keys, seem to be visually determined, not tactilly. They all make perfect sense if the eyes are involved. From a tactile point of "view", they're not, IMHO, not all that intuitive. I've tried in the past to develop a tactile memory of number pads on phones etc., but in the end I always gave up and had to use my eyes. So for me, the only intuitive memory I have of such arrangements is a visual one; once I don't look at the keys, it doesn't seem to be very much part of my memory at all. Since part of the concern is to create an arrangement which will be useful to large numbers of people, the question as I see it is whether or not it's the case that "for most people, the NumPad layout is already known so that'll be the 'intuitive and quick' solution...". I don't think it is for me, but then again my preferences are not always in tune with those of the majority :)

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 117
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 14-Apr-2014
  • Posts: 975

If you don't want to reach for the top row, you could still have a fairly traditional numpad-style layout using only the three main rows.

 7   8   9   +
  4   5   6   -
0   1   2   3   /    

This results in 5 mapped to your "home" position (i.e. on Colemak E) similar to the standard numpad. Zero is moved to Colemak K.

The only real down side is the unusual zero location and that you loose access to the dot and comma in the same layer. Like you, I try to minimize use of keys that are more than one-key-distance from the home position (which includes the number row), and so this is a nice way to have a virtual numpad without resorting to using the number keys.

Last edited by stevep99 (14-May-2016 17:04:53)

Using Colemak-DH with Seniply.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 20-Mar-2016
  • Posts: 26

Nice. Just trying it out casually on the keyboard, it feels fairly intuitive. The zero's in an unusual position, perhaps, but it's easy to reach. I'll give it some thought.

I totally agree that losing access to the dot and comma in the same layer is incovenient. But to me it's a more than reasonable price to pay in order to avoid having to reach up to the numerical row.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

That's in no way a little downside, Steve! As discussed, a quite important point of fast numeric entry and the reason for the fat zero key on physical a NumPad is avoiding too much same-finger typing of the most common numbers 0 and 1 as well as 0 polygrams. This layout does give you numbers in easy-to-reach positions, but I don't think it enables fast and comfortable entry of many numbers.

Last edited by DreymaR (16-May-2016 15:59:52)

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

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 20-Mar-2016
  • Posts: 26
DreymaR said:

Your version is cool, and I'm sure it'll be practical and useful to you! But I want something that'll fit as many as possible as well as possible, to put in my Big Bag of Keyboard Tricks. And I do believe that for most, a NumPad is it

I've had some time now to get used to my extend layer mapping, as reported earlier in this thread, and also to mull over the feedback I've received.

It seems to me that we're coming from slightly different positions in two ways: As you said, you're looking for a standard mapping that can be applied across the board by a large number of people, whereas my interest is primarily in finding something that works for me personally—and, through that, come up with general frameworks which other people can tweak in accordance with their own particular needs. The other difference is that you're probably more of a number cruncher than I am. What you said about 0—that, being one of the most frequently used numerals, it should be in a better position; i.e. index and/or middle finger—makes perfect sense for someone who deals a lot in numbers, such as an accountant. I, too, would not relish having to type a lot of "10,000,000,000.00"-type numbers with my pinkie on the 0. And having comma and dot on a different layer would also, I agree, be slightly inconvenient. On the other hand, I've been using my new mapping for a few weeks now, and this is probably the first time since then that I type a number like that. If one mainly writes letters home or writes about religious history and social sciences and that kind of stuff, 0 is not really all that frequent used. Furthermore, what I wanted in this case was not so much a numerical pad, so much as an easy way of accessing my most frequently used non-letter characters and symbols, of which the numerals are part. And, sor those seriously in need of a numerical pad, wouldn't it be just as convenient to get a keyboard that comes with a separate one instead of implementing it into the standard keyboard?

Concequently, I don't think I would personally opt for alternatives that put comma and dot on the same layer (fig. 3),  as that would mean having to sacrifice two other symbols keys. I could modify the 6–7–8–9–0 row and re-map it as 0–6–7–8–9, instead. Unlike numbers 1–5, with numbers 6–0 the finger–numeral correspondence is probably not so crucial. But seeing how seldomly I actually type multi-zero numbers, I may also just stick with what I've got.

So my point is that, in this case, the needs of different people are really quite different. To my mind, the ideal would be for each user to chose the arrangement that works best for him/her, rather than opt for a one-size-fits-all solution...

Anyways, I personally like the three following schemes the best (all of which avoid using the numerical row). In figure 1 and 2 I've included the symbols of my choice for the remaining easily accessible keys. But this is just my personal preference; I'm not proposing that anyone else should map the symbols in that particular way.


