×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Death of the Cell Phone Keypad As We Know It?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the two-to-beam-up dept.

273

An anonymous reader writes, "According to a CNet article, two companies called Mobience and Nuance have created viable and possibly better alternatives to the standard cell phone keypad. 'Mobience, which is based in South Korea, has redesigned the ABC and Qwerty key layout, and come up with MobileQwerty. It's essentially the same three-letters-per-key system as the standard mobile keypad layout, but the letters have been rearranged in a Qwertyesque way to increase efficiency.' The other system developed by Nuance is a mobile speech platform that turns speech into text and replaces the keypad altogether. I was skeptical at first but the video of Nuance's software vs. Ben Cook, the ex world texting champion, is undeniably impressive."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

273 comments

Qwertyesque way? (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837174)

but the letters have been rearranged in a Qwertyesque way to increase efficiency.

So they've also been set up to avoid jamming?

Re:Qwertyesque way? (1, Insightful)

jackb_guppy (204733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837252)

But Qwerty was designed to SLOW DOWN Typing to allow time for key to hit via pressure and then fall back via gravity. So this new layout is to slow down typing and allow gravity to return the key... I hope they built them strong enought for all the falling from hands.

Re:Qwertyesque way? (4, Funny)

JabberWokky (19442) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837422)

It's true! The QWERTY keyboard was designed to slow down typing... it was because when fleeing from the killer with a hook, and you were hiding in the sewers you'd not want the giant alligators to hear you typing. While nowadays you have to text your babysitter to make sure she didn't microwave the baby.

...and other urban legends...

--
Evan

Re:Qwertyesque way? (2, Interesting)

toomz (175524) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837828)

Hmm,

The parent doesn't look anything like a troll to me. Nope. Snopes.com totally debunked that QWERTY myth. I just don't have a link handy.

Re:Qwertyesque way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16837270)

Nope, they've set it up to emulate the QWERTY layout that we're probably familiar with. That said, I 'type' on my mobile with one or two thumbs, I 'type' on my PC keyboard with about 6 fingers and two thumbs - it's a totally different experience.

"Qwertyesque" is still a great new word, however.

Re:Qwertyesque way? (1)

cockroach2 (117475) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837398)

Might be related to the fact that, unless you have *very* small hands, placing 6 fingers and 2 thumbs on your mobile phone keypad at the same time *might* not be trivial. That said, I doubt re-arranging the keys is going to make writing text messages any less annoying...

Re:Qwertyesque way? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16837816)

That doesn't answer my point at all. They haven't modified the size or number of keys in this new arrangement, nor the fact that the keypad will be part of an handheld device, so my point stands - why emulate the layout of a completely different class of device when mobiles and PC keyboards have little usage in common? The other glaring fact is that we have all now learnt to type with the ABC DEF keypad system - a new system will have to be learnt again, defeating the whole point of the project!

Re:Qwertyesque way? (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837370)

So they've also been set up to avoid jamming?

On T9, "he" and "if" are jammed together on 43. On MobileQWERTY, they are not.

Re:Qwertyesque way? (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837426)

That's what the "Next" button is for on your phone. I think T9 is great. If you only have 9 keys, you're still going to need T9. I doesn't matter how you lay out the letters, it's always faster to type 1 key than average 2 keys for each letter. Depending on how smart the software is, T9 can really speed you up.

Re:Qwertyesque way? (5, Insightful)

Neil Hodges (960909) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837480)

So they've also been set up to avoid jamming?

Then why don't they use the Dvorak layout? It's theoretically more efficient and the punctuation will be grouped to one key.

I've been typing on Dvorak for years; why would they leave all non-QWERTY (default) users in the cold?

Maybe the real question is this: why hasn't Dvorak caught on? Is change really that hard?

Give me Morse code! (1)

Phreakiture (547094) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837784)

The texting champion was beat on late-night television by a ham radio operator using Morse code. I know Morse code, and can key it a hell of a lot faster than punching out T9 on a keypad, especially if I'm using IAMBIC paddles (a 2-key arrangement). Give me a cell phone with IAMBIC paddles, and I'll text circles around you.

Until then, voice will do just fine.

Re:Qwertyesque way? (1)

aetherworld (970863) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837864)

Honestly... how stupid is this? The Querty/Quertz layout is fine, I'd like to see that myself. But replacing the keypad completely? Should I navigate the phone software via voice? And seriously, why would i use a failure-prone system to dictate a 160char message if I can just call that person?

