Tag added, in the hope you are looking for a PIC solution.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012, at 12:27 PM, John Westerlage wrote: {Quote hidden}
>
>
> I'm trying to avoid re-inventing the wheel.
>
>
> What I need to do is come up with the code to convert a "Standard"
> 101-105 QWERTY keyboard's output to DVORAK output.
>
>
> I know I can purchase a hardwired DVORAK keyboard, but it gets
> cumbersome to haul a KB around from site to site.
>
>
> The plan is to come up with a circuit and code that will allow me to
> plug in a USB Keyboard and that will plug in to a computer USB port.
>
>
> I envision putting the circuit in a small box that I can slip into a
> shirt pocket when going to another site. The only connections this box
> should have are the 2 USB connectors to the KB and the PC.
>
>
> Many hours searching the Internet for previous designs would probably
> have been better spent starting to do the design myself, but that's
> water under the bridge.
>
>
> So, can anyone point me to an existing (partial or complete) design that
> would meet these objectives?
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any help,
>
>
> john, N5DWI
> Tag added, in the hope you are looking for a PIC solution.
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012, at 12:27 PM, John Westerlage wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm trying to avoid re-inventing the wheel.
> >
> >
> > What I need to do is come up with the code to convert a "Standard"
> > 101-105 QWERTY keyboard's output to DVORAK output.
> >
> >
> > I know I can purchase a hardwired DVORAK keyboard, but it gets
> > cumbersome to haul a KB around from site to site.
> >
> >
> > The plan is to come up with a circuit and code that will allow me to
> > plug in a USB Keyboard and that will plug in to a computer USB port.
> >
> >
> > I envision putting the circuit in a small box that I can slip into a
> > shirt pocket when going to another site. The only connections this box
> > should have are the 2 USB connectors to the KB and the PC.
> >
> >
> > Many hours searching the Internet for previous designs would probably
> > have been better spent starting to do the design myself, but that's
> > water under the bridge.
> >
> >
> > So, can anyone point me to an existing (partial or complete) design that
> > would meet these objectives?
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any help,
> >
> >
> > john, N5DWI
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
> or over the web
At 01:38 PM 6/13/2012, Bob Blick wrote:
>Tag added, in the hope you are looking for a PIC solution.
>
>On Wed, Jun 13, 2012, at 12:27 PM, John Westerlage wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to avoid re-inventing the wheel.
> >
> > What I need to do is come up with the code to convert a "Standard"
> > 101-105 QWERTY keyboard's output to DVORAK output.
Can I suggest a possibly easier alternative?
Start with a standard PS2 keyboard. Build your PIC device to be PS2 both input and output. Then use an off-the-shelf PS2 to USB adapter.
I know that I've seen PIC code for working with PS2 keyboards - there may even exist a QWERTY to Dvorak program out there waiting for you to grab..
By avoiding the whole USB thing, you save yourself much grief and time.
> At 01:38 PM 6/13/2012, Bob Blick wrote:
> >Tag added, in the hope you are looking for a PIC solution.
> >
> >On Wed, Jun 13, 2012, at 12:27 PM, John Westerlage wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm trying to avoid re-inventing the wheel.
> > >
> > > What I need to do is come up with the code to convert a "Standard"
> > > 101-105 QWERTY keyboard's output to DVORAK output.
>
> Can I suggest a possibly easier alternative?
>
> Start with a standard PS2 keyboard. Build your PIC device to be PS2
> both input and output. Then use an off-the-shelf PS2 to USB adapter.
>
> I know that I've seen PIC code for working with PS2 keyboards - there
> may even exist a QWERTY to Dvorak program out there waiting for you to
> grab.
>
> By avoiding the whole USB thing, you save yourself much grief and time.
>
> dwayne
>
> --
> Dwayne Reid <dwaynerKILLspamplanet.eon.net>
> Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd Edmonton, AB, CANADA
> (780) 489-3199 voice (780) 487-6397 fax
> http://www.trinity-electronics.com
> Custom Electronics Design and Manufacturing
>
> Why not just BUY a Dvorak keyboard? Ready to go. Time is money.
>
> Lots of hits for "buy dvorak usb keyboard".
> http://www.fentek-ind.com/dvorak.htm $40 to $60 depending on options
> (switchable modes, wireless)
> http://matias.ca/dvorak/
> etc..
>
>
My apologies for missing that the cheap ones were just moved keys and using
software remap.
> Can I suggest a possibly easier alternative?
>
> Start with a standard PS2 keyboard. Build your PIC device to be PS2
> both input and output. Then use an off-the-shelf PS2 to USB adapter.
