Parallel Keyboard: 200+ WPM with 2 Keystrokes

[Bartholomew]

All current keyboards are sequential. Even when you press more than one key at a time, you must press one of those keys first--shift-e is not the same as e-shift. It strikes me that this is inefficient. We are capable of pressing 10 keys at a time.

What if a keyboard were made so that many letters could be pressed at the same time (or within a very short interval) where the order doesn't matter, and the computer could figure out what you intended?

For example: To type the word "chair," I must currently press the c, then the h, then the a, then the i, then the r. I can do this in a fraction of a second, but it's still one at a time. Instead, on a Parallel Keyboard, I might press all the letters at once (the keyboard would be set up to make it easier for me to do this) and the computer would instantly recognize that the only possible arrangement for those 5 letters is "chair." If I had pressed "ploo" (the keyboard would have duplicates of common letters like o and e) the computer might give me the options "loop" (option 1), "pool" (option 2), or "pool" (option 3). I'd press 3, using 2 keystrokes instead of 4.

It seems like you might easily get 200+ WPM on a keyboard like that, once you learned how to use it.

 

[omagdon7]

Not if you have to decide which word you mean. My friend has that on his cellphone and if anything it takes a lot longer and is annoying. Also typiing at 200wpm assumes you have 200wpm of **** to say. Generally you're going to want to be thinking slower than that; typing faster will be pointless because either the quality of your writing will drop (literary problems) or the data you are trying to communicate may be more jumbled as you don't have time to think about what you are saying. In my opinion its just one of those things where the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

 

[brewnog]

Yup, at the moment I can type far faster than I can think. This probably results in 95% of what I post being rubbish.

 

[hitssquad]

The Twiddler, and other chording keyboards

What if a keyboard were made so that many letters could be pressed at the same time

If that were the case, then it might be called a chording keyboard.
http://www.google.com/search?q=chording+keyboard

Many wearable-computing pioneers use the Twiddler, a one-handed chording keyboard that has only three buttons for each of four fingers (plus several thumb buttons).
http://images.google.com/images?q=twiddler

Max speed on the Twiddler (and Twiddler2) is about 60 WPM, though that takes a lot of practice. And though it is a bit slow, the Twiddler makes up for that by the fact that it can be typed on while the typist is doing just about anything else at the same time. I have found that I can walk, run, and even ride my bike while typing on a Twiddler. And wearable-computing researcher Steve Mann reported on the wear-hard list that he can type into his wearable computer with his Twiddler while running down stairs, skipping three at a time.

The wear-hard archives are stored here, by the way:
http://wearables.blu.org

 

[Bartholomew]

At first perusal, the chording keyboard has the important difference that while more than 1 KEY may be pressed at a time, only 1 LETTER may be entered at a time. Simultaneous key press notwithstanding, a chording keyboard is still fundamentally a sequential keyboard.

I think that people commonly talk 200+ WPM.

 

[hitssquad]

I think that people commonly talk 200+ WPM.

NetYAK says, "Average talking speed is 125 to 150 words per minute."
http://www.netyak.com/YAKbites/facts.htm

Speed reading sites put the maximum at about 400-500 WPM.
http://www.google.com/search?q="talking+speed"+wpm

 

[Bartholomew]

People who are talking quickly often go 200+. I can type 120 and it is a lot slower than talking. I have tried typing songs before as they are playing and I can only keep up with a fairly slow song.

 

[Edgardo]

...
What if a keyboard were made so that many letters could be pressed at the same time (or within a very short interval) where the order doesn't matter, and the computer could figure out what you intended?

For example: To type the word "chair," I must currently press the c, then the h, then the a, then the i, then the r. I can do this in a fraction of a second, but it's still one at a time. Instead, on a Parallel Keyboard, I might press all the letters at once (the keyboard would be set up to make it easier for me to do this) and the computer would instantly recognize that the only possible arrangement for those 5 letters is "chair."

Even if it was possible to press the keys at the same time, I wouldn't be able to use
that keyboard. Because if the word 'chair' comes up in my mind, I can't possibly
think of all 5 letters simultaneously.
Try it at home: Think of the word 'GOLD' and now try pressing all keys simultanously.
You will put your fingers one after another.