The only benefit I found in SMS so far was silence. No one knew if and what you were sending to whom. Great for messagingx your friends where to eat lunch while you're at work. Now I have to yell at my phone to get the message right and everyone hears it. Stupid, stupid, stupid idea. As an additions it's great, especially for handicapped people but as a replacement...

I don't care if I get modded down for this but hands down, this idea just sucks.

Death knell of the keypad - a little overdramatic (3, Interesting)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837178)

Isn't the point of text messaging typically to say something you wouldn't want to say out loud? Nobody cares if you type something provocative, but if you say it while sitting there bored in a meeting, you're probably hosed. I'm not insinuating that the technology is a bad idea, I think it's really cool (particularly if it works better than most voice recognition software), but I don't see it contributing to the "Death of the Cell Phone Keypad as we know it".

Re:Death knell of the keypad - a little overdramat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16837242)

You must have only read the top half of the article. Please read the bottom half as well.

Re:Death knell of the keypad - a little overdramat (1)

cucucu (953756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837314)

You're right. And let me add: how are you supposed to cheat in an exam with such a speech to text mechanism?

Re:Death knell of the keypad - a little overdramat (5, Insightful)

El Torico (732160) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837318)

I thought that this line was one of the most amusing things I've read in a while -

In a practical situation, however, most mobile phone and voice-recognition users would agree that having to speak into your phone isn't always ideal or even possible.

It shows just how different the idea of the "telephone" is from a decade ago.

Re:Death knell of the keypad - a little overdramat (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837570)

It shows just how different the idea of the "telephone" is from a decade ago.
Email (which is what "texting" really is) hasn't changed too much though. I figure it's just a quirk of history that we think of cellphones as a phone with a pda, camera, and email. Had the Treo been #1, maybe we'd think of them as PDAs with voice capability. Not that the devices would have ended up any different anyways, it's just interesting how the particular evolutionary path can change how we think of something even if all the legacy of that path were to disappear.

Re:Death knell of the keypad - a little overdramat (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837606)

Yes, it is now more of a communication device, and can handle different type of communications, from text, voice, data, fax, email and video. Of course, some people handle change better than others, and some are still amazed. I mean the name is different, mobile phone and telephone, but don't let that stop you from getting excited.

mod parent up (1)

ethanms (319039) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837396)

as insightful... I agree...

on the one hand you have a new layout for the keypad that matches qwerty--qwerty works because you have 4 fingers and two thumbs available... for a keypad it might be a bit better, but what does it really gain?

the other is speach to text... which completely stupid as a 100% replacement for a keypad because 100% of what I type in SMS' I don't want to say out loud, that's why I'm not calling.

Re:mod parent up (1)

ethanms (319039) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837432)

me brains not work good... another reason speech to text will suck.

Re:mod parent up (1)

balsy2001 (941953) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837766)

It can work just fine, it will translate what you say to text. That is not a problem with speech to text it is a problem with bad gramar. People who use bad gramar in speach will likely have bad gramar in typing. Speech impediments could be trouble some for the software.

Re:Death knell of the keypad - a little overdramat (1)

Z0mb1eman (629653) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837410)

I'm guessing you haven't been around any European teenagers lately. Frankly, they make the 308 presses/67 seconds record listed in the ad seem a bit low :p

Re:Death knell of the keypad - a little overdramat (1)

daranz (914716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837474)

I assume it's for the situations when YOU can talk, but the receiving party can't (and they also can't check voicemail). But then, I never use text messages, so I woulnd't know.

Use your imagination! (2, Funny)

Equis (723653) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837602)

It's not much of a stretch to see that it'd be handy for standard email messaging, instant messaging, note taking, and sending SMSs to multiple recipients. All of these are possible on today's phones.

There are obviously more applications for this than cheating on tests and discreetly texting your girlfri... cheating on tests.

Re:Death knell of the keypad - a little overdramat (1)

amuzulo (643695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837962)

I thought the whole point of txt messaging was to send a message without interrupting your recipient and to save money instead of making expensive international cell phone calls.

Umm....QUERTY isn't for efficiency (0)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837184)

QUERTY was originally designed not to increase typing efficiency--in fact, the opposite is true. Typists were getting so fast with ABCDE layouts that the keys were jamming. QUERTY was designed in part to slow typists down.

