This Keyboard Lets People Type So Fast It's Banned From Typing Competitions (vice.com) 123
The CharaChorder is a new kind of typing peripheral that promises to let people type at superhuman speeds. From a report: It's so fast that the website Monkeytype, which lets users participate in typing challenges and maintains its own leaderboard, automatically flagged CharaChorder's CEO as a cheater when he attempted to post his 500 WPM score on the its leaderboards. It's a strange looking device, the kind of thing Keanu Reeves would interface with in Johnny Mnemonic. Your palms rest on two black divots out of which rise nine different finger sized joysticks. These 18 sticks move in every direction and, its website claims, can hit every button you need on a regular keyboard. "CharaChorder switches detect motion in 3 dimensions so users have access to over 300 unique inputs without their fingers breaking contact with the device," it said. Users input words and commands by clicking the switches in different directions. CharaCorder claims that, once a user learns how to type with the machine, they can achieve speeds impossible on a QWERTY keyboard. Most people type around 40 words per minute (WPM) with skilled typists hitting upwards of 100 WPM. Competition typers can break into the 200 WPM. Riley Keen, CharaChorder's CEO, is posting TikToks where he's hitting speeds above 500 WPM.
Not sure that's the bottleneck here ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a really cool device to be sure. But it doesn't address the true bottleneck involved with typing.
Re:Not sure that's the bottleneck here ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can type something that I've practiced quite fast, approaching 100 wpm. But composing an email, particularly one on a difficult or sensitive topic, that needs to be carefully worded is a slow, slow process. Same goes for coding - typing fast does not equate to thinking fast.
This is a really cool device to be sure. But it doesn't address the true bottleneck involved with typing.
Agreed, there's very few instances in which I've found typing speed to be a bottleneck.
That being said, I can see the appeal to just resting my hands on the keyboard and wiggling my fingers to type.
My biggest concern would be the learning curve. Even now I need to occasionally glance down to see the location of a rarely used key, I'm curious why the posted pictures lack key labels for the different directions.
Re:Not sure that's the bottleneck here ... (Score:5, Funny)
My biggest concern would be the learning curve.
Meh. It doesn't look much more difficult to type on than learning to play the accordion (for example). Anybody should be able to pick it up with a couple of years practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
You got me to look at the AC, but this is one of the rare cases where I didn't resent it, but only wonder why the AC didn't want to put a handle on a sensible comment.
There is actually some evidence that speaking speed is correlated to thinking speed. From that perspective, even if your thoughts are interfacing completely smoothly (and without more thought overhead) with your fingers, then the speeds of this keyboard are overkill. You probably can't formulate your thoughts that fast, and there are very few
Re:Not sure that's the bottleneck here ... (Score:4, Funny)
"There is actually some evidence that speaking speed is correlated to thinking speed"
I'll think you'll find more correlation between speaking speed and _not-thinking_ speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neuralink will be here soon.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. What they have demonstrated isn't particularly impressive, nothing really new. A long way from what they were promising. I'd be amazed if it ever comes to market.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a kind of "furiously push all buttons and the program inside that keyboard will arrange the letters for you" (chorded entry).
If chorded entry can be selected, this is most certainly "cheating" in typing contests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Typing speed for me isn't too much of an issue as well. For me is more of forming my thoughts and trying to spell the words correctly (or at least correctly enough for the spell check to find the correct word). My typing speed is still faster than any of my other forms of expressing myself, including speaking. As if I were to talk at the speed that i type I would probably end up mumbling. Also with "Modern" typing systems, you can go back an rephrase a statement if you need, especially if you realize
Re: Not sure that's particularly innovative ... (Score:3)
Doug Engelbart's 1969 "mother of all demos" included presentations on input devices [youtube.com], which he invented: the mouse, and a "chordal keyboard" that allowed the user to type at superhuman speed.
The mouse, obviously, caught on. The chordal keyboard? Not so much.
I'll leave enumerating the reasons for its failure as an excercise for the reader. (Hint: they're the same reasons the CharaChorder will also fail - miserably ...)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC there were also some chorded typewriters in the late 19th century, they didn't catch on then either.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't typing. It's more like stenography. They aren't the same thing.
