adams@herb-ox.berkeley.edu (Jeffrey P. Adams) (10/07/89)
I'm working on developing an optimal keyboard (not QWERTY or ABCDE)
for *one-fingered* typing, and am looking for:
1. general advice. Does anyone know any good references (human or
written) on the subject?
2. ideas regarding possible uses. (hand-helds, typewriters for
handicapped, etc.)
3. information regarding public acceptance of new designs.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeff Adams adams@math.berkeley.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sears@tove.umd.edu (Andrew Sears) (10/08/89)
In article <1989Oct6.221013.8269@agate.berkeley.edu> adams@herb-ox.berkeley.edu (Jeffrey P. Adams) writes: > > >I'm working on developing an optimal keyboard (not QWERTY or ABCDE) >for *one-fingered* typing, and am looking for: > >1. general advice. Does anyone know any good references (human or > written) on the subject? > >2. ideas regarding possible uses. (hand-helds, typewriters for > handicapped, etc.) > >3. information regarding public acceptance of new designs. > Actually, there has been a great deal of research into closely related ideas. I think the research into which keyboard is best for novices may be useful (since they usually 'hunt and peck'), as well as research into the acceptance of various keyboard layouts by people in general. Some feel that the layout is pretty much irrelavent, while others feel that alphabetic should be better for novices (who know the alphabet, but don't know the qwerty layout). Here are a couple of references that may help you get started: Norman, D. and Fisher, D. (1982), Why alphabetic keyboards are not easy to use: Keyboard layout doesn't much matter, Human Factors, 24, p509-515 Nicolson, R., and Gardner, P. (1985), The QWERTY keyboard hampers schoolchildren, British Journal of Psychology, V76, p525-531 Montgomery, E. (1982), Bringing Manual Input into the 20th Century: New Keyboard Concepts, Computer, March, p11 I'd appreciate it if you would send me a copy of the results of your work. This could prove very useful for the work I am doing also. Andy ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Sears sears@tove.umd.edu Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory {...}!mimsy!tove.umd.edu!sears University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
avr@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (adam.v.reed) (10/09/89)
In article <1989Oct6.221013.8269@agate.berkeley.edu>, adams@herb-ox.berkeley.edu (Jeffrey P. Adams) writes: > I'm working on developing an optimal keyboard (not QWERTY or ABCDE) > for *one-fingered* typing, and am looking for: > 1. general advice. Does anyone know any good references (human or > written) on the subject? There is a large literature, dating back to the 1920s and earlier, on skilled manual telegraphy. I suspect that the optimal one-finger keyboard is one with only one key - serial modulation is faster than spatial search, at least for a skilled user. Adam_V_Reed@ATT.com
norman@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) (10/09/89)
In article <1989Oct6.221013.8269@agate.berkeley.edu>, adams@herb-ox.berkeley.edu (Jeffrey P. Adams) writes: > I'm working on developing an optimal keyboard (not QWERTY or ABCDE) > for *one-fingered* typing, and am looking for ... Adam Reed's answer to consider a telegraph key (and, presumably, International Morse Code) is amusing, but probably correct. But don't expect speeds of more than about 20 WPM for the average sender, and then only after a lot of learning. (Actually, a "bug": is faster but that is still Morse Code: moving the vertical lever to one side produces dots and to the other side produces dashes.) 50 or 60 wpm is possible for the very skilled. Automatic conversion of Morse Code to text is possible. But if you really want a keyboard, talk with Don Gentner, now at Apple. He studied various kinds of typists: two hands, one hand, several fingers, etc., and although he didn't study one-finger (I don't think -- although I think he did one-finger on each hand) his modeling efforts are probably relevant. He did most of the work with a typing simulator, but he also looked at some real typists. He is now at Apple in the Unix group: gentner@apple.com -------------------------------------------------- Alright, I give up: Why would you want a keyboard for only 1 finger? One hand I can understand, and there are lots of chord keyboards available for this purpose. But one finger? Even military pilots have more than one finger available. -------------------------------------------------- don norman Don Norman INTERNET: dnorman@ucsd.edu Department of Cognitive Science D-015 BITNET: dnorman@ucsd University of California, San Diego AppleLink: d.norman La Jolla, California 92093 USA [e-mail paths often fail: please give postal address and full e-mail path.]
russell@minster.york.ac.uk (10/13/89)
In article <1989Oct6.221013.8269@agate.berkeley.edu> adams@herb-ox.berkeley.edu (Jeffrey P. Adams) writes: > > >I'm working on developing an optimal keyboard (not QWERTY or ABCDE) >for *one-fingered* typing, and am looking for: [etc.] > Jeff Adams adams@math.berkeley.edu Sounds like you are redeveloping the telegraph operator's key, and morse code. Russell.
