Typing VS kb-layout-evaluation

Dunno. Recently I've been tinkering with a layout optimization tool (from the producer of the MTGAP layout). I realized that even the slightest change in parameters seem to result in a different layout. They all have impressive stats on paper, and they have some similarities (like vowels tend to be grouped on one side); but still they are quite different. Unless we come up with a concrete model of typing behavior, which I believe is immensely difficult, it doesn't matter how optimized your layout is. It is probably unoptimized in some yet unknown aspect of typing.

Maybe you can get Portuguese bigrams frequency and run this: https://github.com/bclnr/kb-layout-evaluation I don’t know how different it is from French or Spanish.

I wrote a layout analyzer at some point and that was the reasoning.

And indeed quantitative studies tend to show that Colemak can be very good for other languages, for instance French: https://github.com/bclnr/kb-layout-evaluation (although you need to modify it slightly to add accented characters to reasonable spots). Interestingly enough, French variant of Qwerty (Azerty) is much worse than Colemak or anything.

A while ago I coded a little comparison between layouts to help me with that decision, you might find it useful: https://github.com/bclnr/kb-layout-evaluation

> Some forward-thinking people have set about evaluating key layouts objectively on metrics like these.

[...]

> What If You’re Bilingual?

On that topic some might be interested in this little analysis:

https://github.com/bclnr/kb-layout-evaluation

These scoring systems already exist. Here's the first one I found: https://github.com/bclnr/kb-layout-evaluation