1) My present scheme; for non-math types.
Extention layer 67890
2) Same, except that 0 is on the far left for index finger access. For the slightly more number-friendly types.
Extention layer 06789
3) Number cruncher's version. Comma and dot in same layer.
Extention layer 6789 12345 0

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

Interesting thoughts!

I see what you're saying. But I don't think that your "number cruncher's version" will appeal to actual number crunchers (and no, I'm not really one but if someone is looking to add a numeric layer instead of just reaching up to the number keys chances are they may be one). 1 and 0 are same-finger bigrams with no solution for multiple 0s. Why not make two 0 keys next to each other, since that key looks empty now? Then it'll be as good as an actual NumPad I'm sure, except for the + and Enter keys. But you could actually add those to the right, too. :-)

I don't see any use for the "slightly" version. I think it just falls between the cracks, neither fowl nor fish, and frankly I find it confusing since it mixes up two concepts (the numeric row and the NumPad layout). If I were you, I'd stick to your preferred one and the "crunchy" one only.

Last edited by DreymaR (27-May-2016 12:02:06)

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

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 20-Mar-2016
  • Posts: 26

Why not make two 0 keys next to each other, since that key looks empty now?

You mean to the left of the comma? That would be no problem, but we'd still be on the index finger, wouldn't we? Or were you perhaps thinking that Colemak-M in this particular case could also be accessed by the middle finger to take the strain off the index finger? Hmm. Well, I guess I can see that—if you'd have to type a lot of zeros. But in that case you'd probably also have to access the comma every three zeros—using the middle finger—in which case you'd be right back in a same-finger bigram...

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

To be completely perfectionistic on behalf of US-style numbers using commas as thousands separators, I ended up putting the comma to the left of 0 on my Extend NumPad. This has the effect of being able to roll back and forth to type ,000 many times (after sliding in one key). But that's extreme I think.

For less extreme cases, it's still an advantage to have two zero keys to choose from so neither 00, 10 nor 20 have to be same-finger bigrams if you're used to them.

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

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 20-Mar-2016
  • Posts: 26

Hmm. Interesting .... :)

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 117
  • From: UK
  • Registered: 14-Apr-2014
  • Posts: 975
DreymaR said:

...US-style numbers...

(Slightly off-topic) Looking at this this map, I'm guessing it's more of an English language thing than being country-specific. Most of the "dot-countries" seem to be native English speaking, have English as an official language, or strong US influence. South Africa is a bit of surprise mind.

It was quite surprising to me to discover just how much of the world uses comma. Despite it's lack of familiarity (for me), looking at it objectively, I'd probably concede comma is theoretically better.

Last edited by stevep99 (27-May-2016 16:38:53)

Using Colemak-DH with Seniply.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 20-Mar-2016
  • Posts: 26
DreymaR said:

I ended up putting the comma to the left of 0 on my Extend NumPad.

But that means putting the comma in a different place than its usual one. That's a bit radical, isn't it? But I guess, if the idea is to have a numerical pad and nothing else, then it makes sense. As for 1—0 same-finger bigrams, are  10/01 sequences really all that common? I mean, it's only in "simplified" numbers—e.g. 10,000,000.00—that they occur more frequently than other number combinations, and even there it usually only happens once per number.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

Well, the comma isn't on the NumPad anyway so I wouldn't exactly call it radical. Sure, it's a bit strange but not much I think.

And yes, the idea of the NumPad Extend layer is to have a NumPad. The main Extend layer is a mixture of different functionalities, but the NumPad layer is oriented around that specific thing.

Yes, in number bigrams 01/10 is common.

Last edited by DreymaR (31-May-2016 14:08:38)

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

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 0
  • Registered: 17-Nov-2014
  • Posts: 102

I changed the "+" on my numpad to be the comma, because I rarely use that plus. It works great. I have a post about it here somewhere.

Offline
  • 0
  • Reputation: 210
  • From: Viken, Norway
  • Registered: 13-Dec-2006
  • Posts: 5,343

That might work great for you, but for many NumPad users the plus is essential (hence its size). So, not an option for the masses.

In general, the large Plus key seems a bit overmuch. It's that big for the benefit of clerks who have to sum up long lists of items. But if it were normal-sized, the minus could've been much easier to reach, and we'd had room for one more key such as a currency key! Ah well.

Also, why they didn't put the asterisk above the 8 key like it is on the number row is quite beyond me...

Last edited by DreymaR (02-Jun-2016 10:03:48)

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

Offline
  • 0
  • Index
  • Experiences
  • My transition to Colemak, with a lot of re-mapping along the way!