The article should have called it "Dvorakesque" instead.

Re:Umm....QUERTY isn't for efficiency (4, Funny)

wiz31337 (154231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837274)

Umm... Its QWERTY, not QUERTY. Didn't typing the U slow you down?

Re:Umm....QUERTY isn't for efficiency (3, Funny)

Gospodin (547743) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837324)

Actually, he tried typing QWERTY, but it caused the keys to jam, so that internet didn't make it through the tubes.

Re:Umm....QUERTY isn't for efficiency (4, Informative)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837282)

QUERTY was originally designed not to increase typing efficiency--in fact, the opposite is true. Typists were getting so fast with ABCDE layouts that the keys were jamming. QUERTY was designed in part to slow typists down.

Actually, QWERTY was designed to keep the typebars from sticking together, which was happening too much with an alphabetic layout. It wasn't to slow typists down, but that might have been a side effect.

Re:Umm....QUERTY isn't for efficiency (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837448)

Plus, we're talking about thumb boards here anyways. There's no reason to think that whatever effect QWERTY layout has on 10 finger typing would carry over to thumbs-only typing.

Re:Umm....QUERTY isn't for efficiency (1)

toleraen (831634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837582)

thumbs-only typing

And for those of us muumuu wearing /.ers, 'special dialing wand' typing.

Re:Umm....QUERTY isn't for efficiency (1)

mungtor (306258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837344)

No, it shouldn't. The Qwerty-esque style still increases efficiency over the standard alphabetical layout, and is called such since the keys are arranged in a pattern that isn't too much of a departure for people used to qwerty keyboards.

Dvorak is interesting, and a good thing for some people who actually have to type in the english language as their primary use of their computer (transcriptionists or such). For coders and sysadmins, Dvorak breaks down because many of the things you are typing aren't words anyway (cd, ps -ef, pwd, chmod).

Finally, Qwerty wasn't designed to slow typists down as much as it was to clearance the angles that the strikers hit the page on manual typewriters. Slowing typists down was a side effect.

Re:Umm....QUERTY isn't for efficiency (4, Informative)

Captain Sarcastic (109765) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837364)

QUERTY was designed in part to slow typists down.


A popular legend, but not actually based in fact.

Here [mit.edu] is a pretty decent discussion of the truth - and some of the hype - about Dvorak vs. qwerty.

I now switch you back to your regularly-scheduled browsing.

Death? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16837194)

It's funny how so many of these things die but still stick around...

You know, so many iPod killers out there, they should be dead by now right? And CDs... they're dead too and the MP3s did it, right? Even DVDs, HD and BluRay are killing them as well. It's only a matter of time. Oh and DAPs are dying too. They'll be replaced by cell phones.

What else is dying and will never actually go away?

QWERTY keyboards (or why it takes so long to post) (1)

MiniMike (234881) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837218)

The QWERTY keyboard layout is actually designed to decrease efficiency. This was so old typewriters wouldn't jam from being typed on too fast (this was before the days of people trying for first post). Hopefully they have done differently with their new layout (unless the flood of text messages is overwhelming the system, then it might be helpful to slow them down a bit).

speech into text (5, Insightful)

yagu (721525) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837224)

Let's see, we got cell phones so we could talk. Then the cool idea of texting (yawn). And now, a mobile phone that let's you talk into it, and convert that to text to send a text message? Wow!

I'm holding out for the phone that translates my voice directly into voice the other party can hear. Sigh

Re:speech into text (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837572)

I'm holding out for the phone that translates my voice directly into voice the other party can hear.

What a great idea! *rushes off to the patent office*

Re:speech into text (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837642)

Ok, don't get too upset. Texting came about as a cheap way to send a message, because calling on a mobile phone was quite expensive, even for a minute. There are also occasions when you want to communicate with someone, and not talk, like in the theatre, or a lecture, or a meeting. But these days, texting is very popular, because it is still cheaper, so in reality, it is just a way on encoding your voice message differently, and it is one way.

I am sure that soon we will have readers for our text messages, and then your dream will be complete.

Re:speech into text (1)

LMacG (118321) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837910)

There are also occasions when you want to communicate with someone, and not talk, like in the theatre, or a lecture, or a meeting.

