nukim@ndsuvax.UUCP (kyongsok kim) (09/17/89)
once we discussed chord keyboard and since then i have read more than ten related papers. the most recent paper i read was published in 1978. although many papers claim that chord kbd may be faster than tratitional kbd (e.g., querty, dvorak), I have not seen any ACTUAL EXPERIMENTAL data supporting such a claim. in most cases, the difference in speed was negligible. 1. i wonder if any related paper has been publshed after 1978. I would like to get a list. 2. Does any paper show an actual experimental data supporting the claim that chord kbd is much faster than traditional one? thanks in advance. please e-mail to me. Kyongsok Kim Dept. of Comp. Sci., North Dakota State University e-mail: nukim@plains.nodak.edu; nukim@ndsuvax.bitnet; uunet!ndsuvax!nukim
ianf@nada.kth.se (Ian Feldman) (09/18/89)
In article <2925@ndsuvax.UUCP> nukim@ndsuvax.UUCP (kyongsok kim) writes: > > once we discussed chord keyboard and since then i have read more than >ten related papers. the most recent paper i read was published in 1978. >although many papers claim that chord kbd may be faster than tratitional >kbd (e.g., querty, dvorak), I have not seen any ACTUAL EXPERIMENTAL data >supporting such a claim. in most cases, the difference in speed was >negligible. > It is not, for fully trained chord-typists, that is. The increase in speed is very significant, upwards of 200% > 1. i wonder if any related paper has been publshed after 1978. >I would like to get a list. > > 2. Does any paper show an actual experimental data supporting the >claim that chord kbd is much faster than traditional one? There are no such things as "generic chord keyboards" as implied by your question; there are only function-specific ones and no two are alike. The chord-keyboard applications that I've seen include: coding of machine-readable address-strips on envelopes in a high- speed postal sorting machine; real-time transcription in the court of law & parliament (replacement for stenographing machines) and the most promising of all: television-subtitling in real-time! The latter technology, originally developed by the BBC in the UK (for teletext applications), uses a special syllabic-chord keyboard that promises to make simultaneous transcription of spoken words an everyday commodity. There has been a number of articles about chord-keyboards in the Brittish ergonomy/ related magazines. Try browsing the last couple of volumes of "Applied Ergonomics" (UK); shouldn't be hard to find. -- ---- You just survived another load of gross exaggerations from ------- Ian Feldman, the ASCII hacker / "I work to live, not the ---------- ianf@nada.kth.se / ianf@sekth.bitnet / other way around" ------------- ianf%nada.kth.se@uunet.uu.net / uunet!nada.kth.se!ianf
nukim@ndsuvax.UUCP (kyongsok kim) (09/21/89)
i found one chord-kbd related article in applied ergonomics (uk) (1983, 14-1, pp. 55-59). it reviewed chord kbds and its reference section contains a few recent papers. the conclusion is that the main adantages of chord kbd are: 1. can be operated by one hand. 2. small size and compactness. it is mentioned that measuring speed of chord kbds is very hard since there are few skilled chord keyboarders. also some chord kbds (including shorthand machines) are fast partly because they transcribe text into a form of shorthand. (my interpretation: even with the traditional kbd, if you transcribe text into a form of shorthand, you can speed up.) the author was at Loughborough Univ. of Technology (probably in UK?). please e-mail to me if you know the address of the University. back to my original question: as far as ordinary text processing is concerned, it seems that I still cannot find any experimental data showing that a chord kbd is much faster than the a traditional (sequential) kbd. thanks. Kyongsok Kim Dept. of Comp. Sci., North Dakota State University e-mail: nukim@plains.nodak.edu; nukim@ndsuvax.bitnet; uunet!ndsuvax!nukim
ianf@nada.kth.se (Ian Feldman) (09/22/89)
In article <2941@ndsuvax.UUCP> nukim@ndsuvax.UUCP (kyongsok kim) writes: > >i found one chord-kbd related article in applied ergonomics (uk) >(1983, 14-1, pp. 55-59). it reviewed chord kbds and its reference >section contains a few recent papers. > >the conclusion is that the main adantages of chord kbd are: > > 1. can be operated by one hand. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Actually a chord-keyboard that is intended to be operated by one hand only ought to be called input-pad or -device. I believe that there once was a lot of interest (primarily in the military research circles) for single-hand-operable input devices for (battle) field commanders and the like. A number of studies dealt also with chord-input aspects of things like helicopter sticks / controls. >back to my original question: as far as ordinary text processing is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >concerned, it seems that I still cannot find any experimental data showing >that a chord kbd is much faster than the a traditional (sequential) kbd. But that's obvious, isn't it? Chord keyboards are not used much (if at all) for *ordinary* word processing for much the same reasons why the _supposedly_superior_ Dvorak keyboard layout hasn't superseded the QWERTY one - the latter does the job just fine. That is why chord keybords are being used only in such applications where the built-in limitations of general-input/ standard-alphanumeric -layout keyboards constitute a hindrance towards given goals. As far as I know the modern chord-keyboard saw light at an IBM Research facility, c:a 1958. I recall having once had a research paper from there, that dealt with ambidextrous (as opposed to one-handed) chord keyboards in a typewriter-like device. Unfortunately I no longer have the paper, nor a clue as to what it findings were. Try IBM Armonk/ Yorktown Heights Research Library for starters... -- ---- ------ ianf@nada.kth.se/ @sekth.bitnet/ uunet!nada.kth.se!ianf ---- --
nukim@ndsuvax.UUCP (kyongsok kim) (09/23/89)
In article <1729@draken.nada.kth.se> ianf@nada.kth.se (Ian Feldman) writes:
:>back to my original question: as far as ordinary text processing is
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:>concerned, it seems that I still cannot find any experimental data showing
:>that a chord kbd is much faster than the a traditional (sequential) kbd.