 

[Bartholomew]

It's a matter of learning it. If you learn to put your fingers in a certain manner when you think of the word "gold," that's the way you'll do it, even if simultaneous. I know that I don't think about the letters as I type them anymore; my hands just sort of move. They are "programmed" with how to type most common words and I don't have to think about individual letters unless it's a word I don't often use. When I think "gold" when typing, I don't think 'g,' 'o,' 'l,' 'd.' I just think of a particular way that my hands must move.

The human brain can work in parallel; the limit is the keyboard.

 

[omagdon7]

More importantly because you can type at 120wpm under ideal conditions does not mean you can reproduce such when listening to music. There is a difference in the amount of time required between conception of a thought and and its being put to type and the amount of time needed for interpretation and comprehension of lyrics prior to typing them. You should always consider your premises before making an assertion. And never measure indirectly what you can measure directly (count the wpm for a song). I honestly feel that a keyboard of the kind you are describing would be pretty much useless for most people.

 

[Integral]

Wow great idea! But why limit it to 10 keys? Why should the number of fingers we have limit it. I could come up with a device that hits all 101 keys at the same time... Surely the computer could figure out what I meant. :uhh:

 

[FredGarvin]

The human brain can work in parallel; the limit is the keyboard.

I think the limit would be how the english, or any other, language is constructed. No matter how fast I am typing, I am still aware of the sequential nature of the words I am writing.

How could there possibly be a way for a computer program to extrapolate what a person's intent is when writing? Is there anything even remotely close to doing that out today?

 

[Edgardo]

It's a matter of learning it. If you learn to put your fingers in a certain manner when you think of the word "gold," that's the way you'll do it, even if simultaneous. I know that I don't think about the letters as I type them anymore; my hands just sort of move. They are "programmed" with how to type most common words and I don't have to think about individual letters unless it's a word I don't often use. When I think "gold" when typing, I don't think 'g,' 'o,' 'l,' 'd.' I just think of a particular way that my hands must move.

The human brain can work in parallel; the limit is the keyboard.

You probably mean that if one, for example, sees the word 'GOLD' he knows
how to set his fingers in a certain position, more like he knows the pattern.
If would be like playing a C chord with the guitar or the piano.
Maybe it could be possible for words with few letters. But I doubt that you can
memorize all the patterns, because there are just too many combinations.

Another problem would be the following: Suppose you want to type
the word "choose". How does the computer know if you didn't mean "chose"?

Another example: MISSISSIPPI, where you have double letters.
How does the computer know that you mean that word if you only
type the letters MISP?

-Edgardo

P.S. I know we are criticizing your idea Bartholomew, but please don't
get discouraged. Always keep up having ideas

 

[Bartholomew]

Omagadon: I am talking about typing songs that I already know, as they are playing. Even when I type during the instrumental parts I cannot keep up with most songs; and perhaps I do usually type a bit slower than my max, maybe 100 wpm on average (I don't have to try too hard to do that), which is still in the same general range. The speaking speeds for the presidents that hitssquad linked to are for speeches, where it is imperative to speak slowly and clearly. Ordinary conversation is much faster than 100 wpm.

Integral and Garvin, what makes you think the computer couldn't figure out what you meant? With proper indexing it should be very quick to find the word from the letters that make it up. A Google search takes a fraction of a second, and when you consider how many pages that has to search... a word in a simple English dictionary, where each word is indexed by the letters it contains, could be accessed in virtually zero time. A program to find polo, loop, or pool from oolp would be rather simple.

Edgardo: Well, if you type the word "choose" on my proposed system, the computer would know it was different from "chose" because it has two "o"'s. But in general if there is more than one possibility for a word, the computer could present multiple options which you would choose from by pressing a key--so some words would require 2 keypresses, one for the letters and one for the choice.

As I said, there would be duplicates of common letters on the keyboard such as O and E. If the word had duplicates of uncommon letters then you would have to enter it in two parts--the computer guessing the first part of the word, then you enter the second part and it guesses that too.

I think that you understimate the power of human memory. I _do_ have the patterns for all the common words memorized on the qwerty keyboard, and without consciously trying either. In ancient times people had to remember nearly everything because paper was expensive, and they would remember things like Homer's Odyssey, verse for verse. If we can speak with a 10,000 word vocabulary--each sound learned independently from how it is spelled (often before learning how to spell it)--we can surely do the same thing for a somewhat smaller vocabulary, on a keyboard.

 

[FredGarvin]

Integral and Garvin, what makes you think the computer couldn't figure out what you meant? With proper indexing it should be very quick to find the word from the letters that make it up. A Google search takes a fraction of a second, and when you consider how many pages that has to search... a word in a simple English dictionary, where each word is indexed by the letters it contains, could be accessed in virtually zero time. A program to find polo, loop, or pool from oolp would be rather simple.

