Does the book discuss capacitive vs resistive touchscreens?
At the time you basically had two choices for touchscreens: resistive or capacitive. Resistive was "obviously" the way to go because it was far more accurate. Choosing capacitive was inspired -- when used with stubby fingers the accuracy problem was moot, and it allowed multi-touch.
Just before the iPhone came out I was fairly confident I knew what the future was. It was now possible to create a phone with the horsepower to run a real web browsers. 800x600 pixel screens were available which would display normal web pages nicely, and a resistive touch screen with a stylus would make them useful.
Then the iPhone came out. 320x480 screen meant normal web pages wouldn't display properly, inaccurate touchscreen meant tap targets needed to be increased massively. Why would anybody buy an iPhone which didn't allow you to install apps, and the web was unusable because it required rewriting every page since existing pages were unusable. Instead you could buy a phone which allowed you to install apps and which allowed you to usably access the web. Obviously the iPhone would be a failure. :)
Yes, the book explains how everything started from the capacitive touchscreen. The initial idea (2004-2005) was to build a Mac tablet computer based on touch screens. Bas Ording designed all the interactions we know, rubber band and inertial scrolling, the home screen… for a mac tablet!
So really the capacitive screen drove the interactions. Input first, just like the mouse on Macintosh or the stylus on Newton, everything then flows from there.
On the web browser, I disagree with you (sorry!), the killer app of the iPhone was that Safari was the same Safari, with the same capacity and rendering, than on desktop.
It was completely new. Yes, you had to double tap on complex, non responsive websites, but every single (non-flash) site would render the same.
My 640x480 HTC Universal with a plastic keyboard felt antiquated compared to the 320x480 iPhone, especially starting with the 3GS
As I remember it, all these mobile browsers for Windows Mobile were not exactly the same code and rendering engine / javascript engine that on desktop. They were ports
As the iPhone OS was Mac OS at its core, Safari was exactly the same engines, and that was a quite novel and enticing promise: the real web in your pocket (minus proprietary plugins like Flash)
Opera was a direct port, with some mobile adaptations. The problem was the IE6-only sites and other braindead web-development practices that affected Opera even on desktops.
When I saw the first iPhone commercial I knew it was the future immediately. Pinch to zoom and all the pleasures of a touch screen. Plus a web browser comparable to a desktop but with mobile usability.
The web experience and usability of the original windows phone and blackberries was terrible. Nokia had a Swiss Army knife that didn’t sell or translate well to the iPhone/Android future.
320x480 screen meant normal web pages wouldn't display properly
I’m not sure what you mean by that. The whole point of the demo was it rendered the New York Times website just as it rendered in desktop Safari. In contrast to, say, Windows Mobile which would butcher the rendering. If the touch targets were too small, well, through the wonders of multitouch, pinch to zoom in.
the web was unusable because it required rewriting every page since existing pages were unusable
You’re remembering a much different iPhone than I am. Are you sure not confusing it with WinMo 5/6? Because then we’d be in some agreement.
It rendered just fine on the sharp Zaurus or the Nokia phone sized Linux tablets, and was a much more pleasant experience than the iPhone pinch and zoom and pan and scroll.
But but on any mainstream phones. The phone I reference didn't exist. It could have and should have. If it did, perhaps Nokia would have survived.
From a technical perspective, yes. You are basically talking about the Nokia N800 but with a cellphone modem and a bit of effort spent shrinking the bezels down.
But from a product design perspective, I suspect it was impossible to make that leap. We are talking about the point when cellphones were at their very smallest. The 1st gen iphone with it's 3.5" display was considered to be large for a phone. Nobody thought mainstream users would be happy pocketing a phone with a "massive" 4.13" display.
And Nokia were only happy excluding the keyboard from the N800 because it was considered to be a content consumption device. At that time, smartphones were regarded as productivity devices (for email) and the physical keyboard was essential, which would have bulked out the device (See N810).
I don't think we could have gotten to today's large smartphones without first creating a viable browsing experience on an iphone sized display.
Not impossible, it only required a small amount of vision and risk taking. Which Nokia et al obviously lacked.
> Nobody thought mainstream users would be happy pocketing a phone with a "massive" 4.13" display.
Yet it was exceedingly obvious there was a very profitable sizeable niche of users that were willing to do so.