It's like comparing bicycle racing with motorcycle racing and whining about why the dirt-bike guy cant post his speed on the bicycle leaderboard. This device basically uses macro-like features and predictive text. It's neat, but it's not typing.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's like comparing a traditional bike with a recumbent bike (which are banned in bicycle competitions).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't typing. It's more like stenography. They aren't the same thing.
That was my thought also. Stenographers can reach over 300 wpm, but they are really only used in certain specific situations and require specialized training.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My own typing speed is very limiting when I am working on my novel(s). I think much faster than I am able to type, and I have been contemplating hiring someone to type as fast as words come to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Vanilla Gorilla (Score:2)
The 30 seconds from 3:10 - 3:40 in this video (https://youtu.be/r_0JjYUe5jo?t=190 [youtu.be]) of Eminem's Godzilla is 225 words in 30 seconds so he could have typed it up in real-time!
Re: Not sure that's the bottleneck here ... (Score:2)
Dvorak's advantages (for English text, at least) are overrated. Dvorak typing tends to involve a lot of same-hand keystrokes, including sequential strokes for different letters made by the same hand.
QWERTY, by comprison, is more left-right balanced (not perfectly, but way better than Dvorak), and rarely involves two different sequential characters from the same finger. That was actually one of its explicit design goals... avoiding the side-by-side placement of strike arms for characters likely to be typed,
Re: (Score:2)
That really depends on what you're doing. If you're trying to keep up with, say, a court case, or political debate, or whatnot, then it's quite useful to type faster than the people you're recording are speaking.
One use might be recording one's every thought, which for some people come faster than speaking. That's rare, and I only know one such case, but it's an interesting one: German philosopher Edmund Husserl (died 1938). The guy thought extremely fast, and most of it was original to the point of having influenced a number of fields in European thought since. He used a stenotype to keep up with his flow of ideas, putting almost everything into paper as it came, about 40,000 pages in total -- which, him having be
Re: Not sure that's the bottleneck here ... (Score:2)
Ack. I hate it. (Score:5, Funny)
The last thing the internet needs is to shorten the timeframe from thought to post. Too many people are glacially slow at self-monitoring as it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Came here to post this. But you beat me to it. Must be the new keyboard.
Clickbait headline (Score:5, Insightful)
This Keyboard Lets People Type So Fast It's Banned From Typing Competitions
Via an automated algorithm... This keyboard is not banned. Its users are and the algorithm isn't getting modified to accommodate it. Kind of irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that the CharaChorder interprets characters and corrects or shortcuts to words without the direct input of the typist, I would assume that it would be banned just as using swype entry methods would be banned from typing competitions. You aren't actually typing, you are entering data but using a completely different mechanism.
Definitely a cool idea, but I expect it to have limited impact on the market as the keyboard itself is not truly a limitation on productivity except for (perhaps) transcription or
Re: (Score:2)
just as using swype entry methods would be banned from typing competitions.
They'd probably never even think to bother, since they're so much slower than typing.
Re: Clickbait headline (Score:2)
Does it autocorrect? If so, is there a non-autocorrect mode and whatâ(TM)s the speed of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this is another Slashvertisement.
Typing speed has pretty much never been a limiting factor in my work (or even when I'm off work). But the guys who like to post the swastika ASCII art here probably wet themselves when they saw the title...
Not for me ... (Score:2)
I can't spell nearly that fast.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet u could spel neraly tha fast if u try hardr and focuz moron spede.
Re: (Score:2)
Just press all the keys on the keyboard. I think this is how this stupid invention works.
Is this a sponsored post? (Score:2)
Competitions should have standards (Score:2)
Officially recognized marathons are run on certified courses. Elite-level typing competitions should be done in certified environments as well.
That said, a specific competition for people using specific non-traditional keyboards would be interesting.
Here's a thought:
Steve Woodmore could talk at over 600 words a minute [sciencefocus.com]. Could a computer transcribe him talking that fast? Could a robot built to mimic human hands type what Woodmore is saying at 600+ WPM on a standard QWERTY keyboard? Would that be cheating?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Competitions should have standards (Score:2)
We could invent a new language that enables fast talking and better speech recognition. That would enable the fastest possible way to communicate arbitrary ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
The hardest problem is where to draw the line between common phrases, idioms and complete citations. Most would agree that it's acceptable for such a language to have shorthand for common phrases such as "most would agree". People might draw the line at "speech 523" resulting in The Gettysburg Address showing up at the other end. Being able to say "All of Wikipedia" should definitely not be allowed.