The problem would not be finding the words that would contain all of the letters you hit at once. The problem lies in the context of the letters and the sequencing. Combine that with all of the differing dialects/slangs, etc... in the english language alone and I see a lot of headaches and hurdles.

Suppose you want to type a word that has 20 permutations. According to your theory, the list of applicable words that use all of the letters hit would come up. Then one would have to search through the list and find what was meant and then select it. Does that sound very efficient to you? Saving keystrokes is one thing, but time is a lot more important. The time it takes you to press "oopl" and select "pool" from the list will be a lot longer than me typing "p-o-o-l." I simply don't see any savings or benefit from using this method, especially when more effort and better returns could be gained from technologies such as speech recognition.

 

[Bartholomew]

Well, I don't think there are any words that have 20 English permutations. Most words have only one valid permutation.

Also, you'd select from the list by typing a 1, 2, 3, etc., not using the mouse. And the most common option from the list would be automatically displayed as a default so that if you just kept typing it would take the default; so for probably 95% of the words, you would not need to do any selecting.

Anyway, you wouldn't have to read the options for common words because you'd just know that option 1, 2, 3, etc. is the one you want; you'd learn to press "oolp" followed by "2" to say "pool," you'd learn to press "oolp" followed by "3" for "polo," and you'd learn just to press "oolp" for "loop."

Voice recognition: wonderful. But still a developing technology.

 

[omagdon7]

I still think you're pretty much just making up numbers unless you're a court reporter. More importantly you don't seem to understand what I am saying is while you are listening to music you are still not focused on typing it doesn't amtter if the song is familiar there is still a lag between thought and action. There has never been one scientist or author who has lamented if only I could have typed twice as fast I'd have been able to complete my work or cure cancer or what have you.

 

[Moonbear]

Not if you have to decide which word you mean. My friend has that on his cellphone and if anything it takes a lot longer and is annoying.

This is what immediately came into my mind as I read this. While on the cellphone it's still entering one letter at a time and trying to guess for me which of the three letters on the key I mean, it's irritating to get to the end of a word and find it's not at all the word I meant and then have to keep going back and scrolling through choices.

The example given doesn't quite work anyway. In "ploo" how would you type both Os simultaneously? I'd have to think ahead to what letters repeat and which don't before I could type a word? One letter at a time is how I spell, and has nothing to do with the keyboard. I see no reason to learn a new way of spelling. And how does this keyboard handle the mispellers of the world? Multiple permutations of the wrong combination of letters would be even more fun, huh? Plus, nobody has even come up with a spell check that has a comprehensive enough dictionary to handle all the words I use (technical terms are really amusing to run through spell check, BTW), so I don't envision much more rapid success in figuring out all the possible permutations of the characters I choose and it managing to get the right one. Even more to choose from the longer the word is too.

Though, it'd be fun to watch the two-finger typers try it.

 

[Bartholomew]

Omagdon:

I still think you're pretty much just making up numbers unless you're a court reporter. More importantly you don't seem to understand what I am saying is while you are listening to music you are still not focused on typing it doesn't amtter if the song is familiar there is still a lag between thought and action. There has never been one scientist or author who has lamented if only I could have typed twice as fast I'd have been able to complete my work or cure cancer or what have you.

As for the accuracy of my figures, you typed 92 words there. If you can find 5 words from those 92 which have valid permutations and for which you did _not_ use the most common permutation, then you can prove me wrong. I don't think you can do that. All I can find at a casual reading are "still"--"tills" (and you used the more common option), "able"--"bale" (and you used the more common option), "has"-"ash" (and you used the more common option), "are"--"era" (and you used the more common option) "and"--"dna" (and you used the more common option) "lag"--"gal" (ok, that's one where it's not positive whether you used the more common option or not).

So at a casual reading I only found 1 word out of your 92 where you might have had to select from a list--1 keystroke. My estimate (95%) was that there would be 4. Can you find 4 more and prove me wrong?

Just trust me when I say that I can type 100 wpm without working up a sweat, even while listening to music. When I'm typing from a manuscript I have to read; arguably more of a distraction than typing words I already know. And what do you say to the fact that those presidents who were speaking 100 wpm were reading speeches, and hence talking deliberately slowly? Why are you so quick to criticize? The site said that average talking speed is "125-150" wpm.

