Whenever split keyboards come up, ulnar deviation is mentioned, and non-split keyboard users are depicted to be using the keyboard like this (image from the post):
I don't know if it's just me, but I don't use the keyboard like that. I know the illustration is said to be exaggerated, but still. There is no need to squeeze your hands in front of the keyboard. Just naturally bring your hands in front of chest, the same as when you are reading a book or writing notes with a pen. No twisted wrists. No ulnar deviation. The idea that you can't do something with your hand in front of the center of your chest without hurting the wrists seem like a strange supposition.
Admittedly, I've never looked at a significant number of people typing on a non-split keyboard, so I don't have the data to refute the need of this invention. I just feel like the natural posture already doesn't have the problem of ulnar deviation.
I think a shockingly high number of people really do type Z with their little finger, X with their ring finger, and C with their middle finger. It's the only way I can explain how they end up that way in columnar layouts so often.
This is madness to me. That would wreak havoc on a wrist. Type Z with the ring finger, X with the middle finger, and C and V with the index finger, just like you type M with your right index finger.
I cannot for the life of me understand the claims by ortholinear fans that fingers travel in a straight line as they expand. Mine don't. My fingers are much farther apart when I extend them than when I pull them in, and I think I have a fairly ordinary set of hands.
I do type Z with little finger, etc, because that's how the typing software I used long, long time ago taught it. But I don't accommodate by messing up my wrists, which are still in a natural position. My fingers just adapted to the needed flexibility. My left pinky hitting the Z is trivial and less effort, IMO, than my right index finger hitting Y.
And yes, I use a conventional straight keyboard, not an ergonomic one.
> All typing guides I’ve seen recommend keeping fingers on home row. If you do that you end up pretty close to what that drawing shows.
I type at 130 - 135 wpm with my fingers on the home row. I don't have a posture anything like that drawing. In fact I have to make a conscious and uncomfortable effort to contort my hands into that position. It's far more natural (for me) to curve my fingers to hit the right keys rather than curving my wrists so that my hands are perpendicular to the keyboard. Like this:
The base idea behind keeping your fingers on the home row makes sense, as it promises that you can reach most of the commonly used keys by just curling or straightening your fingers, without moving your wrists at all. This doesn’t appear true in your picture. How does the person reach T with a finger that’s already straight, while still keeping a finger on A?
This is obviously not an exact science and I’m sure you manage to type just fine. However, if given a choice of regular and split, I don’t see how one could argue that they’re just the same. For me personally, I used to type with a lot of wrist movement and had trouble learning true touch typing for decades, but learned it on a split in a few weeks.
I'm not sure I can answer the first question, because I can reach the T just fine with my other finger on A and without contorting my wrist. Also, not that it changes my point, but I don't conform to a rigid version of the home-row rule or the standard touch-typing method, and I think that's how I achieve faster typing speeds than most. My hands dance around the keyboard and each movement is relative to where my fingers were on the last movement, while keeping the home row as a base. For example, in the standard method you'd use the right index finger for both Y and U. For me, if I've just typed a Y, I'll use the second finger to type U because that's more natural than re-using the index finger in different positions.
Also, just to be clear, I wasn't arguing that regular and split are the same. I have both types of keyboards and I'm planning to switch to split once I've mastered a new keyboard layout. My point was only in support of the original comment; namely, that that drawing is misleading.
Yeah, I get that. From how you describe it, I think my typing style was similar to yours. It works, but it’s significantly distinct from what’s presented as proper touch typing form. In my case, the downside was that due to all the movement, even tough I knew where the keys are, I tended to hit wrong keys a lot.
Wait have you been thinking "keep them on the home row" means any finger not actively typing a key must be in physical contact with its home row key??
This would at least help me make sense of people's wrist problems. Holy cow. Never mind how much it would slow somebody down. None of my fingers is ever stationary long enough to bring it back to a specific place typing 135 wpm.
It's really quite easy to keep your fingers on the home row and avoid bending your wrists. I've done it for decades without any wrist problems.
It's even easier than the bent wrist position. Take a look at your hands. What is the shortest finger? Your pinky.
The straight wrist position lets you put your pinkies on the home row without the unnatural stretching that the bent wrist requires.
Try it: Keep your wrists straight and start by placing your index fingers and pinkies on the home row. Then let your middle and ring fingers settle into place.
You may notice that your middle and ring fingers arch higher than the index fingers and pinkies. That's fine!