Heaven forbid that one should watch the performance, listen to the speaker, or participage in the meeting. Honestly, whatever you have to say can probably wait.

Re:speech into text (1)

businessnerd (1009815) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837938)

Texting is not cheaper, at least in the US. Unless you have a plan with unlimited text messages, it will cost you 10 cents to send, and another 10 cents to receive. This is on top of the flat monthly rate you pay for your voice minutes. Plus a lot of plans include unlimited nights and weekends, or a close alternative, 1000 nights and weekend minutes on top of your regular minutes. Actually dialing a number and speaking to the person in real time is much cheaper, and much more courteous than texting (when appropriate of course).

Trade-Offs (2, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837946)

We're dealing with a series of trade offs

speaking is faster than typing (for most people)
reading is faster than listening (for most people)
Time: speaking vs typing
cost: static connection vs burst transmissions

Talking on a cell phone is really expensive (once you run over your minutes) compared to a text message. At that point, it would be cheaper & faster to use a speech-to-text setup on your cellphone.

The rest of the time, using a speech-to-text setup is merely a choice of conveinence, since it is generally faster than typing it out with your thumb.

Re:speech into text (1)

tOaOMiB (847361) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837968)

The only thing I use texting for is writing myself an email...a reminder to try something, a to do list, whatever. And I think it would be a helluva lot safer if while I'm walking home from work I could email said reminder to myself by voice instead of trying to type a txt message while crossing the street in Boston.

aging eyes.. (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837238)

I know my parents would love to say goodbye to the keypad. All the cellphones these days are just too small, the buttons too small (and what about people with really big fingers?) I tried finding them a cellphone with extra-large keys but gave up and bought them a motorola unit that they can kind of read but it's difficult without their reading glasses. Screw voice technology, just give me a cellphone with big digits on it... they know how to use a phone, no fancy voice activation stuff that will probably just confuse them anyways.

Ow..ow..ow..ow (1)

sugapablo (600023) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837240)

My thumb hurts. My eyes burn. My brain aches.

Looks like men now must make a choice. Texting or masturbation. No man will be able to coordinate both with keypads like this.

Only if you're new to a keypad (2, Interesting)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837244)

I hear Dvorak keyboards are more efficient. But I don't use one. Why? I already have the qwerty keypad memorized. Not only would I have to learn the Dvorak layout, but I'd have to somehow forget the qwerty one.

So yeah, this might be a great idea - if you've never used a keypad before.

Re:Only if you're new to a keypad (3, Informative)

CoderBob (858156) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837442)

You don't have to forget qwerty. I used dvorak for a while, and while I don't remember it well enough anymore to really be productive with it, I could switch back and forth between the two without too much difficulty. I remember typing faster qwerty (not "correct" qwerty, but my slightly hybrid version) than dvorak, but that was probably 6 years of qwerty vs. 2 months of dvorak.

It's like knowing C and Python seperately. You can code in either C or Python without forgetting the other every time you need to switch languages. You might slip up here and there with syntax or function names until you've built up some decent experience with both of them, but knowing both opens up a lot of options. The same could be said for multiple keyboard layouts. Knowing both provides options.

Re:Only if you're new to a keypad (1)

gnomeza (649598) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837452)

I realised when switching to Dvorak about a year ago, that most of the effort of learning to type is developing muscle memory - so your fingers know where keys are located in space. *Not* what the keys do, mind you.

You're not learning to type again, you're just mentally flipping keymaps. Continue to type on both key layouts (maybe one at work and one at home), and you can still mentally switch between them fairly quickly.

Re:Only if you're new to a keypad (1)

cciRRus (889392) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837720)

I hear Dvorak keyboards are more efficient. But I don't use one. Why? I already have the qwerty keypad memorized.
I am usnig a DVORAK kebyoard and it wokrs bteter than teh QWRETY one, yuo insesnitvie clod!

Re:Only if you're new to a keypad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16837900)

Learning Dvorak is incredibly frustrating for about 3 weeks, and then hugely satisfying for the rest of your life.

T9 (2, Interesting)

Yer Mum (570034) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837246)

However it won't catch on because everybody's used to the ABC layout, and somebody's already come up with T9 which works well enough for most people for entering large amounts of text instead of numbers.

If it were otherwise, computer keyboards would be Dvorak instead of Qwerty.

