Yet another finger keybord (gui mock-up).

Josef Wolf jw at
Sun Aug 26 21:51:50 CEST 2007

On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 06:04:15PM +0200, Lars Hallberg wrote:
> Josef Wolf skrev:
> >[ I warm-up this old thread again... ]
> >
> >On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:02:31AM +0200, Lars Hallberg wrote:
> >>a mock-up on a 90-key by one stroke finger keyboard. Think this might be 
> >>an usable and pretty efficient input method.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This looks very promising.  I like this idea.  The only issue I see is that
> >the least used characters (numbers) are the easiest to enter.  IMHO, the
> >mostly used characters should be accessible without dragging.  
> I think it's a good default as it reuses the users knowledges from t9 
> systems. It's important to be easy to pick up.

It is perfect for the "phone" functions.  But we don't want to stop at
trivial functions.

> But an alternative layout 
> optimised for text input is good, as is a possibility for power users to 
> define there own layout, or even special layout for different 
> programs/tasks.

I'm not sore what is the best layout for "text input".  While I am pretty
that numbers-on-main-positions is the second worst possibility (the worst
would be to change positions automatically), I am not really sure what the
best layout would be.  As an example, for an emacs user, about half of the
keystrokes are either ESC or CTRL-X.  A lisp programmer would like
parentheses on the main positions.  I don't think we will ever be able to
find the perfect layout for everybody.  But we might be able to give people
the ability to choose.

As an exmple, I would like three layouts:
1. For phone functions, your original "phone" layout.
2. For mails, mostly used letters on main positions (as described in my
   last mail) but ESC and CTRL-X also on main positions.
3. For programming, some special chartacters should move on main positions.

> In 2007.2 the scroll wheel is gone, so the key layout should probably be 
> 5x3 giving the number of functions / key like (the status bar is gone so 
> the bottom keys get less functions):
> 5 7 7 7 5
> 5 7 7 7 5
> 3 4 4 4 3

Ough, I don't really understand... You want up to 7 functions per key?

> Make a total of 80 keys. Alternatively 6x3:
> 5 7 7 7 7 5
> 5 7 7 7 7 5
> 3 4 4 4 4 3
> Make a total of 98 keys... Think You need a real device to find out what 
> is best.

Too bad they are sold out :-(  No chance to buy one :-((

> The main good with this input method is its intuitive and probably 
> reasonable fast. But now I'm thinking more on how to use minimal of 
> screen space and work good one handed without visual attention... and 
> still be reasonable in speed.

Maybe 8 functions per key (instead of 6) would be a benefit?  Only a guess.
You can't tell unles you actually tried it.

More information about the community mailing list