mef@dalek.silvlis.com (Mary Ellen Foley) (10/14/89)
I kind of figured a one-finger keyboard would be good for people who (don't laugh, I'm serious) are handicapped, and hold a pencil in an otherwise-useless hand, and move their whole arm to type, or else hold the pencil (or other pointer) in their teeth. I dunno, well the original poster please stand up and explain? I'm interested in uses of computers to make life easier for handicapped people. Is anybody else out there interested in this? Have the particular human-machine interface problems of these people been discussed here before? (I only dip into comp.cog-eng occasionally, so maybe I missed it) (ON the other hand, maybe this is the wrong group for such a discussion) -- WARNING: Opinions in posting are farther away than they appear.
craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Craig Hubley) (10/14/89)
>From: cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!ames!sgi!silvlis!mef > >I kind of figured a one-finger keyboard would be good for people >who (don't laugh, I'm serious) are handicapped, and hold a pencil >in an otherwise-useless hand, and move their whole arm to type, >or else hold the pencil (or other pointer) in their teeth. I dunno, I doubt formalizing this sort of an interface would help anyone. Nor do I think reinventing the Morse code, or refining keyboards for optimal use at 20 WPM by novices, and 0 WPM by experts, is of much use. It would be far more fruitful, I think, to investigate some totally new approaches like interactive video or even EEG reading (for the severely handicapped). >well the original poster please stand up and explain? Yes, please. >I'm interested in uses of computers to make life easier for >handicapped people. Is anybody else out there interested in this ? Yes, very interested. The problems of the handicapped are a superset of the problems of everyone else, so these issues are very important. >Have the particular human-machine interface problems >of these people been discussed here before? (I only dip into These people have lots of problems, but they share one *big* one: the user interface techniques of a program is *part of that program* instead of being an interchangeable part. If the handicapped, or anyone, could carry around their accustomed input and output devices, and 'jack in' to any computer program and use it, everyone would be better off for it. There would be no need for universal speech recognizers, totally standard user interface designs, expensive 'special' software 'for the handicapped' at an intense price differential, QWERTY keyboards (just use Dvorak, chord, one-finger, or whatever you like, and carry it around), mice vs. trackball and other absurd debates (probably the thing I'd like most to get rid of). Note that even the colorblind can be handicapped in today's interfaces. Replacing the 'ghetto solutions' applied to this area with new standards capable of handling the known approaches to I/O should be a priority. The new US Federal mandate to force all equipment purchased by the gov't to be 'equally accessible' to handicapped users may force the vendors to standardize an I/O port, like the 100 MHz cable between the NeXT cube and monitor, so that I/O devices can be completely modular. Of course, definitions of I/O streams would have to be abstracted and current standards like Xwindows would have to be drastically altered. Clearly just moving bitmaps around won't do. >comp.cog-eng occasionally, so maybe I missed it) (ON the other >hand, maybe this is the wrong group for such a discussion) I think you're in the right group, but I haven't seen much on this. Unfortunately. Craig Hubley -- Craig Hubley ------------------------------------- Craig Hubley & Associates "Lead, follow, or get out of the way" craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca ------------------------------------- craig@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu mnetor!utgpu!craig@uunet.UU.NET {allegra,bnr-vpa,decvax,mnetor!utcsri}!utgpu!craig craig@utorgpu.bitnet
adams@math.berkeley.edu (Jeffrey P. Adams) (10/16/89)
In article <MEF.89Oct13184703@dalek.silvlis.com>, mef@dalek (Mary Ellen Foley) writes: >I kind of figured a one-finger keyboard would be good for ... >[various plausible explanations omitted] ... I dunno, >will the original poster please stand up and explain? Okay. Consider me standing. I can envision a couple of applications for a one-fingered keyboard: 1. (as Ms. Foley suggested) Handicapped people may not have the use of individual fingers, or they may need to type with a stick held in their teeth or attached around their heads, or whatever. They, then, are performing "one-fingered" typing. 2. Hand-held computers / memory aids / phone dialers. In all of the examples of these I have seen, the size of the device and the size of the keys are such that the user typically holds the device in one hand, and pokes at the keys with the index finger of the other hand. A particular drawback to these (potentially very useful) pocket-sized devices is that the QWERTY keyboard, while well-known, is not at all suited to the task. Some of the most common letter combinations require jumping across the entire keyboard. Also, the size of the QWERTY keyboard is effectively 3 rows of 10 keys, making it difficult to arrange a keyboard on anything that will fit in a pocket. 3. I imagine that there would be situations where someone with restricted finger dexterity (in particular, if they're wearing heavy gloves or the like) may need to enter data into a keyboard. An astronaut on a spacewalk, for example, may need to type something while wearing a spacesuit. I should say by way of disclaimer that I am not an engineer, and have very little experience in ergonomics, per se. I am a mathematician, and am particularly interested in mathematical approaches to language-related problems. My approach in this problem has been to find an arrangement of the keys which would minimize the expected key-to-key distance traveled in the course of typing "normal" text. The purpose of my original posting was to see if anyone had already addressed the problem, solicit suggestions from you who know more about human factors than I, and to try and brainstorm up some other uses for the one-fingered keyboard when I find one I'm happy with. Thanks to all of you who have replied, either by email or on the net. Any further replies are still welcomed and encourages. Thanks. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jeff Adams adams@math.berkeley.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Craig Hubley) (10/17/89)
