5 ms·

This will be awesome for vim-ers. Imagine the keyboard symbols change to display the actions you can do in command mode. When you press "d" in command mode, the

This will be awesome for vim-ers. Imagine the keyboard symbols change to display the actions you can do in command mode. When you press "d" in command mode, the relevant keys light up to indicate the type of object you can delete. Also in emacs, you hit ctrl-x and then the keyboard lights up to indicate any following actions you can take. It can have small text annotations with the actions, too. Extrapolate further to power tools like Apple Logic, or Final Cut Pro, where the keyboard becomes labeled with sound and film editing actions. The keyboard can go levels deep, where you enter one mode and the keyboard reconfigures itself with actions in that mode. Not just with key symbols, but colored/delineated control areas with arbitrary graphical and animation capability. This would basically finally take the keyboard to the next level; it has been roughly the same since the 60s. It widens the range of sensible input you can do with a keyboard by making it super intuitive to switch beteen and use arbitrary control modes. The power is undeniable, but the true test is feel.

diffeomorphism 8y ago
For emacs this is already done by which-key, which tells you about all following actions and their description. Also, this seems only useful if you don't touch type, which seems like the opposite demographic of emacs and vim users.
- shrimpx 8y ago
  First, yes emacs has this functionality. But a visual keyboard interface would make it super intuitive and direct. Second, I disagree with the touch typing argument. Touch typing is a learned skill on an interface like the qwerty or the dvorak button layout, and has its roots in typewriting. There are innumerable other button layouts you could "touch type" on. On a visual keyboard of course you can still touch type in the classic style in the qwerty layout. But then there are many other possible layouts allowing varying types of control, not just a layout for typing letters and numbers. Also when you really think about it, it's pretty arbitrary that control commands in pro software and games involve letters and numbers. It's an awkward consequence of the ingrained limited keyboard layout. You should be pressing the "fire!" button not the key for typing the letter "f" (if indeed letter "f" is not occupied by some other command whose name starts with "f").
  - diffeomorphism 8y ago
    > You should be pressing the "fire!" button not the key for typing the letter "f" Sure, keyboard layouts are arbitrary, as are keycaps (you can also buy blank keycaps if you like). There are some fun interfaces you can make if you have the flexibility as can be seen in games for the Nintendo DS or switch or some tablet apps that can be used with external screens or people using multiple keyboards, music controllers etc.. However, just like with gamepads, joysticks etc. they are controls for something else. So once the controls feel natural you stop looking at your fingers and instead look at what you are controlling. I would argue that playing a game with a gamepad or joystick or touch typing or playing an instrument are all very similar. So just like putting stickers on the fretboard of a guitar this might make things "intuitive" at first, but is rather the opposite of direct and not something you keep using.
- harperlee 8y ago
  Hey, you are assuming that a touch typer that doesn't look at the keyboard often because she doesn't receive more information when she looks down will not find information that is useful when it is indeed shown at the keyboard, because she doesn't look for it. It is a circular and flawed argument; most probably, a change of functionality of the tool will produce a change of workflow. You are also not considering: - you aren't either touch typer or not; it is a continuum where people look at the keyboard with decreasing frequency through time - being a touchtyper is a multidimensional activity; on top of the muscle memory of each letter there is the muscle memory of the semantics. You might not know specific emacs chords even when being a touch typer; in this example, having information displayed would be valuable.
  - diffeomorphism 8y ago
    > Hey, you That sounds rude... I am assuming that a "touch typer" has her fingers on the keyboard most of the time, usually on the home row. In particular, her hands will be covering most of the keyboard. Also, even if the keyboard shows something interesting, always switching your view up- and downwards is bad ergonomics and context-switching. Thus showing that information on the screen like which-key is more useful than having to lift up your hands, read what is written on your keyboard, put you hands down again, press the now covered keys.
    - harperlee 8y ago
      > That sounds rude... Sorry, I did not realise this sounded rude, not my native language. In what sense does it sound rude? Too informal? Too confrontational?
    - harperlee 8y ago
      > a "touch typer" has her fingers on the keyboard most of the time, usually on the home row Sure - until you need contextual help directly mapped to the actions you need to do. Then it’s just a matter of looking down. It cannot get a lot more intuitive than looking where to press if you don’t know it by heart, right? It is what we already do to learn where the letters and special characters are - just providing a higher level of meaning to the keys.
aasasd 8y ago
There's already the Optimus keyboard family (at the least): https://www.artlebedev.com/optimus/ https://www.artlebedev.com/optimus/ And, as mentioned, looking at the keyboard is the opposite of productivity.