QWERTY was never about speed. (Score:2, Informative)
Comparing anything to the 'speed' of QWERTY is kind of pointless, because speed was never a consideration in that keyboard design.
There are plenty of much faster keyboard layouts out there that work on a standard keyboard.
This torture device is cool, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Comparing anything to the 'speed' of QWERTY is kind of pointless, because speed was never a consideration in that keyboard design.
That's one of the most famous urban myths to infect nerdbrains. Especially those of us older than wikipedia. In the 90s if you did a web search, it would be dominated by people repeating the myth on their blog or geocities homepage, making it seem Truthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's mostly correct. Speed wasn't a big consideration. The whole idea behind QWERTY was to reduce jamming on a mechanical typewriter, speed was a side effect. One of the ways they reduced jamming is by placing commonly used letters far apart which forces the typist to alternate hands, and alteration like that actually is a good thing when it comes to typing speed which is why QWERTY isn't a complete disaster as computer keyboard layouts go.
Still, the QWERTY layout is a bit bonkers when it comes
Re: (Score:2)
My god, you still haven't looked it up
Fucking moron, you're repeating the urban myth, thinking that you're informing somebody who just told you it was an urban myth!
You have to be exceptionally stupid to not look it up first in that circumstance.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually speed *WAS* a consideration in that keyboard design.
In particular, they wanted to slow typists down as much as possible so that keys would be less inclined to jam.
The problem is that nearly everybody learned on a qwerty keyboard and adapting to a different one drops productivity levels to below levels that are acceptable for far too long. The keyboard arrangement sucks, but it at least gets the job done if that's what you already know.
Re:QWERTY was never about speed. (Score:5, Informative)
This is a myth that the Wikipedia page specifically addresses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Contrary to popular belief, the QWERTY layout was not designed to slow the typist down,[2]:162 but rather to speed up typing. Indeed, there is evidence that, aside from the issue of jamming, placing often-used keys farther apart increases typing speed, because it encourages alternation between the hands.[11] (On the other hand, in the German keyboard the Z has been moved between the T and the U to help type the frequent digraphs TZ and ZU in that language.) Almost every word in the English language contains at least one vowel letter, but on the QWERTY keyboard only the vowel letter "A" is on the home row, which requires the typist's fingers to leave the home row for most words."
Re: (Score:2)
Not directly no.... as the article correctly points out, the design of the qwerty keyboard was to minimize jams with the most frequently used letters.
At most I suppose you could say that slowing typists down might have been an originally unintended consequence of the design in its earliest stages... but long before it was finalized, it was still very much an entirely *expected* outcome, even if it was not necessarily directly intended. And beng expected, it's hard to argue that it was not a factor of
Re: (Score:2)
The two are not mutually exclusive. By reducing the number of jams by slowing the typist down you actually increase the output of the typist. That is what the QWERTY layout achieves.
For example if typing at a theoretical speed of 100 words per minute you end up getting a jam on your mechanical typewriter ever 30 seconds that takes 5 seconds to clear you end up with a realized typing speed of only ~85 words per minute. However if by slowing you down to 90 words per minute you eliminate jams so they only occu
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't reduce the number of jams by slowing the typist down. It does so by putting letters side by side on the keyboard that aren't commonly side by side in words. I've typed on an actual typewriter before. The issue isn't speed. The issue is that if you hit two letters that are side by side the hammers can get mixed up. Qwerty makes that less common.
Re:QWERTY was never about speed. (Score:5, Informative)
Comparing anything to the 'speed' of QWERTY is kind of pointless, because speed was never a consideration in that keyboard design.
On the contrary, the QWERTY keyboard was designed to speed up typing [wikipedia.org]; however, that optimization was for mechanical keys with often used keys spaced apart to reduce jams. In terms of performance, the QWERTY keyboard is not the gold standard of typing speed, rather, it is the most used keyboard design that users know and have.
Re: (Score:2)
Old wives tale.
Re: (Score:3)
500 wpm on a single sentence? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the device I imagine there would be a lot of typos where characters are entered out if order. The website is painfully bad but it seems that there is some autocorrect going on. Maybe okay for emails, but not for coding.