>I can envision a couple of applications for a one-fingered keyboard: By 'one-fingered keyboard' perhaps you mean 'a single-switch device whose serial output is assembled into characters' ? Or do you mean 'a many-switch device, each of whose switches can be reached quickly by one finger' ? A protocol for the former (Morse Code) already exists and many people (anyone with an amateur radio license) knows it. For the latter, work on photocopier layouts, TV and appliance control panels, etc., may be of some interest. >1. (as Ms. Foley suggested) Handicapped people may not have the > use of individual fingers, or they may need to type with a stick > held in their teeth or attached around their heads, or whatever. > They, then, are performing "one-fingered" typing. I think this is a narrow way to look at their problem. While they have a significant degree of physical expressive power, it simply isn't in the usual places (i.e. fingers, hands) that keyboards are designed to gather their input from. If they have most of their physical expressivity in their neck and head movement, then a set of head-mounted motion sensors would do a far more reliable job of distinguishing motions than a single-switch device, once it was calibrated to the movements available to that individual. Unlike keyboard-style devices, it could then be programmed to ignore some characteristic involuntary movements. Although it might not be as expressive as a 100-switch keyboard that can be typed on at 100 wpm, it would provide a lot more affordance to that individual. The software to translate this into words and arbitrary ASCII characters could be modular and reside on a portable system. Plugging the output into a keyboard jack would be all that was necessary to use any given computer. Not every machine would need to be equipped with these 'new' keyboards. Of course, this is a vertical solution for each individual, and not a horizontal solution to provide a lesser degree of access to many such individuals. >2. Hand-held computers / memory aids / phone dialers. In all of the > examples of these I have seen, the size of the device and the size > of the keys are such that the user typically holds the device in > one hand, and pokes at the keys with the index finger of the other > hand. A particular drawback to these (potentially very useful) > pocket-sized devices is that the QWERTY keyboard, while well-known, > is not at all suited to the task. Some of the most common letter > combinations require jumping across the entire keyboard. Also, the > size of the QWERTY keyboard is effectively 3 rows of 10 keys, making > it difficult to arrange a keyboard on anything that will fit in a > pocket. It's been recognized for a long time that the keyboard and screen are the clunky leftovers that restrict portable computers from being really portable. If our computer keyboards were fully interchangeable between machines, as they could easily be with some standards (they all generate ASCII anyway, plus some quirky control codes that are often encoded as sequences of ASCII), we could have abandoned QWERTY for Dvorak or whatever long ago, as each individual chose to do so, instead of waiting for some massive sea change. There are already chord keyboards to provide effective one-hand typing, which is 1/4 a solution. Freeing that other hand is another 1/4, and keeping the screen in front of your eyes without restricting movement is the last 1/2. Reflection Technologies in MA somewhere has come out with a small (1" x 1.2" x 3", four ounces, I think) CGA display that is head- mounted a couple of inches from the eye and looks like a full-size screen to that eye. They are selling starter kits for $495. This may solve this half of the problem, but really we need input devices that do not require us to hold something physically in either hand. >3. I imagine that there would be situations where someone with restricted > finger dexterity (in particular, if they're wearing heavy gloves or > the like) may need to enter data into a keyboard. An astronaut on > a spacewalk, for example, may need to type something while wearing > a spacesuit. He doesn't 'need to type something', he needs to 'express something in written form'. One may be able to select from options on a menu (which requires a screen unless you have a trained user & pie menus), translate from voice (difficult reliably today), or a number of other things. Since this user is already wearing gloves, why not rig up Dataglove -type devices, (soon to be available cheap from Mattel for the REST OF US), and just pick up the finger movements as if he was typing (a mode switch would have to precede anything interpreted as typing)... if you can type, then without a keyboard you can still express what you're saying as typed sequences, with a high degree of certainty that you got it right, even with no feedback at all. Since this user wears a helmet, having a display incorporated in it could be an optimal solution. I don't think the one-fingered keyboard is really optimal to solve any of these problems, particularly those where you have the luxury to define an individual-oriented solution. >I should say by way of disclaimer that I am not an engineer, and have >very little experience in ergonomics, per se. I am a mathematician, and >am particularly interested in mathematical approaches to language-related >problems. My approach in this problem has been to find an arrangement of >the keys which would minimize the expected key-to-key distance traveled >in the course of typing "normal" text. This sort of analysis was done by Dvorak and others designing alternate keyboards. Engelbart's chord keyboard referred to a lot of this research. However, key-to-key distance is not the only factor - the dexterity of each finger alone and in quick combination with others is important, too. Ideally you would map the most common chunks of ASCII (e, a, the, sh, and...) to