This would obviously only be for people who need or want to type fast. Secretaries, for example, might get a lot of use out of it, and people might use it for internet chat rooms. Scientists might not care; authors might like it. It wouldn't change anyone's life but it could be nice for a lot of people.


Moonbear:
Yes, it would require more learning, but you had to learn to use QWERTY too.

You would type both O's by pressing 2 different O keys.

As for technical words--well, it wouldn't be too hard for the keyboard makers to compile additional technical dictionaries that you could add in. And, even a scientist doesn't type THAT many technical words; the keyboard could have a switch to toggle parallel mode, so if you want to type a technical word you toggle parallel mode, type your word, and toggle it back.

There wouldn't have to be any support for misspelled words, but it probably could be set up to guess at near-permutations and suggest almost-matches if exact matches are not found.

 

[hitssquad]

Do you know what finger independence is, Bartholomew? How many of omagdon7's 92 words can you chord on a qwerty keyboard?

 

[Bartholomew]

Well, of course, many of his words contain duplicate letters so that a QWERTY keyboard is insufficient for the task (and for those that you can enter, it is not designed for it). But I just ran a test on his first sentence, and yes, I can enter all the words in that sentence in the method I described (entering duplicate letters as just 1 letter since it is after all a QWERTY keyboard). I'm not going to go through his entire post and check, but you can if you want; tell me what words you couldn't enter (if there are any) and I'll try them myself. Remember also that on a parallel keyboard, very long words could be entered in 2 parts (I've mentioned this). But there is little need for that; I just picked a fairly long word of his ("importantly") and yes, I could enter it all at once on a QWERTY keyboard, ignoring duplicate letters.

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear:
Yes, it would require more learning, but you had to learn to use QWERTY too.

But when I learned QWERTY, it was just where to put my fingers, not having to relearn to spell an entirely different way! And if you don't think there are that many technical words in a scientific paper, you probably haven't written many. If I turn spell-check back on on my word processing software, I get a lot of red squiggly lines on words that are all spelled correctly. And don't forget acronyms! Switching back and forth between modes sounds like a waste of time to me. Half the time I can't hit all the right letters typing one at a time (I use the backspace key a lot), I can't even imagine trying to hit all of them at the same time and getting them all right. Just the word "Yes" I tried this with, a simple 3-letter word, and couldn't wrap my brain around getting all three letters hit simultaneously without having to really stop and place all my fingers on those keys in order of spelling anyway.

So, how many repeats of the letters would you have on the keyboard if you type two O keys at a time for two letter Os in a word? You can only reach so many keys at a time. How would it know when I want to use a capital letter or not? If I want to put a whole word in ALL caps, will it know the difference between that and capitalizing only the first letter when I hold down the shift key?

Let's put it this way, you can design the keyboard and software, but it doesn't mean you'll ever manage to market it.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm not going to go through his entire post and check, but you can if you want; tell me what words you couldn't enter (if there are any) and I'll try them myself.

Well, I can't manage to type any of them by hitting all the keys simultaneously without a long time lag in placing my fingers on all the keys first, then pressing down on them (no faster than pressing while I'm finding them...slower actually), but since you asked, give the word "understand" a try.

 

[hitssquad]

Dyads, triads, keyboard pyrotechnics and Steve Vai

many ... words contain duplicate letters so that a QWERTY keyboard is insufficient for the task

This is a software problem. You can write a driver for any qwerty keboard that will make it do anything you want, as far as input.

I just ran a test on his first sentence, and yes, I can enter all the words in that sentence in the method I described

Can you chord the first sentence at three words per second (180 WPM)?

entering duplicate letters as just 1 letter since it is after all a QWERTY keyboard

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with standard qwerty for this scheme, as far as compatibility with words with repeated letters. The software should be able to figure it out.

tell me what words you couldn't enter

...Almost all of them. (This reminds me of a musician's credit on a Frank Zappa album - impossible guitar: Steve Vai.) You might be able to learn those chords up to dizzying speeds, but - as opposed to the flexibility and generality of normal typing - they are each specialized. You can't use very many chord to help make other chords. You are going to have to learn virtually 50,000 completely separate chords and learn how to jump from anyone of them to anyone other of them, each in one-third of a second.