I do not nor have I ever had (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
500 WPM ?!? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Back in the day, if I tightened my arm muscles just right, I could send sequences of dits insanely fast on my not-too-fancy straight key, using my wrist for the dahs. I could maintain 30wpm but not for more than a few minutes before my arm got tired. Receiving at that speed, I could really only copy the QSO details, not really converse.
reminds me of the Dvorak craze (Score:2)
Sorry, QWERTY will be around for a long time. You can already get Dvorak keyboards [dvorak-keyboard.com] which promise a leap in productivity too. I've even seen a few software developers try and work with them but they usually wind up in the trash.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy dvorak keyboards but I do use the dvorak keymap on my qwerty keys. Dovrak is pointless if you have to actually look at the keys, since the optimization is that you have to leave the home row less.
I don't know if it is any faster, but broadly speaking I think it's more comfortable to use than qwerty.
Re: (Score:2)
Virtucon noted:
You can already get Dvorak keyboards [dvorak-keyboard.com] which promise a leap in productivity too. I've even seen a few software developers try and work with them but they usually wind up in the trash.
Apropos of nothing, guess who uses a Dvorak keyboard?
John Dvorak. Honest to Pete ...
Re:reminds me of the Dvorak craze (Score:5, Interesting)
I taught myself how to type on a Dvorak keyboard about 20 years ago. Windows has long offered a Dvorak layout. Since I touch-type, I never cared about the key caps. My goal was to see if I could indeed type faster using Dvorak. After several years of perfecting my Dvorak skills, I ended up dropping it because, in fact, my Dvorak speed never exceeded my QWERTY speed, about 90 wpm. I found that it wasn't the mechanics that capped my speed, but getting the message from my brain to my fingers that was the bottleneck. Honestly, I didn't find Dvorak to be any less tiring than QWERTY. So theoretically it could have been faster, but in practice it didn't work out for me.
I suspect this new gizmo would be similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Actual hardware Dvorak keyboards are really rare, since you can remap your layout in software. Usually if you want to type with Dvorak, you just change the layout in the OS, and instantly you have Dvorak keyboard. Of course, the labels on the keycaps will be (mostly) wrong. There are a few solutions to that, including living with it (touch typing), using stickers to relabel the keys, or if your keyboard is built for it - popping off the keycaps and rearranging them.
I have seen some hardware Dvorak keyboa
Product creator identified (Score:2)
Re: Product creator identified (Score:2)
This is actually very good if one has RSI/CTS in the wrists.
I had used a similar "contraption" 10 years back and the learning curve is way easier than what it seems. It gets into your muscle memory, you dont really have to think which way to move your finger for a certain character.
While my RSI did go away with it, I stopped using it few years later when i realized rsi is pretty much a symptom of other work life problems and making it easier to talk more n more to a computer is not the solution.
Definitely feeling the age (Score:3)
I scanned down, looking for the guy who wrote, 'You know, this is about a vanished profession, where dictated or hand-written material would be transcribed by a full-time "typist", who did nothing but type, and speed was all-important." (Really large offices would have the separate "100 WPM typing pool", you could call upon for fast results; they were paid more.)
But, wow, I'm the first to mention it. Slashdot is getting some younger readers these days.
But, yes, you're all right - since nobody hand-writes or dictates (I think that Dragon thing has died, certainly my lawyer-brother gave up upon it) any more, nobody needs to type faster than they think up their own material.
What is this, Buzzfeed? (Score:2)
We can see but not stop (Score:2)
Try it without autocorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
From watching their video, it's blatantly obvious that most of its speed comes from using autocorrect and shortcuts for entire words. Their site is light on specific details, but my guess is that the 'chording' part includes something like Gregg shorthand, combined with Swype-like autocorrect, in addition to chord combos for discrete letters.
Show me a video of someone using the keyboard in a text editor to enter C++ or Java at any rate faster than someone who can type 100wpm+ on QWERTY. It's an acid test that shows just how well the system can deal with things that DON'T autocorrect well (and in fact, for which autocorrect would usually be an outright handicap that annoyed you & did more harm than good).
That said, now that the patents have finally expired, I'd dearly love to see Windows optionally allow any keyboard to be used in Mattias HalfKeyboard mode. For someone who often uses software that involves using a mouse and keyboard, it's really handy to be able to type with your left hand, and mouse with your right (or vice-versa). Not handy enough to justify the historic cost of a Mattias HalfKeyboard (whose pricing seems to have been set with reimbursements from insurance & government rehab agencies in mind, vs individual consumers), but still very cool. There's really no reason a modern keyboard with n-key rollover couldn't enable it via OS software on an entirely adhoc basis.
