Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Beyond Dvorak via Genetic Algorithm

Posted by timothy on from the helping-your-fingers-keep-score dept.

ColonelPanic writes: "I switched my computer keyboard to the Dvorak layout about a year ago. But now I've gone and done something really outlandish. I tried to discover the most efficient layout possible with a genetic algorithm. It's weird-looking, but I am typing with it now. I put the gory details up on the Web."

3 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. IBM's ATOMIK for PDA's by Hollinger · · Score: 5, Informative

    IBM did this in 2k1 for PalmOS PDA's, and called it ATOMIK (Alphabetically Tuned and Optimized Mobile Interface Keyboard). It's from our Alphaworks, and is designed so that it has:
    1. Higher movement efficiency than any other existing touch keyboard.
    2. Alphabetically-tuned layout: Generally, letters from A to Z run from the upper left corner to the lower right corner of the keyboard. This layout helps novice users find letters that are not yet memorized.
    3. Letter connectivity of common words: Many common words or comment fragments of words, such as "the" and "ing" are totally connected.

    You might want to take a look at http://www.almaden.ibm.com/u/zhai/topics/virtualke yboard.htm and scroll down for a list of very good research papers.

    --
    Michael C. Hollinger
  2. Re:That's all fine and dandy... by Decklarean · · Score: 5, Informative

    Qwerty wasn't designed to slow people down... that's a myth.

    Research on keyboard stuff found here:
    http://web.mit.edu/jcb/www/Dvorak/

  3. Re:more qwerty myths... by The+Pim · · Score: 4, Informative
    Everything you ever thought you know about the QWERTY layout was *wrong*.

    http://www.independent.org/tii/news/liebowitz_econ omist.html

    Liebowitz's article does not debunk anything. It merely gives evidence that some studies were flawed, puts forward its own flawed and ambiguous studies, and entirely ignores the compelling non-empirical arguments for Dvorak's superiority. (Do you not believe anything that has not been established by studies?) Let's not even mention the fact that Liebowitz has a strong prejudice about market efficiency to support (oops, mentioned it!).

    Marcus Brooks has a longer rebuttal. I actually do not find it totally satisfactory either, but it should certainly make clear that Liebowitz has little credibility.

    --

    The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.