On my Twiddler, on the other hand, I learn chords that make up general parts of words. I use chords for "ing" "ion" and "ed" a lot (one chord for each; I can program my Twiddler chords to each contain any number of letters or keyboard codes up to the hundreds), since those letter combinations come at the ends of many words. Even better might be to program chords for the most common letter dyads and letter triads (codebreaking books have charts of these; and short Perl scripts can be written to analyze one's own writings for dyad and triad frequencies), but I haven't looked into how well that would be to implement (as in, every time one is typing something in a system like that, he would have to be systematically deconstructing each word and matching its parts to the letter-dyads and letter-triads he happens to have memorized).

on a parallel keyboard, very long words could be entered in 2 parts

It might help if you combine this keyboard with a footpedal, to tell the computer which instant - and which instant not - to be spelling a word.

I just picked a fairly long word of his ("importantly") and yes, I could enter it all at once on a QWERTY keyboard

Can you sandwich it between two other chords (play one chord, then play "importantly", then play another chord) without looking at the keyboard? This might be hard, since "importantly" takes your fingers away from standard touch-typing home position.

 

[Bartholomew]

Moonbear, "understand" is perfectly doable. Left pinky on a, left 2nd finger on s, index and middle finger on e and r, thumb on d, right hand middle finger on t, right hand index finger on n, right hand ring finger on u.

Personally, I think that the parallel keyboard system could be learned. This could never be a mass-market product, but authors might pay a few thousand dollars for a customized, ultra-fast keyboard. Particularly if I made the product, learned it, and started out-typing Mrs. Blackburn.

For capitalizing a word, you'd just press shift as part of the letters. To put the word in all caps, you'd probably hit caps lock. For technical vocabulary, if as much is used as you say, then you would need software with a technical dictionary.

You wouldn't have to memorize each word, although you would certainly come to such a memorization; you'd develop a faculty for telling what letters are in a word, at a glance. (And people don't know 50,000 words anyway; it's more like 15,000)

"importantly" does mess up your finger positions. But I do the same thing, to a lesser extent, when typing normally; if one finger just typed something and now is in the wrong place and I need it for another letter, I'll just type the next letter with a different finger from what I normally would use. You learn to deal with it. And a true parallel keyboard would be specially constructed to minimize these contortions. Probably you would use an evolutionary computing algorithm to optimize it so that typists can cover the most common words comfortably (with information on how the average typist's fingers bend... or, hell, even making a new layout based on the capabilities of each buyer's hands), and whereas on a normal QWERTY keyboard there are 2 little bumps on f and j to tell you where the home row is, on a parallel keyboard the bumps would be more prominent and numerous, so your subconscious could get tactile feedback on exactly where your fingers are at any time. Maybe a radial pattern of raised lines that point back to the center.

As for a footpedal-perhaps, perhaps not. It would boost speeds a little bit. But the ends of words would be signified by pressing a new combination. A space bar would hardly need to be used. For typing a word like antidisestablishmentarianism, it would go something like this: press "adeiinsstt" (option pops up: antidisest, as the first option, so you don't need to do any selecting). press "abehimnt" (option pops up: antidisest-ablishment WORD END, as the first option. You don't want this, so you press 2 for antidisest-ablishment CONTINUE) Then you press "aaiinmrs" (option pops up: antidisest-ablishment-arianism WORD END) Now you just continue on to press your next word because that option is what you want, and the space is automatically placed there for you.

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear, "understand" is perfectly doable. Left pinky on a, left 2nd finger on s, index and middle finger on e and r, thumb on d, right hand middle finger on t, right hand index finger on n, right hand ring finger on u.

You either have very skinny fingers or a big keyboard, because that sure as heck cramped up my left hand. And how long did it take you to get all your fingers onto those keys? Do all of the letters in a word just instantly pop into your head when you think of a word, or do you still have to think through the letters in order to get your fingers onto the right keys? I need to think of the letters in order. If you have to pick up every finger to type in a word, then you have no reference point left to return to the home keys. Keeping your thumbs on the space bar is really important to touch typing, otherwise, you might as well do hunt and peck. And, I don't type the way you do. If my finger has just typed another letter, it goes right to the next letter if it's needed, no such thing as switching to the wrong finger, that's inefficient and means you have to look back down to the keyboard rather than touch typing.

 

[Integral]

Well, I can't manage to type any of them by hitting all the keys simultaneously without a long time lag in placing my fingers on all the keys first, then pressing down on them (no faster than pressing while I'm finding them...slower actually), but since you asked, give the word "understand" a try.

