Talk:Keyboard layout

PrtSc/PrtScrn keycap label

This laptop I'm using now says "PrtScrn", as do a couple of random keyboards around me at the moment. But the illustrations in the "IBM XT Technical Reference Manual" show the keys on the XT as labelled PrtSc - looks like Windows 104-key keyboards say PrtScrn and original 5150/5160 keyboards say PrtSc. This is probably too obscure a change to merit reverting the edits, and no-one should care this deeply about a keycap label. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

What one encounters on an individual keyboard is not a good guide because either ‘PrtSc’ or ‘PrtScn’ can be encountered in roughly equal numbers. My main desktop PC actually spells it out as ‘Print Screen’. I initially restored the article to the established stable version but on reflection decided that there was no reason not to mention both alternatives.

I have not seen ‘SysRq’ on any keyboard or laptop made less than around eight years ago. -Vuehalloo (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. And here on my upstairs machine ,which came with Windows 8, the keyboard says "prt sc/ impr. écr." and "SysRq" is nowhere to be seen. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• My keyboard layout.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Size of keyboard layouts

I can’t seem to find any credible sources for the size of keyboard layouts. Even if I use .org instead of .com, it usually lists piano sizes, not computer ones. Any help? Senomo Drines (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Please create new sections at the bottom of the page, not the top.

You need to explain what you mean by "the size of keyboard layout" as it is not obvious. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I will try to be more specific, although maybe I am approaching this the wrong way. Senomo Drines (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I noticed your edit and now realise that you are talking about physical (hardware) layout rather than logical (software) layout: I should have guessed that you didn't want to know how many MB is a typical mapping.

I'm afraid I had to cut your contribution, good faith though it was, because it is in the wrong article. The information you wanted is in (or should be in) Computer keyboard#Types and standards. (IMO, the info there is very thin and poorly cited, so "your mission, if you choose to accept it" [ta-da] is to develop that section with the citations you've been digging out. Don't forget that Apple keyboards are different again but need to be covered.)

BTW,we actually have three articles about keyboards: there is also an aricle about keyboard hardware, see Keyboard technology, though it more about components than about the overall keyboard. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"Workman": origin of the name of this layout?

Why is it called Workman? Equinox ◑ 21:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Stat keyboard not mentioned

It is a layout designed around the year 2000 that puts 80% of the most commonly used letters on the right 50% of the keys. Also places the most commonly used 3 letter groups to be struck in a pinky to index pattern which is faster than index to pinky. It was designed by data basing 300,000 letter keystrokes from a random selection of Internet texts, and news articles. It was suggested it be altered for specific technical writing that have different frequently used words, and, letters. It included the number of times in the 300,000 key strokes the individual letters were struck in a bell graph curve showing that the data base results are an accurate reflection of actual writing usage. It also included a picture of the layout, and a list of the common 3 letter groups like the, ing, tio, and ion. Tio, and ion being parts of the common 4 letter group tion. I still have the diagrams if someone wants to fight it out to have it added to the page.2600:8807:5400:28F0:53C:D203:5DD6:97A1 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously there's going to be layouts not mentioned here; there are hundreds of keyboard layouts, this article isn't notable enough to list all of them. Floenele (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You mention "notability". I'll also take on "consensus" because, as commonly used on Wikipedia talk page discussions, they are both used wrongly to achieve the stated goal of Wikipedia "to be a repository of knowledge", and is not how knowledge is even advanced in the first place.

Consensus of knowledge is not achieved by vote of cadres of pals on Wikipedia talk pages. it's achieved by understanding what the consensus of source material is. That's how real encyclopedias are composed. Likewise notability is not how many source articles are written about a subject as is often demanded by many talk page cadres seeking to "own" a page. It's how well an article illustrates the notable points of the subject most articles on the subject do note.

It was not by a consensus of a political popular vote that validated Newton's conclusion that the Earth circles the sun. It was by consensus of knowledge on a variety of knowledge including mathematics, geometry, mechanics, and physics. If it had been subject to vote with all the corrupt influences involved, notably previous church stances on the subject, we'd still be on a flat Earth with the sun going around us, and wouldn't have even been able to develop the steam engine.

The article on the stat keyboard, though not widely published, does note many points noted by many articles published on on the subject of keyboard layouts, and in particular disposes of many claims made by Dvorak for his keyboard layout on the notable points made in published articles that he cites keyboard layouts should adhere to.

Some notable points most often raised in published articles are; using common letter usage as sourced from study of actual common writing. arranging the keys logically based on common hand acrobatic ability, and arranging the keyboard layout informed by the common letter use, and the acrobatic strengths of the hands.

We can discuss my proposed addition to improve the article with the inclusion of the stat keyboard article based on those real world values. But there's no point in discussing it if your position is imposing the wrongful values of the common Wikipedia talk page tactics. I'll state right up front that I have a copy of the article on the stat keyboard. I don't recall where I found it. I don't have a link, and don't know the name of the writer of the article or the inventor of the layout.

Wrongful, ignorant challenges by the the talk page peanut galleries are why citation lists disposing of the wrongful challenges are longer than the articles themselves, and are why most of the first best editors fled Wikipedia north of a decade ago, and is why Wikipedia has become a laughing stock as a "repository of knowledge".

2600:8807:5400:600:7055:82A3:E739:7865 (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@2600:8807:5400:600:7055:82A3:E739:7865 that wasn't my point. my point was that nobody has time to look for, research, and add hundreds of keyboard layouts in an article as obscure as this. Floenele (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

50% upscale on thumbnails

Most of the thumbnails have an upright 1.5, to upscale them by 50%. This seems counterproductive to me. It disrupts the layout because so much white space is generated between entries. It doesn't make the images much more legible: yes the major keys are better but keys with two – let alone four – symbols aren't usefully easy to read. Surely if anybody needs to examine a layout, the will need to see the image full size so will use click to expand.

Is there a convincing reason to retain the upscaling? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

ŪGJRMV: dubious statement

The ŪGJRMV section states that "The name "Šusilda" appears on the home row, though the reason is unclear". I have labelled this as dubious, because it clearly doesn’t. What is "Šusilda"? Is this the Latvian name for the letter Š? And why is it significant enough to mention it? Moonraker12 (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, this was edited in copying the reference source, but missing that the phrase “Okay, I’ll say it: who is Šusilda, and why was her name sneaked onto the home row?” was clearly meant as a joke. With that in mind, I think the sentence you comment on needs to be taken out. Humal (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Naming the two sections for Latin-script keyboard layouts

In the past these headings said "QWERTY-based Latin-script keyboard layouts" and "Non-QWERTY-based Latin-script keyboard layouts". At some point someone removed the "QWERTY-based", which seems to have led to confusion as to what goes where. Do we want to restore the old headings, or maybe adjust them to fix the issues "QWERTY-based" may have? To me the current situation seems silly, at least. Arcorann (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Arcorann: I was I who changed it because it is a fundamental category error, based (I suspect) on a failure to appreciate the world outside the Americas. Is AZERTY a QWERTY-based keyboard? of course not, but it does have the same evolution. Same goes for all the national keyboard styles for languages written in Latin script.

Perhaps we can do better than Conventional Latin-script keyboard layouts ("Traditional"?) for the most widely used style v Other Latin-script keyboard layouts for novel layouts such as Dvorak – but "QWERTY-based" is just wrong.

I have some sympathy for your point though: for example the InScript keyboard for Sanskrit could be described as "QWERTY based" because each key has both a Latin and a Sanskrit function – and the Latin layout is QWERTY. But that is more an accident of history than a ergonomic design choice.

Why do you consider the current situation "silly"? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)