the easiest finger combinations, not necessarily just one per letter - if you were willing to introduce language dependencies, in this case on English. But there are actually already language dependencies in QWERTY, even though it was designed to deliberately make English hard to type quickly so as not to jam up a mechanical keyboard - try to type 'wz', a common combination in Polish, quickly - the fourth and fifth (little) finger do not like to go in different directions in quick succession. >The purpose of my original posting was to see if anyone had already >addressed the problem, solicit suggestions from you who know more about >human factors than I, and to try and brainstorm up some other uses for >the one-fingered keyboard when I find one I'm happy with. The most appropriate use of a one-fingered keyboard, I think, is as a default keyboard for use when nobody is carrying around an input device with them. For situations (shopping malls, say) where this is common, it makes sense to ensure that the device is optimal - but if nobody is going to be typing in English but only responses to menu prompts... >Thanks to all of you who have replied, either by email or on the net. >Any further replies are still welcomed and encourages. Thanks. You have mine. Further lowest-common-denominator input devices are not my idea of a good solution to any of the problems you mention, although they may provide a default solution in the abscence of other options, they should be considered temporary and should be designed in a modular way to be replaced. If I have a QWERTY board, a dataglove, a head-motion- sensor, a voice recognizer, etc., that I can carry with me, then I would like to plug it in and ignore the one-fingered keyboard. If I don't, then I will very much appreciate the effort put in to make the OFK work well. But only until I learn something more expressive - very few people like to use Morse Code... at that point my new expertise must be supported also, or I will be frustrated. If I can type 100 wpm, or paint with my toes, I will not be happy with an OFK, even if the 'average' user loves it. Unless we make these devices adaptable for the non-average, we will be buying ourselves a mediocre world, built for someone's arbitrary idea of the lowest common denominator. Not to deride your idea, I think it's worthwhile, but only as a default, and only in conjunction with some more general protocol for hooking up alternative input devices. As I mentioned, the NeXT 100 MHz I/O cable, and the Apple Desktop Bus are examples of approaches that make this possible. This may sound funny, but I would love your one-fingered keyboard on a Mac SE (with a Desktop Bus interface), and despise it in a shopping-mall terminal (without such a jack). The difference is whether I have a choice. Craig Hubley -- Craig Hubley ------------------------------------- Craig Hubley & Associates "Lead, follow, or get out of the way" craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca ------------------------------------- craig@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu mnetor!utgpu!craig@uunet.UU.NET {allegra,bnr-vpa,decvax,mnetor!utcsri}!utgpu!craig craig@utorgpu.bitnet
ds@hollin.prime.com (10/17/89)
Sorry I'm late in responding to this... I think the best keyboard design for using one finger is the "wipe" design that appeared in a magazine some years ago (sorry, can't remember where, maybe Byte or Radio Electronics). The idea was that the most common English digraphs and trigraphs were located in adjacent left-to-right positions. You could type some common words such as "the" and "you" in a single wipe across three keys. I think this would work best when the keys do not move (that is, they sense when a finger makes contact with them, such as by sensing the impedance difference in a tuned circuit due to the capacitive effect of the finger). Having a groove or channel or at least flatness between keys would make wiping easier, but would make accurate positioning for single-character pressing harder (as compared with providing a concave indentation in the solid keyboard the size of each key). Considering different keyboard layouts of course assumes that users are willing to spend the considerable time and effort required to learn them. I suspect that, in general, they are not. The above applies mostly to non-handicapped users. If I were handicapped to the extent that I could use only one finger, I would want a keyboard whose keys I could periodically remap such that most keys corresponded to character strings I frequently used, or even to whole phrases, sentences, or other meaningful constructs (I might press one key to specify a general topic and another one or two keys to narrow it down). Such a keyboard would have user-programmable modes, one for common strings, one for all the ASCII characters, and other modes as I thought them up. I would display the strings currently mapped to each key in a window on the display screen, and I would watch the screen rather than the keys as I typed (even better would be a display screen/keyboard combination). The design would have to reflect the different contexts in which a keyboard is used, such as to communicate directly with people (assuming I cannot speak, for example), to program a computer, to write a letter, etc. David Spector Prime Computer, Inc. ds@primerd.prime.com (until the layoff)
bentrup@p.cs.uiuc.edu (10/17/89)