And it shouldn't have taken very much imagination to realize that "web in the pocket" was useful in 2008, and would quickly become much more useful in 2009, 2010 etc as the population of people with the web in their pocket grew and companies started to serve the market.
The big problem was that all of those phone companies were hardware companies. Putting Firefox in a phone was a challenge beyond them. Microsoft could have and should have done it, but they were dysfunctional at the time.
This is pretty similar to the Japanese "flick" keyboard that's fairly commonly used on smartphones. Instead of 3 possible directions per button there's 5 (up, left, right, down, and neutral): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5UEsHEZWII
It's pretty intuitive because Japanese kana is a syllabary that's organized by their starting consonant and one of five possible vowels in the Gojuon system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goj%C5%ABon
I never got used to it but people who use it swear by it. Google even made a mechanical version for an April Fools a few years back: https://youtu.be/5LI1PysAlkU
It's 5 directions for Japanese kana, but 3 for the alphabet. Regarding usage, I find swipe input to be faster for English although flick input gives me more accuracy. In the end, nothing beats a physical keyboard though.
Wow, i always think "i wish there was a demo" of each iterative step on these kind of design journeys. And especially the iOS keyboard, as i thought a lot about it. Awesome that you made this.
I really like their idea to make the touch keyboard work well by increasing the (invisible) "padding" area for the key most likely to be typed next. So obvious in hindsight but demos like your's show part of the journey.
There are rumors that in the beginning they tried the ipod wheel as the user input interface.
While working on my device, that idea is super motivating. I know where i am headed and have done a lot of work and really got something very, very interesting already. But a few parts are yet not clear at all. But, i am definitely further than our "clickwheel" stage. Not yet at the "secret padding" stage for some input ideas, but still.
In case you are free and interested to loosely talk about ideas or feedback you have for a very novel device (and interface), please let me know how to reach out. Just because you made this demo, i feel we'd get a long & i can learn a lot from you. And this might be a very interesting challenge for someone like you. Anyway, great work!
Unexpected Keyboard [1] has a similar concept: you can tap keys to enter letters or swipe to the corners to input special characters. It also has all of the usual modifier keys so it's really nice to use together with Temux.
This is cool! Thanks for building it and sharing it. I think phone keyboards are simultaneously amazing that they work at all and also still need huge improvements. There was a moment in the early mobile app explosion where we had some cool experimental keyboards but they mostly fizzled out, were acquired and shut down, or didn't reach their potential (looking at you, keymunk). I still think about this space all the time but, like password managers, it requires such a vast amount of trust I think it's a hard business to get into.
Was hoping the LLM boom would help us get sane autocorrect to help bridge the gap but so far that hasn't happened either.
Sometimes the best ideal solution is not the one that can win in practice!
The web was and still is a very bad hypertext system (no bidirectional links, no versioning, no integrated index, no transclusion, etc.) and we are still paying this debt! But this was also the an incredible hypertext system, permission-less, decentralized, and that made it a success.
I feel that the iPhone keyboard was the same, it had to appears (including in screenshots) innocuous and "without quality" to win over users.
Neat prototype. While the key layout is unfamiliar, I could definitely get used to this. The layout reminds me of old cell phone typing, where each number had a set of letters associated with it and you had to press multiple times to get the letter you wanted. I wonder if testers at the time got confused trying to type like that.
Spent maybe 3 min with it and got the hang of it. I thought no qwerty was going to be a deal breaker but I think I could get "fluent" with it in a day or two.
The worst parts are: no upper case and the fact that there's no connection between what you typed and the keyboard once you submit.
Yeah, the goal of this particular prototype was to try and find a way to make typing letters actually possible! The iPhone team at this moment was in real trouble, as the naively 1-to-1 keyboard was absolutely unusable!
They stopped the whole 15 developers iPhone OS team and asked all developers to only build keyboard prototypes until they all would have something worth of a demo. As far as I know it's unheard of in the history of OS development!
Ken Kocienda was not in charge of the keyboard at all originally, he stumbled upon one working solution, and that's really what I found interesting in this prototype: it's a step in the iterative process.
Thanks for making this! I hadn't even heard of this keyboard layout prototype until now.
I have a few friends that use gesture-based keyboards similar to this, and I myself use gestures to type diacritics and punctuation. So this idea is still alive after almost two decades, just not mainstream.