>
> I know that I've seen PIC code for working with PS2 keyboards - there
> may even exist a QWERTY to Dvorak program out there waiting for you to grab.
>
> By avoiding the whole USB thing, you save yourself much grief and time.
This is by far the easiest solution, aside from simply purchasing a
dedicated Dvorak keyboard.
There are probable cheaper solutions, but I know for a fact that you
can purchase a Dvorak keyboard from pckeyboard.com. It will set you
back about $100, but then again you *are* getting essentially a Model
M keyboard. (I doubt you could build a convertor for less even
working at minimum wage...)
Just for my curiosity: What is the speed increase using a dvorak layout
over the standard qwerty one? I suppose you only can see the difference if
you type by 10 fingers, right?
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Dwayne Reid <@spam@dwaynerKILLspamplanet.eon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Can I suggest a possibly easier alternative?
> >
> > Start with a standard PS2 keyboard. Build your PIC device to be PS2
> > both input and output. Then use an off-the-shelf PS2 to USB adapter.
> >
> > I know that I've seen PIC code for working with PS2 keyboards - there
> > may even exist a QWERTY to Dvorak program out there waiting for you to
> grab.
> >
> > By avoiding the whole USB thing, you save yourself much grief and time.
>
> This is by far the easiest solution, aside from simply purchasing a
> dedicated Dvorak keyboard.
>
> There are probable cheaper solutions, but I know for a fact that you
> can purchase a Dvorak keyboard from pckeyboard.com. It will set you
> back about $100, but then again you *are* getting essentially a Model
> M keyboard. (I doubt you could build a convertor for less even
> working at minimum wage...)
>
> -p.
>
At 13.47 2012.06.20, you wrote:
>Just for my curiosity: What is the speed increase using a dvorak layout
>over the standard qwerty one? I suppose you only can see the difference if
>you type by 10 fingers, right?
>
>Tamas
>
>
>On 13 June 2012 20:51, Peter Johansson <KILLspamrockets4kidsKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Dwayne Reid <RemoveMEdwaynerTakeThisOuTplanet.eon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Can I suggest a possibly easier alternative?
>> >
>> > Start with a standard PS2 keyboard. Build your PIC device to be PS2
>> > both input and output. Then use an off-the-shelf PS2 to USB adapter.
>> >
>> > I know that I've seen PIC code for working with PS2 keyboards - there
>> > may even exist a QWERTY to Dvorak program out there waiting for you to
>> grab.
>> >
>> > By avoiding the whole USB thing, you save yourself much grief and time..
>>
>> This is by far the easiest solution, aside from simply purchasing a
>> dedicated Dvorak keyboard.
>>
>> There are probable cheaper solutions, but I know for a fact that you
>> can purchase a Dvorak keyboard from pckeyboard.com. It will set you
>> back about $100, but then again you *are* getting essentially a Model
>> M keyboard. (I doubt you could build a convertor for less even
>> working at minimum wage...)
>>
>> -p.
>>
> Just for my curiosity: What is the speed increase using a dvorak
> layout over the standard qwerty one? I suppose you only can see the
> difference if you type by 10 fingers, right?
The standard Dvorak layout is an attempt to optimize the keyboard for
two standard hands with five fingers each :), but there are also
left-hand-only and right-hand-only Dvorak layouts.
I didn't touch-type when I used QWERTY and only started to touch-type
with Dvorak, so I can't tell you anything about the speed difference
between the two. Accounts from people who have used both vary wildly,
but are probably mostly subjective. The traveled distance seems to be
much shorter with Dvorak or similar approaches (this is a mostly
objective measurement), which probably means that either the speed is
greater or the strain (on the joints) is lower (subjective conclusion
:).
> Tamas Rudnai wrote:
>
> > Just for my curiosity: What is the speed increase using a dvorak
> > layout over the standard qwerty one? I suppose you only can see the
> > difference if you type by 10 fingers, right?
>
> The standard Dvorak layout is an attempt to optimize the keyboard for
> two standard hands with five fingers each :), but there are also
> left-hand-only and right-hand-only Dvorak layouts.
>
> I didn't touch-type when I used QWERTY and only started to touch-type
> with Dvorak, so I can't tell you anything about the speed difference
> between the two. Accounts from people who have used both vary wildly,
> but are probably mostly subjective. The traveled distance seems to be
> much shorter with Dvorak or similar approaches (this is a mostly
> objective measurement), which probably means that either the speed is
> greater or the strain (on the joints) is lower (subjective conclusion
> :).