/* Oct 15, 1989 by adams@math.berkeley.edu in p.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.cog-eng */ >I can envision a couple of applications for a one-fingered keyboard: >1. Handicapped people may not have the > use of individual fingers, or they may need to type with a stick > held in their teeth or attached around their heads, or whatever. > They, then, are performing "one-fingered" typing. I don't believe a universal one-fingered keyboard is the solution. For many individuals with a motor impairment, the input device is more passive than active. I would consider a morse code keypad an active device (i.e. the user must repeatedly manipulate the key to communicate). However I would view as passive, a scanning device which the user merely indicates a word/phrase choice as the cursor automatically moves through a list. (E.g. Gibler & Childress "Language anticipation with a computer based scanning communication aid", Proc IEEE Computer Society Workshop on 'Computing to Aid the Handicapped', 11-16, 1982). >2. Hand-held computers / memory aids / phone dialers. In all of the > examples of these I have seen, the size of the device and the size > of the keys are such that the user typically holds the device in > one hand, and pokes at the keys with the index finger of the other > hand. A particular drawback to these (potentially very useful) > pocket-sized devices is that the QWERTY keyboard, while well-known, > is not at all suited to the task. Some of the most common letter > combinations require jumping across the entire keyboard. Also, the > size of the QWERTY keyboard is effectively 3 rows of 10 keys, making > it difficult to arrange a keyboard on anything that will fit in a > pocket. Scott Minneman did some work while he was at Tufts (?) using a 12 key phone pad as a fairly effective keyboard. Some follow up work (which would provide a pointer to Scott's original work) is reported in Foulds et al, "Lexical Prediction Techniques Applied to Reduce Motor Requirements for Augmentative Communication", Proc of the 1987 RESNA Conference. Basically they exploited the transitional probabilities for quadgrams (4 letter clusters) in English to predict what the words should be. Improvements could have been made using this in conjunction with a context sensitive dictionary. >3. I imagine that there would be situations where someone with restricted > finger dexterity (in particular, if they're wearing heavy gloves or > the like) may need to enter data into a keyboard. An astronaut on > a spacewalk, for example, may need to type something while wearing > a spacesuit. Presuming that the vocabulary in such situations is fairly limited and ease of communication is essential, how about a palette containing pictures/stock phrases from which the user could select? > Jeff Adams adams@math.berkeley.edu John Bentrup University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of Computer Science arpa/internet bentrup@CS.UIUC.EDU bitnet bentrup%uiucdcs.BITNET usenet/UUCP net {pur-ee,convex,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!bentrup
bill@pd1.ccd.harris.com (Bill Davis) (10/19/89)
In article <MEF.89Oct13184703@dalek.silvlis.com> mef@dalek.silvlis.com (Mary Ellen Foley) writes: >I kind of figured a one-finger keyboard would be good for people >who (don't laugh, I'm serious) are handicapped, and hold a pencil >in an otherwise-useless hand, and move their whole arm to type, >or else hold the pencil (or other pointer) in their teeth. I dunno, >well the original poster please stand up and explain? > >I'm interested in uses of computers to make life easier for >handicapped people. Is anybody else out there interested in >this? Have the particular human-machine interface problems >of these people been discussed here before? (I only dip into >comp.cog-eng occasionally, so maybe I missed it) (ON the other >hand, maybe this is the wrong group for such a discussion) For what it is worth: I am not an expert in this, but I have been exposed to a system under development in 1983. I don't know if it was completed and put on the market or not. The basic idea was to have the letters scroll by on the screen with a box in the center. Kind of like the numbers on a gas pump except you could see the letters coming and time it to improve your speed. As the desired letter came into the box, the user would hit a bumper with the forehead. This would select the letter. The system was being developed for amputees and people who had crippling artheritis. It was to be assumed that the head could be moved and nothing else, so that the maximum number of handicapped people could use it. Obviously, it wouldn't work for the blind. -- * Truth comes as an enemy only to those who have lost the ability to welcome * * it as a friend. ** Be thankful for your troubles. If your job did not have * * problems, they could hire someone else to do your job at half the cost. * Bill Davis EMAIL: w.davis@ccd.harris.com (<-best) uunet!hcx1!pd1!bill
wtm@bunker.UUCP (Bill McGarry) (10/19/89)
In article <1989Oct14.094944.4304@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> craig@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Craig Hubley) writes: > >>From: cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!ames!sgi!silvlis!mef >> >>I'm interested in uses of computers to make life easier for >>handicapped people. Is anybody else out there interested in this ? > >Yes, very interested. The problems of the handicapped are a superset of >the problems of everyone else, so these issues are very important. > > >>comp.cog-eng occasionally, so maybe I missed it) (ON the other >>hand, maybe this is the wrong group for such a discussion) > >I think you're in the right group, but I haven't seen much on this. >Unfortunately. > I've taken the liberty of posting this article and the follow-up articles to the Handicap News newsgroup (misc.handicap). If you do not receive misc.handicap at your site, it is also available as a mailing list in digest form and also available on many Fidonet bulletin boards throughout the world. I will post any replies back to comp.cog-eng. Bill McGarry moderator of the Handicap News and Digest (203) 337-1518 UUCP: {oliveb, philabs, decvax, yale}!bunker!wtm INTERNET: wtm@bunker.uucp l-hcap@vm1.nodak.edu BITNET: l-hcap@ndsuvm1.bitnet Fidonet: The Handicap News BBS (141/420) 1-203-337-1607 (300/1200/2400 baud, 24 hours) Compuserve: 73170,1064
griesel@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Curtis W. Griesel) (10/20/89)