I use Unexpected Keyboard on android and it has been amazing. It gives you so much options and speed that other keyboards aren't even remotely close, and seems very close to what you've linked.
One of my favorite virtual keyboards was a linear swipe keyboard called something like “Minimum” (minus some vowels). The QWERTY keys were laid out horizontally like a piano keyboard. Text input was fast and surprisingly accurate.
This was about 15 years ago, but then the app and company disappeared. I can’t find any trace of the keyboard or company on the web today. Perhaps they were sunk by some patent issues.
Fun, you can type "hello world this is a test" with only one swipe needed. "swype" keyboards could be seen as a continuation of this idea. At least, I think that's the chronology? Wikipedia says Swype Inc was founded in 2002, but the keyboard product didn't release until 2009.
This is excellent and I appreciate your work. I love seeing prototype interface, and this one has real promise. I immediately found myself thinking about alternative layouts, particularly adaptive ones with common letter-pairs appearing radially.
I honestly never understood why on earth QWERTY became the standard for touchscreen text input. It's a good keyboard layout but only when the keys are physical and large enough that you can type with two hands without looking at the thing. But it's absolutely godawful when you have to use it with one finger or two thumbs and no feel. All those dictionary-based crutches that were piled on top of it over time don't help, they only exacerbate the problem, especially considering how laughably poorly they work with languages whose grammar is more complex than English. I've been using touchscreen phones since 2011 yet I somehow still make typos all the time. This suggests that the problem isn't me.
An ideal touchscreen text input method should embrace the strengths of the medium. Touchscreens allow swipes and gestures, so use that to your advantage! Like in the OP, yes. I myself experimented with a similar concept, except it was a 3x4 grid of square buttons that each can input one of 5 characters, one for tap and the other four for each of the directions, inspired by Japanese keyboards. I tried to use it for a day, it worked, but it felt somewhat unnatural. Maybe I haven't given myself enough time to get used to it, or maybe it was a terrible idea to begin with, or maybe the character layout wasn't optimal (I arranged them alphabetically).
Another idea I have is to take the 8pen[1] concept but add more lines, make it 6 or 8, so it's practical for Russian which has 33 letters. Haven't tested this one yet.
I feel like touchscreen text input is a very under-researched area for a world where nearly everyone owns a smartphone.
But there isn't that "not learning shit" aspect to it because none of your muscle memory translates between the full-size computer keyboard and the crammed mobile version.
And people somehow learned to type on phone keypads before. No one complained about it once they figured it out in the first hours after getting their first phone.
sorry, you don't get it. that isn't learning. People know where everything is but now it's just smaller. It looks the same.
On android, on google keyboard, I can pick layouts like Azerty, Dvorak, Colemak, and ClearFlow. There's also plenty of novel replacements for conventional keyboard style hit boxes using various gestures.
These things are readily available. I've never seen them in the wild.
It's not like these things don't exist. You can switch over right now.
The reason you aren't ... that's the learning thing.
The thing I found interesting in trying to type out a single test sentence is how many of the letters were reachable with just a tap. It wasn’t until I really studied the layout closely that I noticed that it wasn’t in true alphabetical order. Oddly intuitive, although I would probably despise using it long-term.
Right, I noticed that too! (especially typing in english, might be different in other languages)
That's why it's totally different to learn about an UX and actually experiment it, we can notice these things.
But, all in all, I think you would probably get used to it long term!
The QWERTY layout was just a fluke, not the super optimized layout we retcon it to be.
Even its designer later designed different layouts! But the particular typewriter it was designed for had a big commercial success, so there was marketing convergence. It's of course wholly unadapted to typing on glass!
With T9 you had to tap multiple times to get a secondary letter. Here you can tap or swipe to get any letter without multiple presses. I think that's a huge difference.
T9 was single tap per letter and an internal dictionary would figure out which letter you meant, then 0 would cycle between possible matching words, with the last option falling back to the more common multi-tap input you're thinking of (which I don't recall ever having its own name) to add to the dictionary.
Yea, and Ken Kocienda would end up using a huge dictionary (bigger than any phone or the Newton which had one in 93 and a bigger one in 96) at the word level too.