Re:T9 (1)

jawil73 (936247) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837346)

Will this layout be better for avoiding word-collisions in T9? This is a problem now.. It seems like the most often used letters are on separate keys. Does this mean that this layout will also be better for T9? Or is this only for "old-style" mobile text-input, where you press each key several times? I guess the fewer keys will mean that this layout will be faster to learn than Dvorak.

Re:T9 (2, Insightful)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837436)

somebody's already come up with T9 which works well enough for most people for entering large amounts of text instead of numbers.

T9's annoying. (a) I often text in other languages than English - business reasons. (b) it's too much like Clippy. 'Did you mean "foo"?' (when I try to type "doo".)

-b.

Re:T9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16837498)

T9's annoying. (a) I often text in other languages than English - business reasons.

So do I. But I fail to see how that is relevant. T9 works just as well with, say, French or German or Swedish as with English.

You fail it.

Re:T9 (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837576)

So do I. But I fail to see how that is relevant. T9 works just as well with, say, French or German or Swedish as with English.

Fine if you're dealing with common West European languages I guess. YOU fail it, condescending prick.

-b.

Re:T9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16837668)

While it's not the most common language, there's no T9 support for swiss(-german) which is the language of choice for about 95% of my text-messages. So I agree, T9 sucks...

Re:T9 (1)

jawil73 (936247) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837574)

Change the dictionary if you want to text in other languages.. T9 is great. Much faster than pressing the keys to death without it.

Texting is for when you _can't_ talk (2, Insightful)

MarsBar (6605) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837248)

Well duh, that's just stupid. Yes, speaking might be quicker than texting but if I'm somewhere I can text using speech recognition I might as well pick up the phone and talk.

Re:Texting is for when you _can't_ talk (1)

Attrition_cp (888039) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837652)

To be fair, texting is also useful when the recipient can't use speech, regardless of your situation. Speech recognition could make that faster. Also good for when you want to send an asynchronous message without the desire to actually speak or be forced into a conversation with the other person.

QWERTY... (1, Insightful)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837254)

was not designed for typing efficiency. It was designed to actually slow down typists so that fast typers wouldn't jam the type bars in old-fashioned manual typewriters. The other problem with dumping the 2-ABC 3-DEF system on the keypad is that you'll break lots of 1-800 numbers for people who don't know any better.


-b.

Re:QWERTY... (3, Insightful)

joseprio (923259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837468)

QWERTY was designed to reduce the jamming of keys, so it allowed fast typists go faster, not slowing them down! That it was designed to reduce the efficiency of typists is a very common (and wrong) myth.

Re:QWERTY... (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837608)

QWERTY was designed to reduce the jamming of keys, so it allowed fast typists go faster, not slowing them down! That it was designed to reduce the efficiency of typists is a very common (and wrong) myth.

By efficiency, I meant "possible keypresses in a given time." And I explained the history in my post.

-b.

Re:QWERTY... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16837776)

Actually, it was supposed to increase possible keypresses in a given time. Most-often used key sequences were moved away from each other, so that after pressing one key, the typist could quickly press another without worrying about jamming the whole thing. In that way, it was designed for faster typing.

What about T9? (1)

mdpye (687533) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837266)

The texting champion seems to be using multiple keypresses per letter. Does anyone seriously do this anymore? I can type using predictive text about as fast as I can type at a querty keyboard. Occasionally you have to flick to a different word (but you quickly learn which common ones collide and the extra keypress becomes part of the muscle memory for the word), but on the other hand there are far few keys which is a big advantage. Admittedly I'm not a proper touch typist, but I do use all my fingers, so it's hardly slow...

Anyway, the comparison seems a bit bogus to me as we already have a system many times faster than the one they are comparing to.

MP

The keypad doesn't change here. (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837292)

From what I've seen from the QWERTY links, the keypad stays very much alive. The key mappings are what change. And it seems to me that the cases in which you are likely to use text messaging are not generally cases where efficiency is essential.

Coolest design is... (3, Interesting)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837312)

a Siemens SK65 ca. 2004 like I have. The keypad rotates out [engadget.com] when needed and is usable with the thumbs like a video game machine. Very ergonomic once you get used to it. And you still have the option of text entry on the numeric pad if you don't want to unfold the phone for some reason. Only problem: it's a Euro tri-band phone that doesn't do 850mHz, so reception outside NYC is sometimes a little spotty. It even has Blackberry functionality built in.