In article <8262@bunker.UUCP> adams@math.berkeley.edu (Jeffrey P. Adams) writes: > >I can envision a couple of applications for a one-fingered keyboard: > [ applications on portable devices or by persons in limitted environments mentioned. ] > >My approach in this problem has been to find an arrangement of >the keys which would minimize the expected key-to-key distance traveled >in the course of typing "normal" text. > Have you tried the Mini Keyboard made by TASH? It's about US$ 150, and seems to meet all the design criteria you mentioned. I have a couple here if you want more info. There certainly could be many applications for the devices you describe. Here's my experience and analysis of such devices: We bought the Minis so persons who have difficulty with the QUERTY keyboard can get access to our computers. The persons who have tried them so far have had rather mild impairments, the most severe case being persons who type exclusively with one hand. However, their success with the device has been minimal, and I have a notion why. I question if placing frequent letters close together will increase typing rate for most users. It may even decrease it. As you know, proficient typists often type in "chunks", not individual characters. At such high rates, placing successive keys too close together may result in the fingers interfering with each other. Also, successive activation of fingers is fastest when the task can be shared between two fingers, or better yet, two hands. This is due to the activation/recovery cycle that the nero-muscular system must go through every it fires. Placing frequent keys close together would require one or two finger to do most of the work; spreading frequent keys out would allow one finger to activate while the others recover. I think the fastest finger-typing rates for a person are achieved by having the work spread evenly among all of the user's working fingers, with the fingers placed a comfortable distance apart. Despite its antiquated design, the QUERTY layout seems to do an alright job of this. The one-hand typists here use a QUERTY keyboard, with software that allows combination keys (shift, alt, ctrl) to be typed sequentially. The only time I can see such devices as the Mini being useful is when a person has limitted use of a _single_ finger or mouthstick. However, I think there is a need for an extensive, well-controlled, study of this issue. -- Curtis W. Griesel EQUAL Project (EQuipment for Universal Access to Learning), U of Minnesota Internet: griesel@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu; Voice: 612/625-9081; TDD: 612/626-1346 U S Mail: 4-192 EE/CSci Building; 200 Union Street SE; Minneapolis, MN 55455
griesel@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Curtis W. Griesel) (10/20/89)
>I'm interested in uses of computers to make life easier for >handicapped people. Is anybody else out there interested in >this? Many people are, and there's a lot of work to be done. Tune in to the "misc.handicapped" newsgroup for more discussion. >(ON the other hand, maybe this is the wrong group for such a discussion) On the contrary, I think this is the perfect place. After all, all of us face physical limitations, and I see overcoming human limitations as the topic of this newsgroup, and the goal of technology in general. Instances of unique limitations become very interesting to the engineer when viewed in this light. -- Curtis W. Griesel EQUAL Project (EQuipment for Universal Access to Learning), U of Minnesota Internet: griesel@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu; Voice: 612/625-9081; TDD: 612/626-1346 U S Mail: 4-192 EE/CSci Building; 200 Union Street SE; Minneapolis, MN 55455
bowden@cadmat.DAB.GE.COM (Bowden) (10/20/89)
I would propose a concept something like a "slider" to select the next
letter, number, or punctuation the person wanted to output. This idea
would allow a person to move a finger positionally left or right, and
the result would be that the one-character display would show the
result. For example the display might sequence through the alphabet
from a to z as the person moved his(her) finger left to right across
the slider (an area sensitive to finger movement). Next, the digits
(0-9) might be shown, and lastly, punctuation. (I'm sure other symbols
could be added.) Perhaps another display would show the result so far.
Gary
--
Gary R. Bowden <bowden@ge-dab.GE.COM>
General Electric Company
UUCP: ...!mcnc!ge-rtp!ge-dab!bowden 1800 Volusia Ave, Rm 4112
Phone: (904) 239-2553 Daytona Beach, FL 32015norman@cogsci.ucsd.edu (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) (10/21/89)
In my earlier reply, I did not understand the rationale for one-fingered keyboard, but that was because I did not consider the problem of the handicapped. I now see this as a very important area for study. Our research group (Gentner, Grudin, LaRochelle, Norman, Rumelhart) spent considerable time analyzing typing a number of years ago and did reach a number of conclusions relevant to keyboard design for 10-FINGERED, TOUCH TYPISTS (actually, 9-fingered, because most people only use one thumb). Among the conclusions were that the mechanical properties of the keyboard and hand were the limiting factors for speed for accomplished typists, whereas mental processing issues were the limiting factors for beginning typists (Don Gentner has published on this). QWERTY and DVORAK keyboards are fast because they allow for alternating hand typing, and typing speds for two-letter pairs are ranked roughly like this (fastest at the top): different hands (as in "is" in the word "this") different fingers, same hands) (as in the letters "er") repeated letters (as in "ee) same finger (as in "mu") The differences can be huge. Typists do not type in spurts or clusters, but there are specific patterns, some determined by physical factors (as above) and some by learned letter sequences in the languages (Genter, LaRochelle, and Grudin did a nice study comparing the typing of dutch and english by typists in the US and the Netherlands and showed that language patterns did affect typing speed.) Dvorak is faster than qwerty because it minimizes movement to the non-home rows and also maximizes hand alternation. But it is not much faster -- say 10% -- and not worth changing millions of keyboards. Qwerty has a strange and fascinating history, but the same factors that minimized key jamming with the one handed typists of the time now cause it to be an efficient keyboard for the touch typists of today. if you go to one handed typing, the story will change. And if you go to one-fingered typing, it will change even more. However, I would assume that the same principles would operate for the relevance of mechanical and mental factors. So, I would predict that: for one handed typing, you want to alternate fingers as much as