But only after this prototype, because the design goal here was to validate that there was any way at all to type the letter you wanted. Design is not a linear thing, and that’s what I wanted to make people feel by recreating this early prototype!
Note that everyone in the team (15 developers) was busy creating their own weird keyboard too! Everything was halted because of the basic 1-to-1 keyboard failure to work
There's no up swipe in the prototype made in 2005 by Ken Kocienda (which this is a reproduction of). It's tap for center letter, and swipe for the sides.
What do you mean by "widen the margins"?
In any case, Ken Kocienda validated this reproduction's behavior as very close to his original blob keyboard (see bluesky posts between him and me)
The goal is not to make it better than the original prototype! But to the contrary, to give you the same experience that pushed Kocienda to explore further and design the right user experience.
Does the book discuss capacitive vs resistive touchscreens?
At the time you basically had two choices for touchscreens: resistive or capacitive. Resistive was "obviously" the way to go because it was far more accurate. Choosing capacitive was inspired -- when used with stubby fingers the accuracy problem was moot, and it allowed multi-touch.
Just before the iPhone came out I was fairly confident I knew what the future was. It was now possible to create a phone with the horsepower to run a real web browsers. 800x600 pixel screens were available which would display normal web pages nicely, and a resistive touch screen with a stylus would make them useful.
Then the iPhone came out. 320x480 screen meant normal web pages wouldn't display properly, inaccurate touchscreen meant tap targets needed to be increased massively. Why would anybody buy an iPhone which didn't allow you to install apps, and the web was unusable because it required rewriting every page since existing pages were unusable. Instead you could buy a phone which allowed you to install apps and which allowed you to usably access the web. Obviously the iPhone would be a failure. :)
Yes, the book explains how everything started from the capacitive touchscreen. The initial idea (2004-2005) was to build a Mac tablet computer based on touch screens. Bas Ording designed all the interactions we know, rubber band and inertial scrolling, the home screen… for a mac tablet!
So really the capacitive screen drove the interactions. Input first, just like the mouse on Macintosh or the stylus on Newton, everything then flows from there.
On the web browser, I disagree with you (sorry!), the killer app of the iPhone was that Safari was the same Safari, with the same capacity and rendering, than on desktop.
It was completely new. Yes, you had to double tap on complex, non responsive websites, but every single (non-flash) site would render the same.
My 640x480 HTC Universal with a plastic keyboard felt antiquated compared to the 320x480 iPhone, especially starting with the 3GS
> The initial idea (2004-2005) was to build a Mac tablet computer based on touch screens.
There was lots of speculation about this starting in 2002 when “Inkwell” handwriting recognition showed up in Mac OS X Jagwire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkwell_(Macintosh)
https://www.macworld.com/article/155597/wacom.html
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/mac-os-x/0596004605/ch0...
And related patent filings go as far back as 2000: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7564995B1/en
> My 640x480 HTC Universal with a plastic keyboard felt antiquated compared to the 320x480 iPhone, especially starting with the 3GS
Opera Mobile existed at that time, though.
As I remember it, all these mobile browsers for Windows Mobile were not exactly the same code and rendering engine / javascript engine that on desktop. They were ports
As the iPhone OS was Mac OS at its core, Safari was exactly the same engines, and that was a quite novel and enticing promise: the real web in your pocket (minus proprietary plugins like Flash)
Opera was a direct port, with some mobile adaptations. The problem was the IE6-only sites and other braindead web-development practices that affected Opera even on desktops.
> Yes, you had to double tap on complex, non responsive websites
I suppose GP’s point is that the vast majority of websites in 2008 were “desktop”-only.
But the double tapping was intelligent to zoom exactly what you meant.
Also tapping links was very easy
When I saw the first iPhone commercial I knew it was the future immediately. Pinch to zoom and all the pleasures of a touch screen. Plus a web browser comparable to a desktop but with mobile usability.
The web experience and usability of the original windows phone and blackberries was terrible. Nokia had a Swiss Army knife that didn’t sell or translate well to the iPhone/Android future.
320x480 screen meant normal web pages wouldn't display properly
I’m not sure what you mean by that. The whole point of the demo was it rendered the New York Times website just as it rendered in desktop Safari. In contrast to, say, Windows Mobile which would butcher the rendering. If the touch targets were too small, well, through the wonders of multitouch, pinch to zoom in.
the web was unusable because it required rewriting every page since existing pages were unusable
You’re remembering a much different iPhone than I am. Are you sure not confusing it with WinMo 5/6? Because then we’d be in some agreement.