:
: But that's obvious, isn't it? Chord keyboards are not used much
: (if at all) for *ordinary* word processing for much the same reasons
: why the _supposedly_superior_ Dvorak keyboard layout hasn't superseded
: the QWERTY one - the latter does the job just fine.
My point is: it is generally (?) agreed that dvorak is 20-70 % faster than
qwerty althoug most people use qwerty. in contrast, as far as ordinary text
processing is concerned, it seems that I cannot find any EXPERIMENTAL
data showing that a chord kbd is much faster than a traditional
(sequential) kbd.
k kimnukim@ndsuvax.UUCP (kyongsok kim) (09/23/89)
I read an article about chord keyboard in the Washington Post (mon., sep. 18, 1989, p. A3). It was written by Malcolm Gladwell and its title is "Redesigning Illogical Keyboards". A Virinia engineer Larry Langley is developing a chord keyboard w/ the help of the Navy. The kbd has 8 keys, 4 for each hand, and each key has two positions (front and back). One plays one key from each hand simultaneously and we have 8 X 8 = 64 combinations. Karl Kroemer (working on a chording system) said, the success of chording depends on how you measure performance. if you measure just output speed, it's (chord kbd) not as good. but if you measure the health of the operator and accuracy, then things look quite different. k kim
khaw@parcplace.com (Mike Khaw) (09/24/89)
nukim@ndsuvax.UUCP (kyongsok kim) writes:
+ A Virinia engineer Larry Langley is developing
+a chord keyboard w/ the help of the Navy. The kbd has 8 keys,
+4 for each hand, and each key has two positions (front and back).
+One plays one key from each hand simultaneously and we have 8 X 8 = 64
+combinations. Karl Kroemer (working on a chording system) said,
Just a sec ... 8 keys with 2 positions each should be 2**8 = 256
combinations. (USASCII uses 7 bits => 2**7 = 128).
Mike Khaw
--
ParcPlace Systems, 1550 Plymouth St., Mountain View, CA 94043 415/691-6749
Domain=khaw@parcplace.com, UUCP={uunet,sun,decwrl}!parcplace!khawpaj@hrc63.uucp (Mr P Johnson "Baddow") (09/25/89)
About five or six years ago there was a gizmo on the market called the "MicroWriter". It had a one line 22 segment led display and a well designed chord keyboard. I never saw an actual device but I did get to use some trainers on a BBC micro (they used resistor networks hooked up to the analogue ports: what a kludge). The keyboard had six keys (it was a one handed keyboard) giving 64 combos. That gave you most of the ascii set. Other characters could be done with control sequences (one of the 64 combos was an escape character). The device was a commercial flop. It was intended for notes and stuff, but not only did the keyboard need learning but the display and functionality was very limited. However today we are seeing electronic personal organisers coming on to the market. They have tight space requirements and hence have a small screen and smaller keys. Could the MicroWriter concept be about to come of age? Two things we need: On-line help for chords and sequences. A chord system that becomes useful after a couple of hours practice (no more). Better than either would be a standard chordboard. I taught myselft ten fingered typing from a Pitmans manual when I started learning computers. Best investment I ever made. I would tomorrow switch to a chord keyboard if there was a widespread standard. -- Paul Johnson, | `The moving finger writes, And having writ, moves on,' GEC-Marconi Research | Omar Kyham when contemplating `vi'. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The company has put a radio inside my head: it controls everything I say!