[srmatto]

Here's an old blog post that explores that topic at least with one specific example: https://www.loper-os.org/?p=861

The gist is that keyboards are optimized for ease of use but that there could be other designs which would be harder to learn but might be more efficient.

[AdieuToLogic]

>> There's a reason keyboards haven't changed much since the 1860s when typewriters were invented.

> The gist is that keyboards are optimized for ease of use but that there could be other designs which would be harder to learn but might be more efficient.

Here's a relevant trivia question; assuming a person has two hands with five digits each, what is the largest number they can count to using only same?

Answer: (2 ** 10) - 1 = 1023

Ignoring keyboard layout options (such as QWERTY vs DVORAK), IMHO keyboards have the potential for capturing thought faster and with a higher degree of accuracy than other forms of input. For example, it is common for touch-typists to be able to produce 60 - 70 words per minute, for any definition of word.

Modern keyboard input efficiency can be correlated to the ability to choose between dozens of glyphs with one or two finger combinations, typically requiring less than 2cm of movement to produce each.

[lifthrasiir]

Only if individual digits can be articulated separately from each other. Human anatomy limits what is actually possible. Also synchronization is a big problem in chorded typing; good typists can type more than 10 strokes per second, but no one can type 10 chords (synchronous sets of strokes) per seconds I think.