But, getting back to this keyboard, I seriously doubt whether even someone who's mastered it could type completely random text (manually corrected or penalized for errors) significantly faster than someone who's a member of the "qwerty120+" club. At least, if you include non-alphanumeric characters, but use only characters that can be directly typed with at most shift + 1 other key on a US 101-104 key QWERTY keyboard. Now, if Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Cyrillic, Greek, Sanskrit, etc is involved, that equation might change... but within the realm of "Java or C++, as generally used by someone whose native language is English", QWERTY really isn't much of a drawback... partly, because C++ and Java were themselves defined and constrained by the capabilities of US-QWERTY keyboards. A language that required the use of characters that were awkward to type would have landed like a lead balloon (Mythbusters notwithstanding).
Also, each finger might theoretically have 4-way motion, but there's no way in hell 99.997% of the human race has the manual dexterity to independently move 9 fingers in precise, coordinated directions... even SLOWLY. Our nervous systems just don't have the control bandwidth. Go ahead, try it. Roll a 4-sided d4 die, record 4 values, then assigning them to N/E/S/W directions, try to replicate those 4 directions with the fingers on either hand purely by volitional finger motion. Now do it on all 4 fingers simultaneously. Now try fingering 3 such sequential gestures in a row. I think you'll see the problem. If you were lucky, it would take months of training to gain the ability to perform 256 possible 4-finger gestures via muscle memory... IF you could do it at all. It sounds good in theory, but almost nobody has (or can necessarily even acquire) that degree of manual dexterity. At least, not as an adult whose fingers have always mostly worked in unison to grip things. Neuroplasticity exists, but expecting an adult to acquire full subconscious 4x4-way finger control muscle memory is just asking for way too much.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were lucky, it would take months of training to gain the ability to perform 256 possible 4-finger gestures via muscle memory... IF you could do it at all. It sounds good in theory, but almost nobody has (or can necessarily even acquire) that degree of manual dexterity. At least, not as an adult whose fingers have always mostly worked in unison to grip things.
I would go much further than that. Attempting to perform those 256 possible gestures for very long probably results in debilitating repetitive stress injuries in short order. There's a reason that keyboards exist as rows of buttons which are pushed down. The human hand has been optimized for gripping. All of the muscles and joints align optimally to close the fingers toward the palm. Rows of buttons designed to be pushed cater to that bias perfectly. Pushing and shoving the fingertips in odd direction
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that Mattias half keyboard is ridiculously overpriced, especially for a rubber dome keyboard. I have a ZSA Moonlander which is a columnar split keyboard. The right side completely detaches. So I could use QMK through Oryx and configure the exact same thing as the half key Mattias. And my keyboard has two halves when I want them and cost $230 less than the Mattias. It also has mechanical switches and can be configured on board for any layout imaginable, no drivers required. Yay, open source.
Looks like autocomplete (Score:2)
The company's own page makes it look both neat and also a horror show, simultaneously. It looks like someone types "helo eth" and it gets changed to "hello there." That sounds great for messaging or email, where it would probably fuck the user up the least (though still probably needs to be counter-corrected several times a day). But Yog-Sothoth help you, if your computer program uses funny variable names.
Re:Looks like autoCORRECT (Score:2)
Err, autocorrect. I'm sure someone will correct me, but why can't that person be me?
Court Reporter and stenograph (Score:5, Interesting)
it relies on an autocomplete-like feature (Score:2)
To make it abundantly clear that this isn't a normal keyboard and it's doing something similar to the "word autocomplete" feature in order to get its speed, here's a quote from the website:
Type individual characters like a keyboard or press all the letters in a word simultaneously and CharaChorder's internal processor will automatically arrange them on your screen in real time.
Which begs the question of whether you can type in random characters such as for numbers, passwords, error codes, etc. at the advertised uber speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Very old idea (Score:2)
Must be 30 years ago or so when I saw the ball-idea and this one and it was not new at that time. Never caught on. There is a reason for that. One is that typing is not actually a bottleneck for most computer-related things. Another is that it takes a major effort to even learn how to use that thing.