Then start typing. If you're used to the bent wrists, the keys above and below the home row may not be where your muscle memory is used to. Keep at for a while and your fingers will re-learn where the keys are. Just don't let yourself slip back into the bent wrist position, and you will be back up to speed in no time.
Here's a comment from years ago with some crude ASCII art illustrating the difference:
Many years ago, I was lucky enough to discover a keyboard training program called Stamina. The author suggested using a more ergonomic hand position: instead of placing your fingers on ASDF and JKL;, you place them on SDFV and NJKL. This way, your hands rest in a position similar to what you would use on an ergonomic keyboard. In addition, the characters on these keys are more frequent, so your base typing speed should increase (especially for cyrillic layout). It was over 20 years ago, and I wonder why nobody uses it and everyone still uses that uncomfortable orthodox hand position.
This is almost exactly what I do. Keep my wrists in line with the forearms, such that they're angled relative to the keyboard. So the home keys aren't ASDF, it's more like QWEF and HUIO. (Although it's more like the home position is in the crevices between those and the keys just below.) I've always done this just naturally and have never had any problems with typing stress or fatigue in 40 years.
I don't know. Hands on the home row is pretty comfortable for me. My arms are coming at the keyboard on an angle though, so there's no real wrist strain. Certainly if I kept my hands at a 90 degree angle to the front of the keyboard like in the diagram, it would be uncomfortable.
>If you do that you end up pretty close to what that drawing shows.
It doesn't have to. It will depend on the distance to the keyboard, the height difference between you and the keyboard, where on your desk the keyboard is placed. It also depends on the person writing ofc.
I’ve been a consistent split keyboard user for a quarter century now. My current daily driver is a Redox, which uses a columnar layout. I got into them when I first started having problems with tendinitis. I feel like they help, but I’m not sure what the science says about it.
Anyway, I’ve always hated that diagram because it’s so obviously hyperbolic. I also use standard keyboards on a daily basis, and while there are some posture differences, the bending to make hands perpendicular to the keyboard just does not happen. Comfortably placing your fingers on the home row requires angling your hands a bit because the fingers are all different lengths. Are there some posture differences? Sure. But from what I’ve seen they’re really quite minor.
What I would guess makes more of a difference is tenting. Which is admittedly only possible with a split design. But also, not all split keyboards do tent.
Also, and this one might be specific to my particular problem, moving keys the thumb strikes to a position that it can reach with less stretching has helped a lot. (I suspect that the space bar in particular might have been the source of most of my woes.) And that’s another variable that’s highly correlated with - but still not the same as - the keyboard being split.
Try things and see for yourself. I know that’s not super satisfying advice, but everyone has a different experience with these things so there are no easy answers.
Start small. Don’t feel pressured to dive straight into the $300 keyboards. I have a fancy custom mechanical keyboard myself, but that’s because a few years back I decided it would be fun to get into using a more hackable keyboard. For a very long time I was more than content with the (sadly now discontinued) Microsoft Sculpt keyboard, which was one of the least expensive options.
Unfortunately, many Qwerty typing guides group keys in left-leaning columns [1], requiring many to twist their left wrist. And this is why I hope the angle mod [2] from the Colemak community gets more mainstream recognition: instead of learning to twist your wrist, just shift the keys to let them adapt to you. This "un-kinks" the layout, allowing your left wrist to remain perfectly straight while your arm approaches the keyboard at a natural, relaxed angle like the person in the right side of the drawing.
The person on the right side is sitting in a more elevated position, and so with their shoulders relaxed and upper arms at their sides, they only need to extend the forearms to reach the keyboard.
The "numeric keypad" hazard also illustrates why I was motivated to switch my Sun mouse to the left-hand side, and I reversed the buttons in my X11 mappings. This was a reliable way to perplex my coworkers.
Many-many moons ago I moved my mouse to the left side because I didn't have enough room on my desk on the right side. I became equally good with both hands and this has been paying dividends for years. Except I didn't reverse buttons, my brain just adapted and I never confuse which button to press.
There are a few keyboards out there that move the numeric keypad to the left side of the keyboard, so that right-handed people don't have to move their right hand quite so far to use the mouse. Basically, like a tenkeyless (TKL) keyboard, but keeping the keypad.