It rendered just fine on the sharp Zaurus or the Nokia phone sized Linux tablets, and was a much more pleasant experience than the iPhone pinch and zoom and pan and scroll.
But but on any mainstream phones. The phone I reference didn't exist. It could have and should have. If it did, perhaps Nokia would have survived.
> It could have and should have.
From a technical perspective, yes. You are basically talking about the Nokia N800 but with a cellphone modem and a bit of effort spent shrinking the bezels down.
But from a product design perspective, I suspect it was impossible to make that leap. We are talking about the point when cellphones were at their very smallest. The 1st gen iphone with it's 3.5" display was considered to be large for a phone. Nobody thought mainstream users would be happy pocketing a phone with a "massive" 4.13" display.
And Nokia were only happy excluding the keyboard from the N800 because it was considered to be a content consumption device. At that time, smartphones were regarded as productivity devices (for email) and the physical keyboard was essential, which would have bulked out the device (See N810).
I don't think we could have gotten to today's large smartphones without first creating a viable browsing experience on an iphone sized display.
Not impossible, it only required a small amount of vision and risk taking. Which Nokia et al obviously lacked.
> Nobody thought mainstream users would be happy pocketing a phone with a "massive" 4.13" display.
Yet it was exceedingly obvious there was a very profitable sizeable niche of users that were willing to do so.
And it shouldn't have taken very much imagination to realize that "web in the pocket" was useful in 2008, and would quickly become much more useful in 2009, 2010 etc as the population of people with the web in their pocket grew and companies started to serve the market.
The big problem was that all of those phone companies were hardware companies. Putting Firefox in a phone was a challenge beyond them. Microsoft could have and should have done it, but they were dysfunctional at the time.
I loved my zaurus SL-5000D. The keyboard was great, although the buttons were kind of clickey and you had to press them quite hard
Well to be fair, people did demand you be able to install apps and this feature was added shortly after.
I guess phones getting new features via updates was fairly uncommon at the time though.
> Why would anybody buy an iPhone
Curious how you would respond to this argument today.
This is pretty similar to the Japanese "flick" keyboard that's fairly commonly used on smartphones. Instead of 3 possible directions per button there's 5 (up, left, right, down, and neutral): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5UEsHEZWII
It's pretty intuitive because Japanese kana is a syllabary that's organized by their starting consonant and one of five possible vowels in the Gojuon system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goj%C5%ABon
I never got used to it but people who use it swear by it. Google even made a mechanical version for an April Fools a few years back: https://youtu.be/5LI1PysAlkU
I use it. It's great!
I'm native English but native Japanese are super fast. It's like watching a speed cuber
It's 5 directions for Japanese kana, but 3 for the alphabet. Regarding usage, I find swipe input to be faster for English although flick input gives me more accuracy. In the end, nothing beats a physical keyboard though.
Wow, i always think "i wish there was a demo" of each iterative step on these kind of design journeys. And especially the iOS keyboard, as i thought a lot about it. Awesome that you made this.
I really like their idea to make the touch keyboard work well by increasing the (invisible) "padding" area for the key most likely to be typed next. So obvious in hindsight but demos like your's show part of the journey.
There are rumors that in the beginning they tried the ipod wheel as the user input interface.
While working on my device, that idea is super motivating. I know where i am headed and have done a lot of work and really got something very, very interesting already. But a few parts are yet not clear at all. But, i am definitely further than our "clickwheel" stage. Not yet at the "secret padding" stage for some input ideas, but still.
In case you are free and interested to loosely talk about ideas or feedback you have for a very novel device (and interface), please let me know how to reach out. Just because you made this demo, i feel we'd get a long & i can learn a lot from you. And this might be a very interesting challenge for someone like you. Anyway, great work!
Thanks! Yes, the blob keyboard opened the way to the idea of decoupling what the user see and what the software keyboard takes into account.
Feel free to contact me on LinkedIn! I'd be happy to chat
Unexpected Keyboard [1] has a similar concept: you can tap keys to enter letters or swipe to the corners to input special characters. It also has all of the usual modifier keys so it's really nice to use together with Temux.