Ya see... You ned my machine, it hits all 101 keys at once, so with one stroke I can type nearly evry word in the english langue (as long as a letr only apers once!)

 

[misogynisticfeminist]

i don't think that keyboard would be particularly useful to me as I do a lot of netspeak on IM. Such as wat, rite, etc. etc. I type a lot of my mother tongue and dialect as well, when I am IMming, i type them in english.

 

[omagdon7]

If it is such a good idea and people would be interested as you suggest make one and sell it yourself. Obviously everyone here thinks it is pretty faulty or at least not ready for production but you disagree. No amount of people telling you no and you telling them sorry you're wrong will change the merits of the case. So why not just stop posting about it and go design it.

 

[Moonbear]

If it is such a good idea and people would be interested as you suggest make one and sell it yourself. Obviously everyone here thinks it is pretty faulty or at least not ready for production but you disagree. No amount of people telling you no and you telling them sorry you're wrong will change the merits of the case. So why not just stop posting about it and go design it.

There you go! It's not impossible to make from a design perspective, but now you've got some idea of the resistance you'll get from the market that like to play with new technology, so be prepared for even more resistance from the market that fears new technology. If you think it's really easy to use, and we're just not understanding that, go ahead and make it and demonstrate it. We'll watch for you on the infomercials. Perhaps you should start out inexpensively and figure out a keyboard layout that will work with this system. A simple paper template to get started practicing will give you the idea if it's feasible. Keep in mind I don't want to make my laptop any larger than it is by adding more keys to the keyboard, so the same general shape and size or smaller is desired.

 

[Bartholomew]

The keyboard would be significantly larger than usual.

Ye of little faith in the learning powers of the human mind... How did any of you ever learn to ride a bicycle? Ludicrous, that one could balance on two rolling wheels.

 

[FredGarvin]

Oh ye of too much faith in non-existant technology. I will await your results with an apology ready to go when this comes to market.

 

[Bartholomew]

Unfortunately I do not yet have the engineering capabilities to make this keyboard. Perhaps in three or four years. But the question is... why are you all so opposed to this possible new idea? Is it just because raising objections is easier than making suggestions?

 

[Moonbear]

The keyboard would be significantly larger than usual.

That would be a downside. With technology moving toward smaller and more portable, anything that increases size is not going to be seen as an advantage.

Ye of little faith in the learning powers of the human mind... How did any of you ever learn to ride a bicycle? Ludicrous, that one could balance on two rolling wheels.

Balance involves much simpler neurological processes than learning languages. The keyboard you describe would essentially require learning a new language to use it, because the way written language is currently processed by the brain would have to be dramatically changed to type all the letters in a word at once. Think of it like learning to play a piano. It's much simpler to learn to play one note at a time than it is to learn to play chords, and then to play chords with both hands. You can get reasonably proficient at typing or playing a piano one note at a time in a fairly short amount of time...a few weeks or months of practice. In the meantime, you can still use a keyboard without knowing how to touch type by using the hunt-and-peck method. On the other hand, building proficiency in playing chords on a piano can take years, and even then, most pianists need to spend a lot of time practicing individual pieces so that even with the notes in front of them, they can get all the chords right, because it's not that natural to think of all the letters or notes of a language simultaneously, but in series. Even then, when you're playing a piano, until you've truly mastered it after perhaps a decade or two of learning, you use a fairly limited number of chords (vocabulary) in music, they follow set rules based on keys. In writing, the letter combinations and vocabulary are much more extensive. It's also much harder to learn new languages once we start hitting even teenage years. You're asking a lot to expect adults to still have the adaptability to learn a new language so completely in order to use this new keyboard.

 

[brewnog]

why are you all so opposed to this possible new idea? Is it just because raising objections is easier than making suggestions?

Because most of us think it's a bad idea, and you've been unreceptive to the suggestions made!

My mum hardly ever uses a computer, but she knows that when she does eventually want to type a letter, all the keys are there, and she can press them in the same order as she would use if writing the letter with a biro. And for most of us, input speed is not a critical factor. Whether I'm writing a 10,000 word report, or chatting on MSN, I can physically type far faster than I can process what I want to type. Having to know (subconsciously or otherwise) exactly which letters I need before I've started writing a word is completely out of the question.

By all means, gain the "engineering capabilities" you require to make this keyboard and prove us wrong, I'm a sucker for being proved wrong. But after all, you posted here to ask for popular opinion...