Turns out that an interface like that is really hard to learn but also really fast once you do. Extruding a face along the normal is as easy as getting it selected somehow (which I do with the mouse, but there's plenty of keyboard based selection tools too) and hitting e, followed by z twice, and then either entering a distance on the keyboard or moving the mouse to move it a bit. Personally I love the interplay between keyboard and mouse: you can pick whichever method is most effective. For selecting specific things or moving stuff until it looks right you use the mouse, for selecting in bulk or moving stuff specific distances you use the keyboard. Or a combination. Whichever is convenient.
So I think if you can solve the discoverability problem of keyboard shortcuts it'd be a real productivity boost for power users.
Additionally I don't think it allows you to substitute a period for the numpad period key which is a rather important button in day-to-day blender usage. Of course you can re-map any key you like, but it'd be nice to have it set up right by default.
EDIT: and of course under a recent blender version (2.5+) there's the search box if you really don't want to use your mouse ;)
Also, I bought a separate mechanical 10key years ago and never looked back. It's a fantastic addition to any 40-60%.
https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/124/how-to-emula...
My laptop has no number pad. I use it when I want a portable keyboard device, so an external keyboard would be irrelevant and unnecessary. Buying a device with a numpad built in would be a compromise that makes the built in keyboard even less useful, due to its non-centred location - in the unlikely event that everything else was identical.
My external keyboards have no numpad. They're ergonomic keyboards. One built for size, the other built uncompromisingly ergonomically. Ergonomic design actually speaks against number pads, since it means you have to extend you arm further to reach the mouse, and an uncompromised ergonomic design are wider than a regular keyboard since you want more separation between the two hands - so the number pad becomes an even bigger issue.
I've sometimes thought about buying an external numpad. But so far I neevr have.
Either move the mouse or the number pad to your left hand. I've left moused in the office for years (Yahoo! ergo team preached it when I joined), and it took a bit of getting used to, and limits your mouse choices, but it's actually pretty nice sometimes to be able to have one hand on the mouse and the other on the number pad. Mousing with one hand in the office and the other hand at home can help with overuse injuries too (although, using good techniques is much better for that). Of course, that still doesn't get you a numberpad on a reasonably sized laptops, but laptop keyboards are an ergo nightmare anyway, reaching over today's enormous touchpads is awful.
I don’t have this problem with my Kinesis Advantage, since the numpad is embedded in the main keyboard (using a mode shift/switch to access, which I have mapped to a foot pedal)
You can start in blender ploddingly wandering though the gui as you discover features and then streamline your workflow with the keyboard shortcuts as you go. As you do so, it feels a lot like leveling up in a particularly good game.
Very few pieces of software currently do this well these days. Its a breath of fresh air. Especially v2.8.
Imagine playing piano while having to take a hand off the keys and find a mouse during the song. It would be impossible to keep up. Keyboard only is speedy when learned.
This jives quite well for me. When I’m working keyboard is almost always better, but when I’m messing around with software I’m unfamiliar with and I haven't yet familiarised myself with the keys for it, I’ll poke around with a mouse. Once I figure out my workflow then I’ll probably use the keys more.
Unlike with a mouse, the keyboard never "fell off" the active menu tree requiring me to start over.
Unlike with a mouse, the keyboard couldn't hide things until I moused-over them. Recently I spent quite a while trying to find the zoom controls on a PDF because they were transparent until I randomly waved the mouse in a corner of the screen where there were no controls.
Mouse-driven discovery sucks, IMHO/IME.
You have to know that this is possible as a user, and app developers have to support it, and/or not override the default operating system handling.
This is, without a doubt, an area that we have regressed on. I remember very clearly that when I was first learning to program VB6, UI conventions were pretty standardized on Windows, and so you just did a lot of this stuff by default - you had a &File menu, and &New, &Load, &Save, and E&xit commands on it.
Some software still does this, but it is increasingly rare; in Chrome right now, the Alt key doesn't do anything, and I find that Electron apps have to go out of their way to mimic native conventions, as VS Code does.
So there's less software that follows keyboard-driven conventions, so fewer users know about those conventions, creating a vicious circle. Not to mention that the bulk of your average person's "computer" usage is poking at a touchscreen phone or tablet that has no physical keys at all, just godawful on-screen keyboards.
The user-hostile pattern of nested levels of mouse-maze menu, which collapse if you stray one pixel out of the required path, absolutely infuriates me. I can't imagine who thought this was a good idea or what sort of pointing device they used.
