Typing effort
Keyboard layout efficiency depends on many factors, among them home area usage, vertical load distribution across rows,
horizontal load distribution between hands and fingers, frequency of same finger and same hand usage,
finger movement distance, cross row jump frequency and inward/outward rollover frequencies.
To simplify picture one can resort to notion of typing effort — single property that effectively takes into account above mentioned factors.
It is based on typing model introduced by
Carpalx project and is used for
comparison,
evaluation,
improvement and
optimization of keyboard layouts.
Basic stats
Carpalx report with essential keyboard stats is available for selected layouts.
Only letters and three most common punctuation characters (full stop, comma and hyphen) are taken into account. Other characters are ignored.
Norwegian (including Nynorsk),
Danish and
Swedish wikipedia data dumps were used as reference text.
Frequency distribution is based on the same source.
Ten finger distribution takes into account last letter frequencies and assumes that opposite hand's thumb is
responsible for space bar. While eight finger distribution is calculated without taking into account spaces.
QWERTY layouts
QWERTY is dominant layout in Scandinavia. Danish layout differs from
Norwegian and Swedish ones
by order of ø̈æ̈ letters.
Norwegian QWERTY
Carpalx typing effort is 2.917 which is far from optimal, but better then baseline.
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
i
o
p
å
⟵ 48.9%
a
s
d
f
g
h
j
k
l
ø
æ
⟵ 34.8%
z
x
c
v
b
n
m
,
.
-
⟵ 16.3%
Row distribution is also far from optimal, which is not unusual for QWERTY based layouts.
Layout is asymmetric, left hand is used more frequently, which is typical for QWERTY layouts.
Danish QWERTY
The main difference from Norwegian QWERTY is order of øæ letters, as æ is less frequent in Norwegian texts placing it in home area would be less optimal.
Carpalx typing effort is 2.876 which is again far from optimal,
but better then baseline
and better then corresponding values for Norwegian and Swedish.
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
i
o
p
å
⟵ 46.7%
a
s
d
f
g
h
j
k
l
æ
ø
⟵ 36.9%
z
x
c
v
b
n
m
,
.
-
⟵ 16.4%
Row distribution is inefficient, which is not unusual for QWERTY based layouts.
Layout is asymmetric, left hand is used much more frequently.
Swedish QWERTY
Carpalx typing effort is 2.998,
a bit worse then corresponding values for Danish and Norwegian,
but on pair with baseline.
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
i
o
p
å
⟵ 42.1%
a
s
d
f
g
h
j
k
l
ö
ä
⟵ 40%
z
x
c
v
b
n
m
,
.
-
⟵ 17.9%
Row distribution is still not optimal, like in most QWERTY based layouts.
Layout is asymmetric, left hand is used more often.
Dvorak layouts
There are at least two Scandinavian Dvorak layouts.
The main difference between two is placement of ø̈æ̈ letters.
Norwegian Dvorak
Carpalx typing effort is 2.465, better then QWERTY but still rather high, both comparing to other optimized layouts and
comparing to baseline.
å
,
.
p
y
f
g
c
r
l
⟵ 24.2%
a
o
e
u
i
d
h
t
n
s
-
⟵ 62.4%
ø
æ
q
j
k
x
b
m
w
v
z
⟵ 13.4%
Row distribution is much better then in QWERTY.
Layout is asymmetric, right hand is used more frequently, which is typical for Dvorak layouts.
Svorak
Carpalx typing effort is 2.677, better then QWERTY but still rather high, both comparing to other optimized layouts and
comparing to baseline.
å
ä
ö
p
y
f
g
c
r
l
,
⟵ 27.8%
a
o
e
u
i
d
h
t
n
s
-
⟵ 60.2%
.
q
j
k
x
b
m
w
v
z
⟵ 12%
Row distribution is much better then in QWERTY.
Layout is asymmetric, right hand is used more frequently, which is typical for Dvorak layouts.
Arensito layout
Layout is created for ergonomic keyboards, below is ISO approximation.
