Carpalx optimizes keyboard layouts to create ones that require less effort and significantly reduced carpal strain!
Have ideas? Tell me.
ON THIS PAGE
Save your carpals and reach typing guru status with your own keyboard layout, such as the fully optimized QGMLWB layout. Alternatively, use your power for evil and create a carpal-breaking TNWMLC layout to embarass office prima donnas and punish sluggish workers. And it's the only layout with its own line of Brazilian clothing.
The carpalx project introduces a quantitative model for typing effort and applies it to (a) evaluate QWERTY and popular alternatives, such as Dvorak and Colemak and (b) find the keyboard layouts that minimize typing effort for a given set of input documents. In the work presented here, these documents are English text, but they can be anything, such as corpora in French, Spanish and even programming languages, like C or Python.
While there are many alternate layouts, the carpalx project distinguishes itself, however, in that it not only proposes new layouts but also describes a fully baked parametric model of typing effort.
In a collaboration that brings keyboard layout design and fashion together — what a combination! — Brazilian designer Julia Valle used the carpalx worst layout (TNWMLC) as a design element in her Winter 2011 line.
This project is nearly cosmic in alignment of eclectic interests. Keyboard layout research is subverted to generate the most difficult English layout, which is then transformed into beautiful clothing design. This cross-pollination of ideas has particular meaning to me, since I once dabbled in fashion photography.
Try typing "stewardesses". Tough, eh? Type the word several times and your left hand will need a break. Now type "chrząszcz" (Polish for "beetle"). Nearly impossible, eh? Type the word once and you've had enough. The problem isn't you - it's your keyboard layout. Well, maybe it's you but solving that falls outside my mandate.
The QWERTY layout is a boon and a bane. It is a boon because it's everywhere and, if you learn to type on it, your skill is portable. It's a bane because its design makes typing more difficult than it should be (this was one of the purposes of this layout — limiting typists' speed mitigated the jamming of mechanical typewriters).
Of course, the limitation with any layout is that it excels for only one kind of text (e.g. English). If you spend your time typing two or more different languages and maintain the same layout, one of the languages will be more difficult to type. If you are writing computer code, it's likely that the code is significantly different (in terms of character frequency and combination) than your spoken language. Although interpreted languages like Ruby help reduce the noise found in other languages like Perl (I like both!), it's still likely that frequently used characters in programming (e.g. = + -) continue to be relegated to the backwaters of the keyboard.
In these pages, I will explore other layouts and indicate their strengths and weaknesses. I will also propose a few new layouts that were derived computationally using the carpalx typing effort model.
Redesigning a keyboard layout isn't as simple as 1-2-3. Or in this case, x-y-z where x, y, z are ordered to minimize typing effort! The real difficulty in layout design lies in defining how to measure typing effort. In other words, given a set of constraints it is easy to find a layout that minimizes them — it's defining the constraints that is hard!
I originally started working on Carpalx to determine whether I could recreate the Dvorak layout by developing a model of typing effort. My initial (and naive) hope was to create a parametric model that, when tweaked just so, would create Dvorak. In other words, I wanted to know what set of variables were minimized in the Dvorak layout.
When I ran the optimization for my initial model design, I quickly obtained keyboard layouts that had a much lower effort than Dvorak — in other words, I improved on Dvorak (according to my model) immediately. Furthermore, it quickly became clear that hunting for a model that would generate Dvorak was a hopeless task, because the number of models, unlike the number of layouts, is uncountably infinite. I adjusted my goal, therefore, from hunting for a model to creating a justifiable typing effort model and using it to hunt for the best layout. Could I find a layout that improved on the much-lauded Colemak?
Carpalx is a Perl script which reads in model parameters and performs a stochastic simulation to find a layout that minimizes the effort score for a given set of model parameters.
The statistics that Carpalx uses attempt to capture the essential human factors of typing. Fundamental considerations like finger travel distance and symmetric hand use can easily be agreed upon. More nuanced ones, like finger rolling and curling vs extending are harder to pin down — but extremely important. It's realtively easy to improve on QWERTY. It's much harder to refine a layout that already achieves all the fundamental improvements. already good layout.
The Workman layout incorporates advanced human factors and discusses their application to Dvorak and Colemak.
In recent conversation with Stephen O'Connor (Sep 2011), who has analyzed the Workman layout, I've been persuaded to seriously reconsider the parameters in my effort model. In particular, I do not consider that the index, middle and ring fingers have different prefered motions, for a given travel distance. For example, most will agree that the ring finger prefers to extend for the W rather than curl to the equidistant X. On the other hand, the index finger has easier access to V than R.
There is a lot of content here, spread across many pages. I suggest reading pages in the following order
I used existing keyboard layouts such as QWERTY, Dvorak, Colemak, Arensito and others, to help generate a model of typing effort. By evaluating these layouts using candidate models, I could determine whether the models were.
