Re: A product design project

Morse was always a personal favorite and I have been playing around
with it through my own ham experience some 10 years ago. It's
interesting to think about improving the old model for a full-featured
keyboard.

SMS has evolved in a similar fashion once people realized how costly
long words are (speed and tariffs) - but these shortcuts are also
demonstrating the fact that it is not as effective as a full keyboard.

Language and "intelligent" systems are something I would rather avoid.
Dictionaries and countless other issues must be addressed, and as a
person who uses two main character sets I am very sensitive to the
subject. The links you provided are very interesting. I didn't
consider other languages and it opened my eyes a bit.

I will bear this in mind it through the rest of our journey.
Thank you!


--- In [email protected], Marcus Brooks <marcus@...> wrote:
>
> The idea of word- or phoneme- based entry seems to escalate the
issue of 
> learning resistance. Consider phonetic court recorders, which have been 
> around for a long time, and, as I understand it, are extremely
efficient 
> phonetic-based text entry systems. You would think they'd be in 
> widespread use outside of courtrooms, but they aren't. As for
word-based 
> systems, have you ever seen a Chinese typewriter?
> http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/chinlng2.html
> or, for a description of computer-based entry:
> http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_177.html
> 
> A drawback to more "intelligent" word-based systems is word choice. 
> Anybody who uses Microsoft Word probably has seen their words 
> "corrected" as they type. This can seriously inhibit your word
choice if 
> you want to use a  brand name, technical term, or other word that the 
> program doesn't understand. If the entry system itself is phoneme-based 
> (that is, more rigidly than the alphabet is), I see no way to go back, 
> when the system guesses the wrong homonym, and force it to use the word 
> you want.
> 
> A rash person might suggest enforcing an artificial language that 
> accommodates the vagaries of text entry. Try it. I gather the French 
> can't even enforce French.
> 
> As for the ergonomics of Morse, remember that old-fashioned telegraph 
> keys are indeed old-fashioned. Serious Morse practitioners use a
paddle: 
> pressing one side causes a stream of dahs to be emitted, pressing the 
> other side issues a stream of dits. The action alternates from left to 
> right and back. If you implement this using two keys on a cell phone, 
> for instance, (or maybe a rocker) you could eliminate multiple 
> same-finger keypresses entirely. One drawback is that you should have 
> audio feedback, although you might implement some sort of tactile 
> feedback (perhaps the key would "kick back" gently for each dit or dah 
> emitted).
> 
> Morse isn't all that slow, either. For practiced operators (those who 
> have learned not to think about it), laid-back morse-code sending
speeds 
> seem to run in the 25-30 WPM range (as I recall). Much faster rates are 
> not uncommon within this (admittedly small, nowadays) group. Even I 
> (with an old straight key) can send Morse faster than I can enter
SMS text.
> 
> Further efficiency is gained through the use of "Prosigns" and "Q 
> signs." These are brief two- and three-letter codes that represent 
> common phrases like "end of message" (BT, run together), "send more 
> slowly" (QRS), or "increase power" (QRO). There are also many accepted 
> abbreviations, like "TNX" for thanks, "XYL" for wife, "73" for best 
> wishes, etc. The code set is commonly known and rich enough to allow 
> regular communication between operators who don't speak the same 
> language. For same-language speakers, the newer IM abbreviations like 
> LOL and whatnot would be just as effective in Morse. (Sorry, no
smileys! 
> The equivalent is HI, didididit-didit.) In practice, Morse goes farther 
> than simple word-based entry by abbreviating common phrases, and one
can 
> always fall back to alphabetic entry when necessary.
> 
> The main advantage of Morse over a standard cell-phone keypad is that 
> you don't have to look at the keys. This could also be true of your 
> four-key system, perhaps, although it might not fit comfortably on a 
> small cell phone. Of course, four to eight-key (more or less) chording 
> systems have been tried several times (including, I believe, those
court 
> recorders), but they seem to require a bit more coordination than is 
> common. At least, the idea always seemed more daunting to me than 
> finding room for a full keyboard.
> 
> ("Full keyboard," BTW, once meant a keyboard that had a full set of
both 
> upper- and lower-case characters. The Shift key had to be invented. In 
> that sense, I guess ordinary keyboards _are_ chorded.)
> 
> Unless one learns a multi-stroke code or a chorded system, I don't see 
> much difference between a low-count multi-key system and the current 
> 8-key cell phone text entry. In a sense, the current keypad system _is_ 
> a multi-character code: A=2, B=22, C=222, D=3, E=33, etc.
> 
> Marcus
> 
> matzkelon wrote:
> > I agree about morse being intriguing and fun to work with, but the
> > concept of efficiency is not addressed by it. If anything - sequences
> > should symbolize words or phonemes, not single letters. 3 or 5 key
> > presses are hell as far as RSI is concerned, and is pretty slow even
> > if you do it fast. Quikwriting is an example of what I mean. In
> > quikwriting a single stroke denotes a word, not a single letter and is
> > easier to perform and remember (even though it is stylus based, it
> > should not be ignored).
> >
> > However, the concept of morse should be considered. maybe a sequence
> > of lets say 9 keys could denote words and letters. Imagine the PS
> > controller's 4 keys. instead of . and - performed through short and
> > long presses you could have a set of 4 shapes (triangle, square,
> > circle, .... X) with no dependency of keypress length. The sequences
> > could be much more advanced this way.
> >
> > As a final word, I'd say there are good alternative methods for typing
> > which should be considered first - but I do not reject the idea of
> > thinking up new ones.
> >
> > Thank you for being an active partner. I hope to get more responses
> > from other people as well soon.
> >
> > -Eyal (dum, dee, dum) :)
> >
> > --- In [email protected], Marcus Brooks <marcus@> wrote:
> >   
> >> Something that you may not have considered is Morse code. This would
> >>
>