New Keyboard Layout Project: Keyboard Version 3.11
Posted by Michael Dickens on September 7, 2009
This layout performs significantly better than any other I’ve found. But how good is it really?
Hands: 50% 49% Fingers: 7% 15% 11% 15% 18% 13% 9% 9% . l u c b q h g y , o r e s d p n t i a ' x ; w z v f k j w Fitness: 2084759 Distance: 7386.58 Inward rolls: 6.91% Outward rolls: 6.88% Same hand: 26.28% Same finger: 0.58% Row change: 12.34% Home jump: 0.14% To center: 3.50%
Distance and same finger are phenomenally low. Same hand and row changing could be better. But by all measures here, it’s very good. But is it really?
One thing that jumps out at me here is the “ing” trigraph. It is just weird. I practiced with it, though, and it’s actually not too hard. There are some strange words that loop back on themselves like “thingy” or “resurrect”, but I don’t find that to be too hard either, just strange. In fact, MTGAP 2.0 (which I am using right now) has a pretty major loop in the word “themselves”, and that’s not too hard to type.
EDIT: This layout was getting a huge performance boost. Due to a small bug, there were two ‘w’s, only one of which was getting scored. So the layout was essentially 1/30th better than any other layout without the bug. In truth, this is the best layout given the criteria:
y p u c b x l d , . i n e s f h r t a o j v ' w z k m g ; q