For example, it's widely known that Colemak is easier to type on than QWERTY and I made it a requirement that any model would corroborate this (obviously). Moreover, I built into the model certain layout characteristics that were universally seen as advantageous. While some layout characteristics remain disputed (e.g. how frequently should the pinky be used?), others such as reducing finger travel distance (by increasing use of home row), reducing same-finger row jumps and reducing repeated finger alternation on the same-hand hand can be agreed upon. These and other features form a list of beneficial layout characteristics.
Some of the desired improvements that can be directly influenced by the model during layout optimization in carpalx include
Over time, the model evolved to be measure the extent of desired (and undesired) properties by three distinct effort components: base effort, penalties and stroke path. These components make up the total typing effort and evaluate a layout. For example, the comfortable key stroke combinations (e.g. 'afj' is a nice rolling motion, while 'but' is not, and 'omy' is very uncomfortable) are measured using the stroke path.
Carpalx was designed to investigate better layout for English text. Therefore, it does not support independent migration of a key's shift states. Carpalx currently understands one shift state (for capitalization) but the lower case and upper case characters are always bound to the same key. Identifying optimal layouts for languages that make use of diacriticals (è é ë etc) by allowing both character and diacritical keys to migrate independently is not currently possible.
Carpalx uses a series of statistics to characterize a layout's performance. While quantitative and therefore directly comparable, these values can be hard to interpret and translate to typing in practise.
To give a more subjective impression of a layout's fitness, I have, in addition, ranked words based on the effort (per unit length) required to type them. I have ranked words for QWERTY, Dvorak, Colemak, QGMLWY (fully optimized, Colemak-like), TNWMLC (worst layout for English).
Some of the words are tabulated below. Keep in mind that word effort was calculated here per unit length, and is therefore not proportional to the length of the word.
|layout||words, by ease of typing|
|QWERTY||alleges, fiddle, jiffle, kiddie||ingent, limnery, pignorative, sumphishly||pazazz, pizzazz, poppas, razzer|
|Dvorak||condensity, equation, ethion, theist||defile, fiddleys, suborder, unenviable||allvar, lazars, plazas, razzly|
|Colemak||desiring, sentry, steeps, stints||implete, leafgirl, mythify, odours||cazzie, pazazz, pizzazz, razzle|
|QGMLWY||anneals, arbitrator, attend, neatly||besigh, incursive, lauder, sparing||buzzwig, fizzle, puzzle, zyzzyva|
|TNWMLC||bedbug, culmed, jazzed, knocking, wizzen||bunglesome, flouting, grunewald, miltier||hetter, sheeter, teeter|
If you spend a great deal of your time typing QWERTY and experience pain and discomfort due to the repetitive nature of the task, consider using one of these alternate layouts, such as Colemak or one of the fully optimized layouts presented here. A new layout will
Then, as you gain experience with the new layout, it will
If your goal is to achieve the last point immediately, consider using carpalx in conjunction with Das Keyboard.
If all this sounds like an informercial, it is only because I am taking the subject of switching keyboard layouts with a modicum of skepticism and am allowing myself a certain license to parody my own process.
Only a small minority of typists use a non-standard layout. Here, by standard layout, I mean whatever layout is found in the closest internet cafe near you. In North America, QWERTY is the standard and very few people type on a different layout.
Realistically, we are very unlikely to switch layouts from whatever the local standard is (I argue here that the local standard should be changed). It's simply too hard to re-train - kudos to those who have done it!
I am under no delusion that anyone will read the contents of these pages and immediately run home to scrape off key markings on their standard layout and remap their keys to another layout, or some of the new layouts described here. Of course, if you were to do this I would recommend the partially optimized QWKRFY layout which achieves a significant typing effort reduction with only 5 keys swaps (for English text). I make some practical suggestions of how to go about doing this below.
Carpalx can work with any language. The input text can be a spoken language a programming language, or any set of characters that is typed.
The current limitation of carpalx in how alternate shift states for a key are handled. At the moment, each key has two shift states (two characters that it can represent). With the QWERTY these shift states represent lower/uppercase, digit/punctuation or punctuation/punctuation. The two shift states always travel together on a key. For example, ; and : are always assigned the same key, whatever its final location on the keyboard might be. Therefore, the location of shift state characters cannot be optimized independently.
Languages that have a lot of diacritical marks, extra characters are accessed using AltGr key on international keyboards. These special characters represent the 3rd, or higher, shift state on a key. In order for carpalx to meaningfully interpret and optimize shift states, further work on the code is required.
My own experience is limited to typing English. I would like to hear from international users who are interested in applying Carpalx to their languages. Should shift state characters be allowed to migrate independently of the characters that are accessed directly? What are your opinions about how the effort model should be adjusted to describe typing states (e.g. shift + altgr)?
If you are using Windows, I suggest you download and install Portable Keyboard Layout (PKL). This is a small, self-contained application that allows you to change keyboard layouts on the fly. Bring it with you on a USB key, for example, to have access to your layouts at all times.
Still working on this.
Still working on this.