Build A Custom-Fit One-hand Keyboard

EyesWideOpen writes: "The New York Times (free reg. req.) has an article about a guy who has invented a one-hand keyboard that really isn't a board at all. The 'Stealthy Keyboard', which is in the prototype development stage, is designed to fit in the palm of the hand and uses the fingertips, the middle of the fingers and combinations of those to generate characters. More information (white paper, downloadable engineering plans, photos, etc.) can be found on this website." Inventor John McKown adds "The kit includes (open) source for the firmware. The code is for a PS/2 port but a USB version is slowly progressing."

Comments

This could do a lot I think...

[mhore]

From wearable computers to disabled people, it could definitely be useful.

Then again, there is the Dvorak keyboard layout. I wonder how the speed typing one-handed with Dvorak compares to typing on this gadget?

Mike.

Re:Been there, done that

[stoolpigeon]

I guess he has since his site refers to how this design is different from other chord keyboard designs.

.

Re:Wow.... A chording Keyboard...

[stoolpigeon]

Previous chording keyboards haven't been very popular. How is this one different?

One big reason is that the typing fingers don't grip the unit and don't participate in retaining it within the hand. Trust me; this makes it much simpler to use. It's hard to type with fingers that must grip something at the same time. That's why the only portable one-hander you can buy at present, as far as I know, has a big, ugly, wrist strap . Another reason is that the fingers are never far from their relaxed positions. They don't have to curl tightly, which quickly becomes tiring. This keyboard is small enough to be mostly hidden by the hand so it's not so geeky. Since there's no strap, it can go in and out of a pocket quickly. When you actually get one in your hand you see it's great fun to type so casually and with so little effort.

Looking at your link- and looking at his site the differences seem pretty obvious in regards to size and cost.

Not the twiddler at all

[Tony]

Mr. McKown acknowledges the existence of chording keyboards. His patent covers the physical configuration, not the idea of a chording keyboard. His design allows the typing fingers freedom; they do not need to support the keybard at all, providing a more comfortable experience.

Also, the design is unobtrusive. He refers to it as a "stealthy" keyboard. I don't know if that's such a big fat hairy deal, but the comfort aspect is.

Emacs

[cgleba]

Hmm. . .to get a character with this keyboard one often presses many keys at the same time to make a "chord" and produce a character.

Can you imagine the insanity editing in Emacs would be? :). M-> for end of buffer or C-M-w for append next kill to last. . .do we have that many fingers?

We're supposed to be training the technology

[ianscot]

...not the other way around. This approach gets rid of the physically stupid part of keyboards, but it doesn't address the big learning curve for something so basic. If anything it seems like it'd make the learning worse, because one key != one symbol.

Example: In order to pare the number of keys, all these designs resort to "Chords" -- multiple keys hit in combination, or in sequence, to produce a result. This design gets different results from your fingertips as opposed to pressure with the middle of your finger, too. So how many hard-to-recall combinations of left-thumb-tip with right-index-finger knuckle are we going to need to remember to avoid hitting ctrl-q when we meant "Q"? Not the system to learn on the laptop where you keep all your contact info, right?

We're past the point where we should be teaching ourselves elaborate new routines to accommodate new technologies. The Palm handwriting system is a good example of how crappy that model is; I can't stand that the OS is trying to make me learn a new way to write "T" as a capital letter. That's just wrongheaded. The technology's supposed to be conforming to us, and that's not just a physical thing.

Re:We're supposed to be training the technology

[wisemat]

You are partially right, we should design things to be as simple as possible, but we cannot design them to be simpler than is possible. When you come up with a simpler, easier to learn one-handed keyboard, I'll buy it.

Until then, a learning curve is a fact of life. Adapt or die

When I started writing math intensive papers, I learned LaTeX. There were easier to learn ways to do what I needed(word would do all of it from drop down menus, for instance), but none of the others could match the input speed I had with LaTeX(pure typing, no mouse), and none of the others gave me as much control as LaTeX did. I gladly traded time put in mastering the technique and overcoming the learning curve in order to get that speed and that control.

I hate it when interface designers make things more complicated than they have to be, but when they do have to be that complicated to get the full benefit, then so be it. Once this is commercially available, I'll happily deal with the learning curve for the benefits I think it would bring.

Re:An example of why patents are a good thing

[Jerf]

"Slashdot", inasmuch as it can be said to have an opinion, is hostile to software patents.

In fact, many of us against software patents are just fine with mechanical patents, which is after all where patents came from. However, your own message provides an excellent argument about why software should not be patented. When software is patented, it does not provide enough information to allow one skilled in the arts to reproduce the invention, it only sorta/kinda describes it. It does not provide all the details on how the software works. Read, for instance, the Amazon one-click patent, and then try to implement it. You will find that there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of unresolved issues in how exactly the system should work and persist data.

In fact, patents should really only cover source code. Source code would meet your criteria for the goodness of patents. Source code is already protected under both copyright law (no matter what), and trade secret law (if the company so desires). Why should software be patented, if none of the legitimate advantages of a patent derive from that act, since those advantages and more are covered by the copyright system, yet we get all of the disadvantages that we have seen in software patents (ambiguity, unfair patent grants, patent land grabs)?

If you can answer that question with some degree of usefulness (i.e., applicability in the real world, rather then vague sweeping claims of potentially hypothetical advantages based on pre-conceived notions, which is all I've ever seen in software patent's defense), then maybe you can ask incredulously why Slashdot is so against patents. Personally, after several years pondering the issue, I don't believe there is an answer, which is why I don't think software should be patentable.

For all the reasons you mentioned, and a few others (such as the fact the patent is of limited duration), I think that patenting the keyboard in question is totally legitimate. All the posters claiming "this has all been done" to the contrary, there are some legitimately clever and new ideas in this design that deserve protection before one of the established companies steal them from him. Maybe the ideas are dumb and won't work, but he deserves the shot in a fair market to find out whether this product can sell.

(For those who claim this issue has been done, find me a product with all the characteristics the guy enumerates on his site, and maybe I'll listen then. In particular a chord keyboard with the fingers in neutral like that, that is an excellent idea that apparently isn't obvious, seeing as how no commercial product has done it yet.)