Carpalx typing effort is 2.162 which is not optimal, but better then QWERTY and Dvorak.
q
l
,
p
#
&
f
u
d
k
æ
⟵ 20%
a
r
e
n
b
g
s
i
t
o
ø
⟵ 69.9%
å
z
w
.
h
j
v
c
y
m
x
⟵ 10.1%
Row distribution is good.
Right and left hands are used equally often.
Nordtast layout
Nordic flavour of German Nordtast.
Carpalx typing effort is 2.301 which is not optimal, but better then QWERTY and Svorak.
ä
u
o
b
p
k
g
l
m
f
x
⟵ 28.7%
a
i
e
t
c
h
d
n
r
s
⟵ 64.1%
.
,
å
ö
q
y
z
w
v
j
⟵ 7.2%
Row distribution is good.
Right and left hands are used equally often.
Norwegian Programmer's Keyboard
Norwegian keyboard layout for programmers.
Carpalx typing effort is 2.064
which is still not optimal, but better then QWERTY and Dvorak.
q
w
d
u
f
y
j
k
l
:
å
ø
æ
⟵ 20.9%
a
s
e
t
g
h
r
i
o
p
⟵ 62.7%
z
x
c
v
b
n
m
,
.
-
⟵ 16.3%
Row distribution is comparable to Dvorak.
Horizontal distribution is also good.
Fahller layout
Swedish keyboard layout suitable for programming.
Carpalx typing effort is 2.209 which is not optimal, but better then QWERTY and Svorak.
w
y
u
b
ä
k
m
s
h
f
⟵ 24.3%
o
i
e
a
å
v
t
r
n
l
z
⟵ 62.7%
.
,
j
x
ö
g
d
c
p
q
⟵ 13%
Row distribution is good.
Layout is asymmetric, right hand is used more frequently.
Colemak layouts
Scandinavian Colemak flavours are more consolidated comparing to QWERTY and Dvorak.
Order of ø̈åæ̈ is not language specific.
Norwegian Colemak
Carpalx typing effort is 1.878, very promising and
close to baseline.
q
w
f
p
g
j
l
u
y
ø
å
⟵ 18.3%
a
r
s
t
d
h
n
e
i
o
æ
⟵ 69.3%
z
x
c
v
b
k
m
,
.
-
⟵ 12.4%
Row distribution is good.
Layout is asymmetric, right hand is used more frequently.
Swedish Colemak
Carpalx typing effort is 2.054.
q
w
f
p
g
j
l
u
y
ö
å
⟵ 17.4%
a
r
s
t
d
h
n
e
i
o
ä
⟵ 69.3%
z
x
c
v
b
k
m
,
.
-
⟵ 13.3%
Row distribution is good.
Layout is symmetric.
Skarp layouts
Scandinavian keyboard layouts influenced by JNSF and Kvikk.
Skarp Norwegian
Carpalx typing effort is 1.868, much lower then QWERTY and Dvorak,
but higher then Kvikk.
C
v
g
m
d
u
a
o
h
x
-
⟵ 27.8%
k
n
t
f
s
i
j
e
r
l
æ
⟵ 65.1%
.
,
p
b
w
y
å
ø
z
q
⟵ 7.1%
Row distribution is good, 65% of text is typed from home row.
Most of the load is handled by fast index and strong middle fingers.
Skarp Danish
Carpalx typing effort is 1.915, much lower then QWERTY and Dvorak,
but higher then Kvikk.
z
p
m
g
k
u
a
o
h
w
-
⟵ 25.8%
s
n
t
f
d
i
j
e
r
l
å
⟵ 66%
.
,
v
b
c
y
æ
ø
x
q
⟵ 8.1%
Row distribution is good. Almost ⅔ of text is typed from home row.
Most of the load is handled by fast index and strong middle fingers.
Skarp Swedish
Carpalx typing effort is 2.043, much lower then QWERTY and Svorak,
but higher then Kvikk.
x
h
l
d
g
ä
i
o
c
w
-
⟵ 27.8%
k
n
t
f
s
a
j
e
r
m
y
⟵ 61.1%
.
,
v
p
b
å
ö
u
z
q
⟵ 11.1%
Row distribution is good.
Layout is symmetric, most of the load is handled by fast index and strong middle fingers.
Kvikk layouts
Low effort Scandinavian keyboard layouts.