I use a Keychron Q14. Keypad on the left can be found by searching for "southpaw". The only issue I have with it being on the left is that I was used to sometimes pressing the numpad enter key with my thumb while holding the mouse. It does take a while to get used to using it with the left hand though. Maybe having it mirrored would help, idk.
Yes. I'd swear that people that unfortunately fall into RSI also fall into a negative cycle of moving less and favoring a static position at all levels - fingers, wrists, shoulders.
Our bodies love movement and it's often a recipe for solving all sorts of issues.
What gets me the most is that all the "correct typing posture" images seem to indicate that it's best to keep the keyboard low, close to you, elbows bent around 90 degrees. In this position the palms are naturally positioned so thumbs are pointing up, and you need to force the palms to be level with the keyboard (that's pronation/supination if I recall correctly). That's just madness to me, I can't last more than few minutes in that position.
Because ergonomics is largely pseudo science. Everyone’s body is different. I actually developed RSI for the first time using a kinesis advantage because it forced a certain posture that doesn’t work well with my long arms.
For me the best position is to move my non split keyboard fairly deep into the desk and keep my arms relatively straight. In my 40s and no issue with this after decades.
I was just on a short trip to Japan, and I find the replica food very intriguing. Take the experience with a large grain of salt of course, since it's just a few days worth of sightseeing.
What's particularly interesting, is that the replicas really do look like the actual food. Some replicas are so good, that I would not be able to tell that it is fake even by close inspection. One of the gyoza replica got the doughy body, the crispy bottom, and oily surface that is visually indistinguishable from a real one. Even the touch is somewhat real.
I'm not saying seeing those replicas gives me a better appetite; that's doubtful. I just appreciate the crafts.
The other side of the coin is that the actual food do look like the replica/photos, so it's not a bait-and-switch scheme. The people who prepare the dishes---be it a chef or a worker at a fast food chain---all seem quite accurate. Not that all dishes always look beautiful; but they do look consistent. Your plate of curry over rice might be plain, but it will look exactly the same as the previous order (and also as the photo), even if it is created entirely by hand. It's kinda amazing in its own right.
> Meanwhile, in restaurants without visual clues, you can only let your imagination go wild and guess what you're going to have. Once the plate is put in front of you, two surprises awaits you: does it looks like what you imagined and is it good?
>
> At least that's the experience I'm looking for in restaurants.
Well, you still retain the second part of the surprise: "is it good?". But yeah, it will ruin the first one, because of the accuracy. It's not something that particularly bothers me, but I can understand why you want to avoid the spoilers.
Just curious, what algorithm is good for laying out images of arbitrary orientations, sizes, and aspect ratios? That seems like a pretty difficult problem. Some sort of variation of knapsack problem maybe?
I dont know what would be the best way, but I personally want each image to be represented correctly in relation to all other image. This means that the way images are laid out will looked jagged. However, as a consequence of that, it is easy to find back to a specific image. Its like when you are coding, you look at the "shape" of the code when scrolling to find that specific function definition etc..
Here is an example of the layout of a photostream that I was satisfied with.
I could see a case where the core logic needs to be performant, but the UI does not. The front end could be some menus, displaying (not a giant amount of) data, and a progress bar, while the back end does heavy computing.
And furthermore, if you want fast code writing, you write in the language you already know. For some people, that is Rust.
> in traditional rich desktop applications, I can't say I have ever missed the ability to select and copy text from the UI chrome
I forgot what desktop application it was, but there was a time that I repeatedly needed to copy texts from a dialog, which didn't support text selection. It frustrated me so much, that I put together a script to do OCR on the dialog.
Supporting complex data types for copy & paste is good; but it is almost trivial to also support plain text copying as a fallback when it already supports copying of other mimetypes. The problem is that some UI has no support of copying in any format at all.
If it was a standard Windows dialog box by any chance, you could just have pressed Ctrl+C with the dialog in focus to copy the message. It's one of these subtle things that go almost completely overlooked.
There's a lot of nice little things like that in desktop OSes that we completely lose with everyone shifting to using electron, and I'm increasingly frustrated by it as time goes on.
on macOS, anything that uses the OS text input box has emacs keybindings. Universal text editing bindings across the entire OS for all native apps. You lose that with electron, just like you lose a lot of the windows niceties the moment apps stop using win32 and start overriding with their own custom UI toolkits in the name of "branding."