-b.

Re:Coolest design is... (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837742)

You forgot one of it's most important features--it protects you from vampires!

Re:Coolest design is... (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837774)

You forgot one of it's most important features--it protects you from vampires!

That's the one bug, not a feature! Those goth chicks are hot, unfortunately, they run screaming when I use the phone. Oh well, can't have it all, I guess.

-b.

Nuance (1)

bahwi (43111) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837336)

Nuance creates Dragon Naturally Speaking, and version 9 is the best so far. Yeah, it's not great for programming, but it gives my hands a break for IMs and E-Mails, as well as has a speech-to-text for MP3's from my voice recorder(yes, not a big feature for most people, but it is for me). 8 was good, but you had to train it, I've barely had to correct 9 at all.

Oblig. (3, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837356)

The other system developed by Nuance is a mobile speech platform that turns speech into text and replaces the keypad altogether.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

typo (1)

Zashi (992673) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837360)

You spelled txt'ng wrong....

Fucking SMS.

Also, wtf. Text-to-speech for text messaging? Does anyone else see how inane this is? IT'S A PHONE, JUST CALL THEM.

Morse Code (1)

tocs (866673) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837406)

I know that not every one will agree but I think Morse code might be a good choice.
I recently spent a little time learning the letters and it was surprisingly easy.
I think it would make a really good text entry method for a lot of mobile applications.
What does every one think of this?

Re:Morse Code (1)

joseprio (923259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837618)

Indeed, there are some applications that allow you to send SMS messages wrote in Morse code, like Morse Texter (http://laivakoira.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/morse_ texter.html [typepad.com]).

Also, seems that Morse is actually quite faster than regular text messaging. An article about it can be found at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2- 1571664,00.html [timesonline.co.uk], and there was a "competition" between two text messengers and two Morse coders in Jay Leno's show some time ago, where Morse coders where MUCH faster than their text message writers counterparts.

MobileQwerty (2, Insightful)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837446)

Why would a qwerty layout on a 10 digit keypad be more efficient than some other layout? They seem to be assuming that the knowledge a user has to use a qwerty layout on a traditional keypad would translate easily to the 10 digit layout. I'm not so sure that's how it works (and I was a Cognitive Science major).

Re:MobileQwerty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16837638)

"(and I was a Cognitive Science major)."

Guess you failed at that and life. RTFA. The "qwerty" layout is a catch-phrase. The keys are not laid out like a standard keyboard.

Re:MobileQwerty (1)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837836)

Thanks, but I read the article and watched the demo. It's not a catch phrase. It's the basis for the layout. If they used it as a basis, obviously they think there will be some skill transfer or something.

But, thanks for the typical AC comment.

CAUTION: Patent pending (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837502)

From Mobience page [mobience.com] (SWF):

As a legal applicant of relevant patents, we think we are the one to choose the right layout and it's our responsibility. (In fact, both of them are within the scope of relevant patents to protect injudicious and confusing variations.) We believe there must be a single right mobile layout for globality and universality reasons just like the keyboard case.

So don't plan on seeing anything like this in the Free world for 20 years.

Simpsons did it? (2, Informative)

Curmudgeonlyoldbloke (850482) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837504)

http://www.blackberry.com/products/suretype/index. shtml [blackberry.com]
(OK - that has with 5 keys across rather than 3)

It's not a perfect solution - a number of 3 letter combinations have multiple words that they can mean. Actually, what I'd rather have is something like the old Microwriter Agenda:

http://www.geoff.org.uk.nyud.net:8080/museum/micro writer.htm [nyud.net]

but without the individual character ABCDE etc. keys.

Qwerty (1)

mysqlbytes (908737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837556)

Is the qwerty layout actually any better? Come 10 years time when the mobile phone kids are all grown up, this won't even be a discussion. Just like qwerty efficiency is also related to how used you are to the key pad, kids of today can type at speed equalling that of most typers, so is the problem really with the layout?

Why not... (1)

daranz (914716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837578)

Why not just make the phone screen a touchscreen and introduce a graffiti-like writing system? I, for one, would find that faster. The 9 (or 12) button keypad is flawed - it will never be as good as a separate button for every key, whatever way you choose to jam letters into it.