possible, and minimize finger travel. for one-fingered typing you want to minimize finger travel HOWEVER, these have not been studied very well: those commentators who said we need to study these cases explicitly were correct. Finally, Don Gentner and I did a study (unpublished) on simultaneous keying (2 keys at the same time, as in shift keys of control keys -- or as in chord keyboards). We found that even expert typists slowed up with simultaneous keys, so SHIFT-a (capital A) took twice as long to type as "a").. That is, even though the keys were to be typed in parallel, the times were the same as if they had been typed in serial. This is one reason, perhaps, that chord keyboards slow down typing. (Court stenographers are still the fastest typists around, and they use a chord keyboard, but they type syllables, not letters, so a good part of the gain is the shorthand transcription method. And they must practise for years and years to reach those speeds.) in conclusion: we know a lot about regular expert typing, but very very little of direct relevance to the handicapped population: we should learn more about these cases, but this will take specific research. Don Norman INTERNET: dnorman@ucsd.edu Department of Cognitive Science D-015 BITNET: dnorman@ucsd University of California, San Diego AppleLink: d.norman La Jolla, California 92093 USA [e-mail paths often fail: please give postal address and full e-mail path.] Don Norman INTERNET: dnorman@ucsd.edu Department of Cognitive Science D-015 BITNET: dnorman@ucsd University of California, San Diego AppleLink: d.norman La Jolla, California 92093 USA
eob@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (eamonn.j.o'brien) (10/22/89)
In article <624298759.14870@minster.york.ac.uk>, russell@minster.york.ac.uk writes: > In article <1989Oct6.221013.8269@agate.berkeley.edu> adams@herb-ox.berkeley.edu (Jeffrey P. Adams) writes: > >I'm working on developing an optimal keyboard (not QWERTY or ABCDE) > >for *one-fingered* typing, and am looking for: > Sounds like you are redeveloping the telegraph operator's key, and morse code. I assume he means one *finger* not one *key*. -- Eamonn O'Brien ohm!eob eob@ohm.att.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just losing my mind.
jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (10/23/89)
I've seen a typewriter with a one-key keyboard, in a museum or antique shop in Pittsburgh. It was one of the first typewriters ever made. The print head was a cylinder whose position was controlled by a larger cylinder you moved with your left hand till the character you wanted was under a pointer; you then pressed a lever with your right hand to make the head strike the ribbon and paper. It didn't look like it had any click-stops, so the resulting text must have been both ripply and randomly spaced in the hands of a novice typist. This is rather like the "slider" idea someone suggested on misc.handicap, only two-dimensional. I have no idea what wpm you could reach with this contraption; it seemed to have about the same designed-in speed limit as a braillewriter. -- Jack Campin * Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND. 041 339 8855 x6045 wk 041 556 1878 ho INTERNET: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk USENET: jack@glasgow.uucp JANET: jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs PLINGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack
cmiller@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Chris Miller) (10/23/89)
I'm afraid I don't have anything concrete to offer to this discussion, but I've been following it with interest for the past couple weeks and one thought keeps coming to mind. A recurring theme in the hardware of science fiction novels seems to be the "tongue switch"-- usually, but not always, a series of toggle switches actually built into the teeth and activated by various movements of the tongue. While that may venture a bit further into science FICTION than is practical for this discussion, the tongue (and lips) are the most versatile and dexterous parts of the body after the fingers. Has anyone explored the use of these organs for the type of typed communication being discussed? It would seem to me that something like a morse key, held in the mouth and tongued, would both be relatively simple to construct and would represent a signifiacnt increase in speed over, say, a head-mounted pointing stick for a quadrapalegic. --Chris
griesel@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Curtis W. Griesel) (10/24/89)
>I am not an expert in this, but I have been exposed to a system >under development in 1983. I don't know if it was completed and >put on the market or not. >The basic idea was to have the letters scroll by on >the screen with a box in the center. The PC Serial Aid, by DADA, which I've mentioned earlier as the interface box used for many alternative keyboards, has a scanning system analogous to this built into its software. There are other similar products, too, most notably the Words+ system, made in California, that the physicist Stephen Hawkings (sp?) uses. The problem with scanning systems is that they are s - l - o - w ! Direct selection, provided by some kind of alternative keyboard, or coding methods provided by switches are, at this point, preferred. I think we need to seriously rethink the issue of human language generation. I doubt that the formation of ideas occurs in units of letters, or even words, at the cognitive level; yet this is the method that is being used for current machine interfaces. I don't have any concrete ideas, it just seems that some fundamental changes in the approach to this problem are needed before we'll see drastic improvements in performance. -- Curtis W. Griesel EQUAL Project (EQuipment for Universal Access to Learning), U of Minnesota Internet: griesel@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu; Voice: 612/625-9081; TDD: 612/626-1346 U S Mail: 4-192 EE/CSci Building; 200 Union Street SE; Minneapolis, MN 55455
mcgrant@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Michael Charles Grant) (10/24/89)
I realize that this is quite a diversion from the keyboard fights, but I
thought that this would be an interesting project for you folks to consider
in your free time.
A professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering here at
the University of Texas confronted me about a project for a young gentlemen
living in one of the local dormitories who plays piano beautifully, except
for one problem: he does not have the use of his legs, and therefore he cannot
operate the sustain pedal! He is looking for a device that can, on the
connection of, say, a mercury switch, depress the sustain pedal. The idea
is that he might be able to move his mouth or tilt his head to operate the
pedal as effectively as normal foot action.
Of course, there are certain restrictions that would need to be met in the
design:
1) It would need to be relatively inexpensive.
2) It would need to be quiet enough so that it did not interfere with
the music.
3) It would need to respond about as quickly as someone can press and
release his foot on the pedal.
4) It should be designed to easily transport from piano to piano, and fit
under a standard wheelchair.
5) It should be electrically safe! Remember, he probably will be using
his head to control the pedal pusher.
I realize that perhaps this is not the exact place for such a proposal, but
I read your articles and thought you might be interested. This young man
is quite limited in his repertoire until a solution is found, a fate that
he certainly does not deserve. I would be very grateful to hear any
suggestions that you might have to make about the design of this device;
but, because this is an entirely volunteer project, it would be impossible
for us to compensate you in any way. Of course, if you were to come up
with a design yourself, you would be welcome to market it as you wished,
but we would ask for a donated model! :-)
Thank you for reading my seemingly endless babble.
Michael C. Grant, mcgrant@walt.cc.utexas.edu
Pledge Secretary, Psi Chapter, Eta Kappa Nu
The University of Texas at Austin
Mail address: c/o Eta Kappa Nu, Department of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering ENS 142C, The University of Texas,
Austin, Texas 78723
Phone numbers: /512/471-3238 (office), /512/926-7964 (my home)hjortsho@cg-atla.UUCP (Erik Hjortshoj) (10/25/89)
In article <2470@ge-dab.GE.COM> bowden@cadmat.UUCP (Bowden) writes: >I would propose a concept something like a "slider" to select the next >letter, number, or punctuation the person wanted to output. This idea >would allow a person to move a finger positionally left or right, and >the result would be that the one-character display would show the >result. For example the display might sequence through the alphabet >from a to z as the person moved his(her) finger left to right across >the slider (an area sensitive to finger movement). Next, the digits >(0-9) might be shown, and lastly, punctuation. (I'm sure other symbols >could be added.) Perhaps another display would show the result so far. > >Gary In the movie _Outland_ I believe that I saw the characters entering text rapidly with just one hand. Nice touch. Anyway I tried to figure out how such a device might work and came up with the following. The device would be a slider, like you described. It would be a handle that would fit in the palm of your hand and allow each of your fingers to rest on a button. The handle would pivot back and forth with many notched positions. Each button would yeild a different character or function when released in a given notch. When a button is pressed the device would display the character that it will yield when the button is released. This display could be on the input device and/or the screen. The last notch could be an escape for all buttons. Thus the user wouldn't have to print a character if he/she didn't find it under one of the buttons. For the our use the buttons might hold: Uppercase letters, Lowercase letters, Numbers and symbols, common symbols and functions. (four buttons) The thumb could also have a button (maybe this could escape the other buttons too). I decided that even after training, this wouldn't be that fast. But it might be usefull for portable use (space, telephone pole work), other one handed use and such. The idea could be extended to a toung operated input device too. -- Erik Hjortshoj Agfa Corp, Agfa Compugraphic Division (508) 658-5600 x7415 Wilmington MA. ulowell!cg-atla!hjortsho
aez@Data-IO.COM (Adam Zilinskas) (10/25/89)
In article <35994@srcsip.UUCP> cmiller@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Chris Miller) writes: >A recurring theme in the hardware of science >fiction novels seems to be the "tongue switch" ... There is a control mechanism made for quadraplegics (spelling?) that uses a straw and the user will blow and suck to signal his/her request. I saw someone use one for controlling a typewriter. The now defunct Logo Lab in MIT was playing with different keyboards and input devices for handicapped people. One that works well is a console that has the alphabet in lights, each character would light up in sequence, when the user wanted that character/command, he/she would press a paddle (blow in a straw, or whatever they were capable of). It was not fast, but it could be worked by people with little muscle control (multiple sclerosis and such). Thinking about MS people, they have the problem that their nervous system deteriorates at their extremities first, they will have useless hands but a nimble tounge. I wonder how small and spittle-proof force gauges could be made to make a "tounge-mouse" with X,Y,Z force measurement. The user would then tip the sensor with the tounge to move a cursor ala joystick then press down to select. Like the stenographers using syllables, a handicap interface for real time control (like wheelchair, robot arms ...) should use reasonable high level commands for those acutely handicapped (imagine trying to steer a wheelchair stright for 20 feet then turn right by constanly blowing and sucking on a straw for over a minute). Adam Zilinskas