[1] https://github.com/Julow/Unexpected-Keyboard
This is cool! Thanks for building it and sharing it. I think phone keyboards are simultaneously amazing that they work at all and also still need huge improvements. There was a moment in the early mobile app explosion where we had some cool experimental keyboards but they mostly fizzled out, were acquired and shut down, or didn't reach their potential (looking at you, keymunk). I still think about this space all the time but, like password managers, it requires such a vast amount of trust I think it's a hard business to get into.
Was hoping the LLM boom would help us get sane autocorrect to help bridge the gap but so far that hasn't happened either.
Sometimes the best ideal solution is not the one that can win in practice!
The web was and still is a very bad hypertext system (no bidirectional links, no versioning, no integrated index, no transclusion, etc.) and we are still paying this debt! But this was also the an incredible hypertext system, permission-less, decentralized, and that made it a success.
I feel that the iPhone keyboard was the same, it had to appears (including in screenshots) innocuous and "without quality" to win over users.
Neat prototype. While the key layout is unfamiliar, I could definitely get used to this. The layout reminds me of old cell phone typing, where each number had a set of letters associated with it and you had to press multiple times to get the letter you wanted. I wonder if testers at the time got confused trying to type like that.
Yeah i had the same vibes and could definitely see a refined version of that being very quick to type on
Spent maybe 3 min with it and got the hang of it. I thought no qwerty was going to be a deal breaker but I think I could get "fluent" with it in a day or two.
The worst parts are: no upper case and the fact that there's no connection between what you typed and the keyboard once you submit.
Yeah, the goal of this particular prototype was to try and find a way to make typing letters actually possible! The iPhone team at this moment was in real trouble, as the naively 1-to-1 keyboard was absolutely unusable!
They stopped the whole 15 developers iPhone OS team and asked all developers to only build keyboard prototypes until they all would have something worth of a demo. As far as I know it's unheard of in the history of OS development!
Ken Kocienda was not in charge of the keyboard at all originally, he stumbled upon one working solution, and that's really what I found interesting in this prototype: it's a step in the iterative process.
Thanks for making this! I hadn't even heard of this keyboard layout prototype until now.
I have a few friends that use gesture-based keyboards similar to this, and I myself use gestures to type diacritics and punctuation. So this idea is still alive after almost two decades, just not mainstream.
Reminds me of Thumb-Key: https://github.com/dessalines/thumb-key
I'd be interested to try a full-featured Android keyboard like this.
I use Unexpected Keyboard on android and it has been amazing. It gives you so much options and speed that other keyboards aren't even remotely close, and seems very close to what you've linked.
One of my favorite virtual keyboards was a linear swipe keyboard called something like “Minimum” (minus some vowels). The QWERTY keys were laid out horizontally like a piano keyboard. Text input was fast and surprisingly accurate.
This was about 15 years ago, but then the app and company disappeared. I can’t find any trace of the keyboard or company on the web today. Perhaps they were sunk by some patent issues.
Fun, you can type "hello world this is a test" with only one swipe needed. "swype" keyboards could be seen as a continuation of this idea. At least, I think that's the chronology? Wikipedia says Swype Inc was founded in 2002, but the keyboard product didn't release until 2009.
The blob keyboard was never publicly shown (at least not until Kocienda's book in 2018) and was quickly morphed into something else internally.
So Swype probably reinvented the idea independently (as others did too I think)
Apple did patent some swipe behaviors for keyboards at the time of the first iPhone: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8059101B2/en
This is really cool! What a neat little exploration.
I didn’t know about the history of the iOS keyboard, and this was a great insight.
Check the repo for more infos, and be sure to read at least the interview with Ken Kocienda, and maybe his book!
This is excellent and I appreciate your work. I love seeing prototype interface, and this one has real promise. I immediately found myself thinking about alternative layouts, particularly adaptive ones with common letter-pairs appearing radially.
I honestly never understood why on earth QWERTY became the standard for touchscreen text input. It's a good keyboard layout but only when the keys are physical and large enough that you can type with two hands without looking at the thing. But it's absolutely godawful when you have to use it with one finger or two thumbs and no feel. All those dictionary-based crutches that were piled on top of it over time don't help, they only exacerbate the problem, especially considering how laughably poorly they work with languages whose grammar is more complex than English. I've been using touchscreen phones since 2011 yet I somehow still make typos all the time. This suggests that the problem isn't me.
