On 06.12.2012 20:42, Enrique Perez-Terron wrote: > On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 18:34:52 +0100, Albrecht Schlosser wrote:
> [...] >> But the demand is not to use the normal keyboard, but one that is >> easier to use blindly with one hand (left or right), if such a >> keyboard exists and can be used with FLTK. That's why I'm asking >> here for FLTK experiences with such special hardware. Someone else >> is also trying to find such a keyboard by internet search and such... > > What about using two-digit codes? There are separate numeric keypads on > the market. Thanks for this idea. I thought of these numeric keypads, but my idea was more to use one key for each counter. I still prefer this, since the "original" (specialized) hardware used before had such keys/buttons for each counter (cell type or whatever was to be counted). > Using two-digit codes you can count up to 81 different species and still > reserve the digit zero for special purposes. If we can't find a better solution, I'll consider this, but I believe that hitting two keys (and memorizing the numbers for each counter would be a little too difficult for the users). > As to typing blindly, the case of the qwerty keyboard is special, it > requires the user to sit comfortably with the keyboard in a > ergonomically convenient position, etc. When peeping into a microscope, > with one hand on the levers to adjust the focus and move the specimen, > and the other hand on the keyboard, you will likely have trouble finding > the right keys reliably, unless there are very few distinct keys. The > central area with 3-by-3 keys, 1-9, is ideal. The devices that were used before had maybe about 12 or 16 main keys in an optimal order/position, and some more for less often used other inputs. This seemed to work well, and I believe that this can be handled by most users. If there were more keys, I believe that they should be "blocked" in two or more areas, so that the user can find a particular key easily w/o looking at the device... > In order to facilitate blind operation, I would make the computer > produce distinct audible tones as you register the codes, different > sounds or sound sequences for each code. Thanks, I thought of that too, but I'm not sure that this wouldn't be too annoying for other users sitting nearby. The old devices had a simple key click, but I don't know if it could be switched off. > I would give some attention to making convenient shortcuts for often > needed operations. Suppose you become proficient and count quickly one > "23", then one "11", then one "17", but then you realize that the "23" > was misidentified and should have been a "24". Pressing minus three > times cancels the last three counts, pressing 2,4 corrects the 23, and > then pressing zero twice is a redo of the "11" and the "17". A suitable > auditory feedback at each point would help ensure correct operation. If > you see three of the same species, hit "41" (or whatever) for the first > one, then hit "+" twice for the next two. Yep, that's a good idea, whatever input device we'd use. Thanks for your reply and advice Albrecht _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list fltk@easysw.com http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