>
> Gerhard
>
>
I haven't any objective measurements to help this conversation, but it may
be useful to remember that the QWERTY layout was designed to
_intentionally_ slow down the typists in the days of mechanical
typewriters, where if they typed too fast the hammers would jam...
"Here is a study I did to show just how much Dvorak is better. While not a
formal study, it is a good demonstration, easily duplicated at home or for
a science fair project.
I also found a Dvorak advantage of 35 - 50% when typing samples of not only
English, but also limited samples of German, Portuguese, and Spanish.
> I haven't any objective measurements to help this conversation, but it may
> be useful to remember that the QWERTY layout was designed to
> _intentionally_ slow down the typists in the days of mechanical
> typewriters, where if they typed too fast the hammers would jam...
>
The QWERTY layout was designed to keep common letter combinations at
least a key apart, in order to prevent jams and thereby speeding UP
the typist, not intentionally slowing them.
On the DVORAK subject, I decided learning it wasn't worth the effort,
as the QWERTY is present everywhere I go (smartphone, laptop, desktop,
friend's PCs, coworker's PCs, Linux, Apple, Windows, etc). Even the
different sized enter keys, backspace keys, home / pgdown/ pgup and
number pad between different computers are enough to throw off my
typing speed, never mind a different alphabet layout. Maybe I'm just
stuck in my ways
> I haven't any objective measurements to help this conversation, but it may
> be useful to remember that the QWERTY layout was designed to
> _intentionally_ slow down the typists in the days of mechanical
> typewriters, where if they typed too fast the hammers would jam...
>
Actually I always thought that they did not want to slow down typewriters,
but with the qwerty layout it was less frequent that two neighbour hammers
were typed at the same time -- and that's what caused the 'jam' which
slowed down typewriters, so actually qwerty speed them up. Maybe I am wrong
though.
> I also found a Dvorak advantage of 35 - 50% when typing samples of not only
> English, but also limited samples of German, Portuguese, and Spanish."
>
At 03.41 2012.06.21, you wrote:
>On 20 June 2012 11:34, Electron <EraseMEelectron2k4infinito.it> wrote:
>
>> I cna tpye 300 wrods pre mniute!! :D
>>
>
>I can see that -- with some typos, right? ;-)
> On 20 June 2012 12:09, Denny Esterline <RemoveMEdesterlineEraseMEEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I haven't any objective measurements to help this conversation, but
>> it may be useful to remember that the QWERTY layout was designed to
>> _intentionally_ slow down the typists in the days of mechanical
>> typewriters, where if they typed too fast the hammers would jam...
>
> Actually I always thought that they did not want to slow down
> typewriters, but with the qwerty layout it was less frequent that two
> neighbour hammers were typed at the same time -- and that's what
> caused the 'jam' which slowed down typewriters, so actually qwerty
> speed them up. Maybe I am wrong though.
AFAIK you're right, but the fact remains that none of minimizing finger
movements, making finger movements causing less strain or speeding up
typing on a keyboard where there are no interactions between different
keys was a design goal for the QWERTY layout. Some of them were design
goals for other layouts, including Dvorak.
Adam has a point, though... depending on where you need to type and
under what circumstances, being able to type (fast) on QWERTY has
advantages. OTOH, the USB hardware device that plugs between keyboard
and computer may help in some of these cases, as may the PKL approach
(on a USB stick, for example).
First let me thank all those who were so kind as to answer my query.
As I stated in the original post, my main thrust was to eliminate the
need to carry keyboards around to different sites.
I have decided, thanks to the suggestion of Rossano Gobbi, to order the
QIDO, although it's US$120 delivered from NZ.
In addition, I am following up on the suggestion by Ruben Jönsson to go
the FTDI route with the Vinculum-II USB Host / Slave controller. This
sounds as though it would be ideal, but it'll take me a bit of time to
get it functional. And it'll hone my programming skills. The QIDO is
to get me by until then.
As far as relative speeds between QWERTY and DVORAK, I can only relate
my own personal experience. I was a fairly accurate QWERTY typist at
around 60 wpm, but after hearing rave reviews about DVORAK, I decided to
switch. There are numerous free online typing tutors available; I don't
remember now which one I used, but only results matter anyway. At any
rate, it took about six months to get back up to the 60 wpm I was doing
before, but I now top out, even more accurately, at around 110 wpm,
better than an 80% increase. I can do about 125 wpm for very brief
periods, but the accuracy falls. Another thing that is not often
considered is fatigue. After typing QWERTY for 2-3 hours straight, my
fingers were almost numb, and accuracy started dropping. After the same
amount of time with DVORAK, I still feel ready for more. Just my take.
planet.eon.net>