Kvikk Bokmål
Carpalx typing effort is 1.627, much lower then QWERTY, Dvorak and Colemak.
w
j
u
o
ø
f
k
m
h
c
q
⟵ 19.3%
l
r
e
a
i
d
t
n
s
g
v
⟵ 74.2%
x
z
å
y
æ
b
p
,
.
-
⟵ 6.6%
Row distribution is good. Almost ¾ of text is typed from home row.
Layout is symmetric, most of the load is handled by fast index and strong middle fingers.
Kvikk Danish
Carpalx typing effort is 1.673, much lower then QWERTY, Dvorak and Colemak.
x
j
u
o
æ
f
k
m
h
c
w
⟵ 18.9%
l
r
e
a
i
d
t
n
s
g
v
⟵ 74.3%
q
z
ø
å
y
b
p
,
.
-
⟵ 6.8%
Row distribution is good. Almost ¾ of text is typed from home row.
Layout is symmetric, most of the load is handled by fast index and strong middle fingers.
Kvikk Swedish
Carpalx typing effort is 1.738, still much lower then QWERTY, Svorak and Colemak.
x
c
o
ä
u
h
k
m
b
j
w
⟵ 20.7%
l
r
a
e
i
d
t
n
s
g
v
⟵ 71.4%
q
z
å
ö
y
f
p
,
.
-
⟵ 7.8%
Row distribution is good.
Layout is symmetric, most of the load is handled by fast index and strong middle fingers.
Comparison
List of Scandinavian layouts. Typing effort is linked to corresponding Carplax report.
Word reports
Selected layouts are accompanied by word report — list of medium sized words sorted by typing effort.
Character frequency
Character frequency (%) in Scandinavian Wikipedia articles.
| Character |
Norwegian |
Danish |
Swedish |
| Bokmål |
Nynorsk |
| e | 15.754 | 13.345 | 15.897 | 10.065 |
| r | 8.53 | 8.595 | 8.487 | 8.7 |
| t | 8.186 | 7.779 | 7.119 | 7.944 |
| n | 7.937 | 7.44 | 7.306 | 8.089 |
| s | 6.472 | 6.163 | 5.949 | 6.916 |
| i | 5.924 | 6.661 | 5.904 | 5.502 |
| a | 5.719 | 8.155 | 5.717 | 9.156 |
| l | 5.141 | 4.824 | 5.045 | 4.928 |
| o | 5.025 | 5.01 | 4.738 | 4.204 |
| d | 4.095 | 4.221 | 6.07 | 4.442 |
| k | 3.81 | 3.952 | 3.1 | 3.248 |
| g | 3.667 | 3.678 | 4.04 | 2.773 |
| m | 3.295 | 3.408 | 3.18 | 3.452 |
| v | 2.532 | 2.78 | 2.486 | 2.923 |
| f | 2.09 | 1.977 | 2.789 | 2.075 |
| p | 1.92 | 1.895 | 1.487 | 1.746 |
| b | 1.61 | 1.182 | 1.728 | 1.505 |
| u | 1.597 | 1.715 | 1.606 | 1.715 |
| h | 1.27 | 1.117 | 1.421 | 1.796 |
| å | 1.217 | 1.452 | 0.899 | 1.365 |
| . | 0.857 | 0.873 | 0.848 | 0.772 |
| ø̈ | 0.794 | 0.766 | 0.782 | 1.356 |
| j | 0.752 | 1.109 | 0.456 | 0.538 |
| y | 0.741 | 0.861 | 0.662 | 0.577 |
| , | 0.679 | 0.711 | 0.965 | 0.519 |
| æ̈ | 0.203 | 0.142 | 0.887 | 2.137 |
| - | 0.079 | 0.085 | 0.093 | 0.058 |
| c | 0.077 | 0.073 | 0.284 | 1.289 |
| w | 0.011 | 0.012 | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| z | 0.011 | 0.015 | 0.02 | 0.019 |
| x | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.014 | 0.167 |
| q | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Character |
Bokmål |
Nynorsk |
Danish |
Swedish |
| Norwegian |
September 12, 2021. Giorgi Chavchanidze.