diffeomorphism 8y ago

For emacs this is already done by which-key, which tells you about all following actions and their description. Also, this seems only useful if you don't touch type, which seems like the opposite demographic of emacs and vim users.

shrimpx 8y ago
First, yes emacs has this functionality. But a visual keyboard interface would make it super intuitive and direct. Second, I disagree with the touch typing argument. Touch typing is a learned skill on an interface like the qwerty or the dvorak button layout, and has its roots in typewriting. There are innumerable other button layouts you could "touch type" on. On a visual keyboard of course you can still touch type in the classic style in the qwerty layout. But then there are many other possible layouts allowing varying types of control, not just a layout for typing letters and numbers. Also when you really think about it, it's pretty arbitrary that control commands in pro software and games involve letters and numbers. It's an awkward consequence of the ingrained limited keyboard layout. You should be pressing the "fire!" button not the key for typing the letter "f" (if indeed letter "f" is not occupied by some other command whose name starts with "f").
- diffeomorphism 8y ago
  > You should be pressing the "fire!" button not the key for typing the letter "f" Sure, keyboard layouts are arbitrary, as are keycaps (you can also buy blank keycaps if you like). There are some fun interfaces you can make if you have the flexibility as can be seen in games for the Nintendo DS or switch or some tablet apps that can be used with external screens or people using multiple keyboards, music controllers etc.. However, just like with gamepads, joysticks etc. they are controls for something else. So once the controls feel natural you stop looking at your fingers and instead look at what you are controlling. I would argue that playing a game with a gamepad or joystick or touch typing or playing an instrument are all very similar. So just like putting stickers on the fretboard of a guitar this might make things "intuitive" at first, but is rather the opposite of direct and not something you keep using.
harperlee 8y ago
Hey, you are assuming that a touch typer that doesn't look at the keyboard often because she doesn't receive more information when she looks down will not find information that is useful when it is indeed shown at the keyboard, because she doesn't look for it. It is a circular and flawed argument; most probably, a change of functionality of the tool will produce a change of workflow. You are also not considering: - you aren't either touch typer or not; it is a continuum where people look at the keyboard with decreasing frequency through time - being a touchtyper is a multidimensional activity; on top of the muscle memory of each letter there is the muscle memory of the semantics. You might not know specific emacs chords even when being a touch typer; in this example, having information displayed would be valuable.
- diffeomorphism 8y ago
  > Hey, you That sounds rude... I am assuming that a "touch typer" has her fingers on the keyboard most of the time, usually on the home row. In particular, her hands will be covering most of the keyboard. Also, even if the keyboard shows something interesting, always switching your view up- and downwards is bad ergonomics and context-switching. Thus showing that information on the screen like which-key is more useful than having to lift up your hands, read what is written on your keyboard, put you hands down again, press the now covered keys.
  - harperlee 8y ago
    > That sounds rude... Sorry, I did not realise this sounded rude, not my native language. In what sense does it sound rude? Too informal? Too confrontational?
  - harperlee 8y ago
    > a "touch typer" has her fingers on the keyboard most of the time, usually on the home row Sure - until you need contextual help directly mapped to the actions you need to do. Then it’s just a matter of looking down. It cannot get a lot more intuitive than looking where to press if you don’t know it by heart, right? It is what we already do to learn where the letters and special characters are - just providing a higher level of meaning to the keys.

aasasd 8y ago

There's already the Optimus keyboard family (at the least): https://www.artlebedev.com/optimus/ https://www.artlebedev.com/optimus/ And, as mentioned, looking at the keyboard is the opposite of productivity.