An ideal touchscreen text input method should embrace the strengths of the medium. Touchscreens allow swipes and gestures, so use that to your advantage! Like in the OP, yes. I myself experimented with a similar concept, except it was a 3x4 grid of square buttons that each can input one of 5 characters, one for tap and the other four for each of the directions, inspired by Japanese keyboards. I tried to use it for a day, it worked, but it felt somewhat unnatural. Maybe I haven't given myself enough time to get used to it, or maybe it was a terrible idea to begin with, or maybe the character layout wasn't optimal (I arranged them alphabetically).
Another idea I have is to take the 8pen[1] concept but add more lines, make it 6 or 8, so it's practical for Russian which has 33 letters. Haven't tested this one yet.
I feel like touchscreen text input is a very under-researched area for a world where nearly everyone owns a smartphone.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3OuCR0EpGo
Qwerty is the lowest cognitive lift.
Most tech people really don't understand how valuable "not learning shit" is to a product's success
But there isn't that "not learning shit" aspect to it because none of your muscle memory translates between the full-size computer keyboard and the crammed mobile version.
And people somehow learned to type on phone keypads before. No one complained about it once they figured it out in the first hours after getting their first phone.
sorry, you don't get it. that isn't learning. People know where everything is but now it's just smaller. It looks the same.
On android, on google keyboard, I can pick layouts like Azerty, Dvorak, Colemak, and ClearFlow. There's also plenty of novel replacements for conventional keyboard style hit boxes using various gestures.
These things are readily available. I've never seen them in the wild.
It's not like these things don't exist. You can switch over right now. The reason you aren't ... that's the learning thing.
Reminds me of the physical keyboard on my old SonyEricsson M600c.
Each key on the keyboard was a rocker switch. Push left for q. Push right for w, etc.
The thing I found interesting in trying to type out a single test sentence is how many of the letters were reachable with just a tap. It wasn’t until I really studied the layout closely that I noticed that it wasn’t in true alphabetical order. Oddly intuitive, although I would probably despise using it long-term.
Right, I noticed that too! (especially typing in english, might be different in other languages)
That's why it's totally different to learn about an UX and actually experiment it, we can notice these things.
But, all in all, I think you would probably get used to it long term!
The QWERTY layout was just a fluke, not the super optimized layout we retcon it to be.
Even its designer later designed different layouts! But the particular typewriter it was designed for had a big commercial success, so there was marketing convergence. It's of course wholly unadapted to typing on glass!
The most common English letters are found at the top of the triad, and some only have punctuation as the other option -that makes for easy navigation
Cool. And nicely implemented.
Having texted with T9 this didn’t feel too alien. Just the accept button slowing me down.
Isn’t this basically just t9 from the physical keyboard era? I was very used to it as a teenager.
With T9 you had to tap multiple times to get a secondary letter. Here you can tap or swipe to get any letter without multiple presses. I think that's a huge difference.
T9 was single tap per letter and an internal dictionary would figure out which letter you meant, then 0 would cycle between possible matching words, with the last option falling back to the more common multi-tap input you're thinking of (which I don't recall ever having its own name) to add to the dictionary.
Yea, and Ken Kocienda would end up using a huge dictionary (bigger than any phone or the Newton which had one in 93 and a bigger one in 96) at the word level too. But only after this prototype, because the design goal here was to validate that there was any way at all to type the letter you wanted. Design is not a linear thing, and that’s what I wanted to make people feel by recreating this early prototype! Note that everyone in the team (15 developers) was busy creating their own weird keyboard too! Everything was halted because of the basic 1-to-1 keyboard failure to work
You should widen the margins for what's considered an up swipe
There's no up swipe in the prototype made in 2005 by Ken Kocienda (which this is a reproduction of). It's tap for center letter, and swipe for the sides.
What do you mean by "widen the margins"?
In any case, Ken Kocienda validated this reproduction's behavior as very close to his original blob keyboard (see bluesky posts between him and me)
The goal is not to make it better than the original prototype! But to the contrary, to give you the same experience that pushed Kocienda to explore further and design the right user experience.
This is great! Thank you for sharing!
You can spell “this is the shit” without needing angled letters