Gene, you really are pushing your idea, aren't you.
Any doubts? When I started to develop my project in March, 2005 on Sony Ericsson Developer World's forum it was just an idea for modification of the SE 910's flip. Now when I have combined of the two international standards: the numeric phone keypad and US keyboard layout, and added the effective system of typing that I have invented from the start (check out:
I would say that I have created a new standard of mobile computer keyboard and new category of devices: cell computer. And the key is hexagonal buttons. Any others will fail because they're artificial structures. Hexagons are found everywhere: genetics, crystals, honeycomb, chemistry. It's Nature.
It's evolution. The title of this thread "Compact QWERTY Keyboard". My task was to compact the QWERTY keyboard. And as I wrote in my recent post it has hexagonal structure. So, the Honeycomb Keyboard is just that base. No more, no less. That's why it works in the same effective way - the system of typing is the same - ten-finger use one column of three keys for each of the three fingers and two columns for the index finger, the system of typing for mobile devices use columns of 8 keys. The width of the device - 54 mm is the width of the three keys of the standard keyboard. Even the fact that the keys are easily and preferably replaced for sensor plates shows that they are not needed anymore. Only the base. The Honeycomb Keyboard.
Any doubts? When I started to develop my project in March, 2005 on Sony Ericsson Developer World's forum it was just an idea for modification of the SE 910's flip. Now when I have combined of the two international standards: the numeric phone keypad and US keyboard layout, and added the effective system of typing that I have invented from the start (check out:
I would say that I have created a new standard of mobile computer keyboard and new category of devices: cell computer. And the key is hexagonal buttons. Any others will fail because they're artificial structures. Hexagons are found everywhere: genetics, crystals, honeycomb, chemistry. It's Nature.
Your insistence almost makes me want to try out this new layout, though I have to say that I still doubt that I would find it immediately natural to use. Also how about if you combined few buttons to act as one when in phone mode, meaning all buttons in upper left corner would act as number one. Because normal phone keypad is such intuitive that when dialing numbers I never have to see the keyboard, but with your design I can see some typos happening. Also I really can't follow your logic why would shape found in nature be automatically the best possible layout. Hexagonal shape sure makes efficient use of space, but how would any other shape but arranged in same pattern be any worse? IMHO it's not the size of the button, but the feedback and pattern that makes it intuitive.
Your insistence almost makes me want to try out this new layout, though I have to say that I still doubt that I would find it immediately natural to use. Also how about if you combined few buttons to act as one when in phone mode, meaning all buttons in upper left corner would act as number one. Because normal phone keypad is such intuitive that when dialing numbers I never have to see the keyboard, but with your design I can see some typos happening.
That's why the numeric keypad must have both different color and different level of touching with the contact area of the key. The keys with numbers and symbols (the key number 5 has the nub for tactile senses as usual) are flat and that's the base for the semi-round shape of the contact area of the keys with letters so they are slightly (about 0,5 mm) higher. And that's when the keys are used - the design using sensor technologies is more preferable for the future implementations. And with sensor plates (the sensor is a small point at the center of the plate - so it's 100% proof even for thumb typing) or on the touch screen, it remains intuitive as a numeric keypad of a standard computer keyboard, for example. The middle finger is placed on 5 - the same system of entering numbers.
Quote:
Originally posted by Project2501
Also I really can't follow your logic why would shape found in nature be automatically the best possible layout. Hexagonal shape sure makes efficient use of space, but how would any other shape but arranged in same pattern be any worse? IMHO it's not the size of the button, but the feedback and pattern that makes it intuitive.
Nature chooses optimal ways. The hexagonal shape itself guides the directions of the movement of fingers. And, efficiency, of course, it gives unprecedent and *mutual* grasp of space that is very important for localization. Exactly the localization is much often omitted in the existing designs and without providing it the design can't be universal and be an *international* standard.
Comments
Originally posted by Mambo06
Gene, you really are pushing your idea, aren't you.
Any doubts? When I started to develop my project in March, 2005 on Sony Ericsson Developer World's forum it was just an idea for modification of the SE 910's flip. Now when I have combined of the two international standards: the numeric phone keypad and US keyboard layout, and added the effective system of typing that I have invented from the start (check out:
http://developer.sonyericsson.com/sh...readOnly=false
http://developer.sonyericsson.com/sh...readOnly=false
I would say that I have created a new standard of mobile computer keyboard and new category of devices: cell computer. And the key is hexagonal buttons. Any others will fail because they're artificial structures. Hexagons are found everywhere: genetics, crystals, honeycomb, chemistry. It's Nature.
Originally posted by gene_technics
Any doubts? When I started to develop my project in March, 2005 on Sony Ericsson Developer World's forum it was just an idea for modification of the SE 910's flip. Now when I have combined of the two international standards: the numeric phone keypad and US keyboard layout, and added the effective system of typing that I have invented from the start (check out:
http://developer.sonyericsson.com/sh...readOnly=false
http://developer.sonyericsson.com/sh...readOnly=false
I would say that I have created a new standard of mobile computer keyboard and new category of devices: cell computer. And the key is hexagonal buttons. Any others will fail because they're artificial structures. Hexagons are found everywhere: genetics, crystals, honeycomb, chemistry. It's Nature.
Your insistence almost makes me want to try out this new layout, though I have to say that I still doubt that I would find it immediately natural to use. Also how about if you combined few buttons to act as one when in phone mode, meaning all buttons in upper left corner would act as number one. Because normal phone keypad is such intuitive that when dialing numbers I never have to see the keyboard, but with your design I can see some typos happening. Also I really can't follow your logic why would shape found in nature be automatically the best possible layout. Hexagonal shape sure makes efficient use of space, but how would any other shape but arranged in same pattern be any worse? IMHO it's not the size of the button, but the feedback and pattern that makes it intuitive.
Originally posted by Project2501
Your insistence almost makes me want to try out this new layout, though I have to say that I still doubt that I would find it immediately natural to use. Also how about if you combined few buttons to act as one when in phone mode, meaning all buttons in upper left corner would act as number one. Because normal phone keypad is such intuitive that when dialing numbers I never have to see the keyboard, but with your design I can see some typos happening.
That's why the numeric keypad must have both different color and different level of touching with the contact area of the key. The keys with numbers and symbols (the key number 5 has the nub for tactile senses as usual) are flat and that's the base for the semi-round shape of the contact area of the keys with letters so they are slightly (about 0,5 mm) higher. And that's when the keys are used - the design using sensor technologies is more preferable for the future implementations. And with sensor plates (the sensor is a small point at the center of the plate - so it's 100% proof even for thumb typing) or on the touch screen, it remains intuitive as a numeric keypad of a standard computer keyboard, for example. The middle finger is placed on 5 - the same system of entering numbers.
Originally posted by Project2501
Also I really can't follow your logic why would shape found in nature be automatically the best possible layout. Hexagonal shape sure makes efficient use of space, but how would any other shape but arranged in same pattern be any worse? IMHO it's not the size of the button, but the feedback and pattern that makes it intuitive.
Nature chooses optimal ways. The hexagonal shape itself guides the directions of the movement of fingers. And, efficiency, of course, it gives unprecedent and *mutual* grasp of space that is very important for localization. Exactly the localization is much often omitted in the existing designs and without providing it the design can't be universal and be an *international* standard.
*mutual* grasp of space
It's like in a DNA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Overview
(the sensor is a small point at the center of the plate - so it's 100% proof even for thumb typing)
I feel like David Copperfield: the keyboard is disappearing. Now it's a real *breaking through the sound barrier*. The Cell Computer.