Yes but can you use it with VIM? Does it have Esc? (Score:2)
Seriously, though, this sort of input device only really works for certain kinds of typing where you're primarily composing prose. For programming, this would be rather useless, unless perhaps combined with Visual Studio Code's automatic AI code plagiarizer.
Years ago I taught myself the Dvorak layout and I got pretty fast with it, but I ultimately stopped because programming and using symbols along with VIM editing commands was very painful.
BS.. (Score:2)
Slashvvertisement (Score:2)
This is clearly a PR stunt by some startup that wants to make a buck.
Impractical? (Score:2)
How does one design a Laptop with this monstrosity?
Nice idea; but definitely something my Engineering boss would call a "Lab Queen".
My prediction: This is the first and last time we will ever hear anything about this input device.
Having said that, it seems like it would work well for languages with an insane number of characters/ideograms.
They mention gaming... (Score:2)
If this really is an innovative product, then pro gaming will be its acid test (and they mention it in passing in their catch-all marketing). If their blather about 3-d motion inputs is right, then gamers might actually spend the time to learn this system. However I think this is all vaporware, not designed for how human beings actually operate. Also a '3-d' switch is presumably less durable and less precise than a 1-d mechanical switch. Errors matter quite a lot in gaming when they are using upwards of
It's a Chording Device (Score:2)
They been around since forever. Lazy Game Reviews [youtube.com] just did a review of one, altho his is terrible at high speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it was a datahand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:sounds great (Score:5, Insightful)
this tech should be embedded into smart phone keyboards
"Smart" phone keyboards have predictive typing which is a shtifest unto itself. Type the letter 't' and you could get "the", "today", "tomorrow", or "tiny" when you're really trying to type Tim. Each word bubble causes you to lose your focus because now you have to decide if any of the predictive words are the ones you want. Type a second letter and the words change again so more lost time.
You are better off just typing what you mean rather than relying on a computer to think it knows better than you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It probably will be once cell phones exceed 500 folds.
But only origami experts will be able to activate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the phone keyboard I use, "MessageEase", essentially a grid of nine most used letters, swipe from them to get less used. Much faster/easier to see than qwerty (and I date from the era of typing classes in high school touch-typing on typewriters).
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the phone keyboard I use, "MessageEase"
I loved that one back in Palm days. I was so proficient with it I annotated the classes I took in college with it on mine (Zire at first, then Tugsten E). It was a godsend with a stylus, but not so much via touch. I tried it a few times on Android, but it always feels cumbersome compared to a more traditional soft keyboard, my go to currently being Microsoft's SwiftKey.
Do you use a styles with your phone, or have you actually gotten used to touch-sliding?
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the phone keyboard I use, "MessageEase"
I loved that one back in Palm days. I was so proficient with it I annotated the classes I took in college with it on mine (Zire at first, then Tugsten E). It was a godsend with a stylus, but not so much via touch. I tried it a few times on Android, but it always feels cumbersome compared to a more traditional soft keyboard, my go to currently being Microsoft's SwiftKey.
Do you use a styles with your phone, or have you actually gotten used to touch-sliding?
The Palms were really great PDAs. I started with the PalmPilot and ended with one of the Tungsten’s, along with various Treos. Graffiti was fast enough with a little practice and didn’t require looking at the input area. To bad Plam didn’t keep innovating
Re: sounds great (Score:2)
I personally use PalmSource Graffiti with Android. In fact, I'm using it right now to post this. Unfortunately, the aggressive power/core-management used by recent Android phones fucks it up badly.
On my old Galaxy S3 with 10,000mAh extended battery and AOSP ROM with 'performance' governor (basically, running full-speed whenever the screen was on), it was absolutely smooth as glass.
With a Nexus 6P (and my later LG V20), it was a never-ending fight with the governor to keep Android from trying to throttle do
Re: Just a plug for product. (Score:2)
It does not look like any sort of autocorrect is involved.
Re: (Score:2)
How else would chords work?
Re: Just a plug for product. (Score:2)
You can press multiple buttons simultaneously to get a one or two character combination but it doesnâ(TM)t mean if you press it incorrectly or misspell a word you get corrected. That is what my understanding of what chord means.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, and how does it handle words that have the same characters in different order?
If I press the C A and T keys at the same time, does it interpret that as cat or act?
There has to be some kind of predictive code in it to work out context, which means it will shape what you can write based on these rules.
Re: (Score:2)