It's part of the big reason computers started to be perceived as difficult to use, and it's not because of the various operating systems. It's because desktop apps stopped respecting the OS and the user, so instead of only needing to learn the operating system's conventions, which would apply to every app built for it, you now have to learn every individual app's quirks and conventions.
The web just continued to make it worse where now every app is it's own little special snowflake.
I sincerely hope that apple will consider making a phone with a worse camera that is flatter. As someone who rarely takes photos, and never photos of importance, the bump is just a dead weight to me. My dream phone has a body like iPhone 12 mini (which I currently use) without the protruding camera. As long as it runs all the common communication apps reliably, I'm happy. I'll pay $100 more than the standard body version even. But it doesn't seem like apple (or any notable phone brand) thinks this is worth doing.
It's the peril of being a niche customer. I can and have voted with my wallet, but it doesn't nudge the needle anyway.
> As someone who rarely takes photos, and never photos of importance
Even people who do take photos often would probably gladly sacrifice some image quality to loose that massive thing on the back of the phone. The thinness of the phone almost make it look worse as long as that camera sticks out like that; like a huge watch with a thin strap or something...
> My dream phone has a body like iPhone 12 mini (which I currently use) without the protruding camera.
Sounds similar to the iPhone 4, still my favorite of all the form factors in terms of "hand feel". It was the right thickness for me, just a bit heavy for it's size. If they refreshed it to reduce weight and extended the screen to the borders I think it would be amazing
Have you tried the iPhone SE 1st gen ? Lighter, better processor and screen but almost same design. It’s only 9.5yo and still works perfectly, you can find plenty second hand for 100€.
I still have my SE 1st gen that I pull out from time to time because I use it as the 2FA for my other Apple account, and I am always struck by by how much better it feels to use than even the 12 mini. It is such an ergonomic size for single hand use, and it surprisingly still runs very smoothly.
Using an SE 3rd generation and don't want any other iPhone. Had it for 1.5 years and it still makes me happy - as on the first day.
I was comparing models and probably the “next similar” would be an 16e but I really don’t want the “apple intelligence” - I’ve got my own thanks.
It’s a pity that the SE is going the way of the dodo and dinos - much better phone than a mini-tablet. I still miss my iPhone 3 and the rounded corners and solid aluminium back. Good times.
My phone is an iPhone SE 2nd gen. It's much more ergonomic and I can use it with only one hand, typing text included. Previously I had an iPhone 6S, same screen size (4.7″).
Other iPhone models are giant walkie-talkies for me. They need one hand to hold them and another to type text or slide the screen.
No, I haven’t. I guess the feel isn’t my most important feature. I usually buy the latest high end model but keep it for a while. Using a 12 pro still and it’s already starting to feel sluggish so I might upgrade to this 17 version, it’s different enough to spark my interest but I think I’ll need to hold the Air before deciding if I like it. It looks comically out of proportion in the marketing pictures. I also don’t use cases and I feel like this is begging for one.
If you take Apple's presentation at face value, most of the iPhone Air hardware is within the plateau, with the rest of the body being almost entirely battery. So it's not immediately obvious that even if they did do away with the bump, that there'd be a useable phone left over once considering the necessary reduction in battery size.
You might want to check the 16e.
It has 16 insides (without magsafe and uwb chip), with screen from 14 and not very protruding (although still) but good camera. Its also cheaper than base model iphone.
I agree with this so much. I recently upgraded to the 13 Mini and had to go back to the 12 Mini because I hated the big camera thing on the back. I actually like the 12 Mini camera more than the 13 Mini also. It felt like the 13 Mini couldn’t take close up photos worth a damn.
Talking on the phone is the most painful form of conversation for me. The sound quality is often awful, due to the ambient noises picked up by phone, which occurs particularly often for busy restaurants. You don't know if the other side has heard you because you can't see them and there's no visual signal, so there's more back and forth, prolonging the pain. Since you are ordering via the phone, you have to pay by reading out your credit card number. People sometimes hesitate, and you don't know if it's a bad connection, or if they have just paused......
So yeah, I'd gladly pay a bit more to order via an app. When I'm ordering delivery, I'm already paying premium on that day anyway, the margin of which is way higher than 20%, so I might as well go all the way and avoid dealing with something I don't like.
If I'm not using an app, I'd rather run a mile to make the order in person, than make a phone call.
I don't know the scope of "nothing" in your statement, but shampoo does help remove dirt and oil, in a way that washing with water only cannot achieve, which is the number one goal of using shampoo for most people.