Multiple key-presses (1)

Casandro (751346) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837588)

Servus,

why don't they simply build a keypad with the standard 4x3 layout and make the keys seamless. Then you could push "between" the keys effectively pressing 2 or 4 keys at the same time. This would give you a lot more "virtual keys". If the keys are arranged in a sensible way (and not in the braindead current SMS-Way), you might get a great advance in typing speed.

Efficiency can be measured and designed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16837596)

Keypad efficiency is measurable and designable. Measure the time it takes to press a key one, twice, three times. Measure the time it takes to move between keys. Measure the time it takes to press the same key repeatedly for two subsequent letters.

Next, take a large amount of text messages. Start simulating many (random) keypad layouts and take the weekend off. Next monday: voila, your most efficient keypad.

And no, it won't be qwerty. It will probably roughly resemble the ATOMIK keyboard layout for stylus-based systems.

-JAB

Productivity (1)

DMorritt (923396) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837610)

Use Dvorak at work on a slow day (enable dvorak and switch over default is left shift + alt when you want to type qwerty), it makes you look like your working as your jabbing away at keys, but your productivity is a lot slower until you get up to speed so your stretching out the work to make it last ;) i have to agree that dvorak isnt any better for sysadmin stuff, since the letter combos arent usually regular, but this also holds true for qwerty so that kinda balances that one out!

SoS (1)

Faux_Pseudo (141152) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837612)

If they realy wanted to make an efficant phone keypad they would put a morse code button on the phone. I don't know morse code but if I had a button where I could type without even looking at the keypad I would learn it and use it.

This might be a stupid question, but... (5, Insightful)

thesolo (131008) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837646)

If you rearrange the letters and the numbers they correspond with, won't that screw up phone numbers that use text spellings? For example, Comcast's main phone number is 1-800-COMCAST (800-266-2278). If suddenly your keypad has "TUY" mapped to number 2 instead of number 8, that spelling isn't going to work any longer. With "MobileQwerty", 1-800-COMCAST becomes 1-800-739-7472, aka a wrong number. What are they planning on doing, only having the letters arranged differently for sending text messages, and otherwise having the standard ABC configuration for normal dialing? Seems like it would be very confusing.

What smells? (1)

PiNaTa (974415) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837666)

According to the video, the Nuance phone recognized both the words "Serrasalmus" and "Pygocentrus." That's a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say? Now, my sms phone doesn't even recognize "bullshit." I do, though.

MessagEase (1)

Mr. Picklesworth (931427) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837688)

I don't see the point in cramming a standard keyboard into those tiny devices, myself - even if it is a three letter per key system.

The MessagEase [exideas.com] keypad seems to have it right. I have used it on a Nintendo DS and it really is efficient! Very easy to type with once you get the hang of it and the key layout is surprisingly easy to learn.

Human Interfaces (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837748)

First of all I'd like not to talk while sending an SMS or dialing a number. For the sake of my privacy and politeness.
Second I'd like to see a better device design. Keyboard constraints are due to "standard" designs: brick shaped devices give no alternatives.
Third I'd like to see some more advance in the T9-like technologies: they lack context analysis.

Predictive Text (1)

bakert (57600) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837806)

Doesn't predictive text make a "more efficient" layout basically pointless? Yes, once you'd learnt it entering proper nouns and other non-dictionary words would be quicker. But really, just turn predictive text on folks. The pain of the first few days soon gives way to MUCH quicker texting.

won't catch on mainstream (1)

szembek (948327) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837850)

Most people just use the numbers. I only use the letters on my phone when adding a contact. For this reason I prefer a layout in the traditional abc order. I guess if I was sending text messages all day I might think differently, but I prefer to just call somebody if I wish to talk to them using a telephone.

Did anyone else (1)

toetagger1 (795806) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837960)

think of DDR (dance dance revolution) when they first looked at their webpage? Immagine dialing your buddy by making some dance moves! Now mouse gestures are to web browsing as dancing is to calling your buddy!

qwerty seems a tad bit wrong (1)

weteko (1022621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16837974)

The correct way to make texting oh-so-hyper-fast would be to put the most used letters as the first letter on the keys, followed by 9 less used, and finally 9 even less used.

QWE makes no sense. Why one lil click to type a Q and three to type an E? I sure know I type a lot more e's than q's. EWQ would be a lot better.

Then, of course, you run into the lil' problem with different languages using certain characters more than others and people using bizarre short hand (Go to new zeeland will ya! (: ) .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...