This is verifiable by observing and touching hair of other people's hair before and after shower, which eliminates the possibility of shampoo manufacturers secretly altering what you perceive with your fingers.
> This is verifiable by observing and touching hair of other people's hair before and after shower, which eliminates the possibility of shampoo manufacturers secretly altering what you perceive with your fingers.
No; you would need to touch people hair after a shampoo shower and after a non shampoo shower to see the difference.
My very possibly wrong understanding is that plain water + the mechanical action of the water being sprayed on the hair + your hand scratching the scalp does a huge portion of the work. Shampoo itself does very little.
So if you don’t have any at your disposal; just does “as if”; and for slightly longer and you will essentially be good to go.
> No; you would need to touch people hair after a shampoo shower and after a non shampoo shower to see the difference.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. My girl friend has long hair, and doesn't wash with shampoo every day (which is somewhat common for long-haired people I believe), and the texture after shower is very different.
In college, especially exam week, we had more anecdata. It was possible to see people who 1) had not washed their hair, 2) had washed their hair in a sink with water only, 3) dry-washed with those sprays, and 4) washed with shampoo. It was very easy to tell which they did.
In general, soapy cleaner (or similar substances) is going to help immensely when cleaning oily stuff. And hair can be really oily. Water-only is just not the same.
One scenario I don't have is comparing other soapy products to shampoo. But shampoo aren't more expensive than other soaps anyway, so I never bothered to look.
There are two types of people who don't shampoo every day: those who don't wash their hair every day, and those who wash their hair with water most days but shampoo only some days.
If your girlfriend is in group 2, then your experience is relevant to the parent's post; if she is in group 1, then you haven't yet experienced the difference.
I'm in both group 1 and 2 (I normally alternate between the two, i.e. soap - water - soap - no wash - soap...).
Washing with soap removes oils. This is a pretty obvious effect from anyone who's ever tried to clean up oil/grease with soap (ex: dawn).
Rinsing with just hot water distributes oils from the scalp down towards the ends and it removes a little bit of oil in the process.
Rinsing with cooler water is less effective at distributing oils but also loses less oil in the process.
Not washing allows grease/oils (and skin/dander) to build up on the scalp and saturate hair near the scalp.
-----
If you are just rinsing/scrubbing with water, it does a lot relative to not washing at all but there isn't really a comparison when it comes to soap's efficacy at stripping oils/making them semi-water soluble so they can be washed away.
Lol what, just try it ffs. I dont get why people make up such elaborate claims and never bother to test them trivially.
One example - I did ie yesterday shower at gym after workout, after sauna, but didnt have shampoo so just water, cold and warm. Then washed just my hair at home. Hair and skin without any oil in gym, but very different feeling and also behavior of hair when combing. Shampoo makes hair much smoother for example, also less tough / more bendy.
I can think of so many pieces of software that does that: having a local state, having a remote state, and keeping them synchronized whenever internet is available. It's how email apps work. That's how all cloud drives work, and Dropbox is more than a decade old at this point. It's how notes apps work. Etc. etc.
Really can't see how this can be regarded as a recent idea.
I'm someone who has used and continues to use desktop applications like that. I'm old enough to know what "work offline" and an email "outbox" is. Those are not the same things.
The always-online apps bring a lot that is not possible with such software, even simple stuff like editing the same file at the same time. Try that with tools like Dropbox and you'll get conflicts that you need to resolve. It's totally possible to get offline software if you either give up on many features or accept complicated conflict resolution etc. The basic options are either immutability, like email, or conflict resolution, like git. This is about not making those sacrifices.
"Local first" is a misnomer and that misnomer does probably reflect the different experience of youngsters, but if you can get past that there is something new here that is interesting and challenging.
https://www.justinmklam.com/posts/2026/02/beginners-guide-sp...
I don't know if it's just me, but I don't use the keyboard like that. I know the illustration is said to be exaggerated, but still. There is no need to squeeze your hands in front of the keyboard. Just naturally bring your hands in front of chest, the same as when you are reading a book or writing notes with a pen. No twisted wrists. No ulnar deviation. The idea that you can't do something with your hand in front of the center of your chest without hurting the wrists seem like a strange supposition.
Admittedly, I've never looked at a significant number of people typing on a non-split keyboard, so I don't have the data to refute the need of this invention. I just feel like the natural posture already doesn't have the problem of ulnar deviation.
reply