It's absolutely bad UI design, but I think it's become the rule rather than the exception. It's just "prettier", according to some jerk who never used a hotkey in his life.
> It's just "prettier", according to some jerk
Some would say "brave" and with jerk I think you're being too kind :-)
The key take-away was they spent a lot of money on a research project specifically about mouse vs. keyboard and found the precise opposite to be true! Surprising to say the least.
* Test subjects consistently report that keyboarding is faster than mousing. * The stopwatch consistently proves mousing is faster than keyboarding.
Without specifying how it was tested that's meaningless. For example I've read of a test where keyboard users were slower because they had to do a find/replace operation on a file manually, moving the cursor only with arrow keys. That's like saying using the mouse is slower after forcing mouse users to type text on a virtual keyboard.
I think in most scenarios both can be fast enough that the difference doesn't matter, provided there's proper support for both.
Supplying actual data is always useful.
Especially when it contradicts a common opinion ;)
Sometimes, articles that contradict a common opinion do so because they're simply dead wrong. This is one of those cases.
Did Apple do a study? Did it come to the conclusion that the mouse was faster? If so, why is it dead wrong?
(The study perhaps had a more narrow set of conclusions than presented in the article. Wouldn't surprise me.)
As a result, I'm very fast at navigating menus and switching tools in my program of choice (GIMP), because those are rapid keypresses rather than forced mouse clicks. It's just so much faster to click Alt+I > S, type a few numbers, hit Tab a couple times, and enter (well, Space usually), than it is to navigate with the mouse to the Scale Image drop-down, put my hands back on the keys to type numbers in, and then switch back to the mouse to hit OK. Ctrl+Q is much easier and faster than clicking the Selection Editor button. Alt+L > T > 9 is the quickest and simplest way of rotating the current layer - a more mouse-based UI might even refuse to give me a 90-degree option and instead force me into manual control. And of course, keeping a hand on the keyboard so it can quickly type a key or shift-key is much faster and more accurate than having to mouse over to the Toolbox to select a tool.
The non-graphical tablets with pens are really a different type of interaction, and one that supersedes keyboard + mouse for light graphics. Using one hand with the pen for pointer input + another hand for touch input is really powerful. Moving around, zooming, or rotating things on the screen is easier done with a hand. And a wheel menu (context or otherwise) really starts to shine with a pen.
I wish more software actually supported this. I currently own such a device (a Dell), and I'm searching for software that can utilize touch+pen input to full extent, but there aren't many programs that can.
I'm a Pom (British/Australian) living in Germany, so most keyboards in shared locations are unusable for me. Using other people's computers is a massive pain as my carefully-learned muscle memory is now actively stopping me from pushing the right keys.
I keep looking at Dvorak or a chord input device, but I know that if I get used to that then I'll have to carry one around with me always so that I can plug it in to whatever computer I'm using at that point. This doesn't seem practical.
I'd love another input option. One that was actually designed for humans to communicate fast with.
No, this is a myth that doesn't become more true just because many people perpetuate it without question.
QWERTY was designed to be as fast as possible for the first data entry jobs at the first companies that adopted typewriters and went through a couple iterations based on feedback of these first customers.
Is QWERTY optimal? No. But it's good enough that learning an alternative layout like Dvorak for months may cost you more of your lifetime than you'll ever get back by typing minimally faster(not to mention such a switch would be more costly with every single keyboard shortcut you've memorised so far).
Either way if you are waiting for a better alternative to become the standard so you don't need to carry your own keyboard you're going to need a lot of patience.
Hasn't that origin story been debunked?
e.g. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/fact-of-fiction-...
I don't want to know what my muscle memory would do if it got used to a Dvorak keyboard.
While not designed for best human use, it's not completely terrible.
Azerty vs Qwerty verus Qwertz is a different issue entirely.
The problems I have with keyboard are usually discoverability.
Windows is mostly mouse optional. You very rarely need a mouse, it's just way more common to use one. My memory is a bit off, but I know Win 95 was fine, I think it got a bit worse in XP (a lot more things that were hard to tab to), and 10 is ok, but not great.
I would like to murder the group of fools that managed to make a GUI for a touchscreen service program that was unusable without mouse and disabled the touch unit for some functionality, but that's neither here nor there.
I remember it was much more accurate to use than a mouse, and better interface than having toolbars all over the display.
http://www.brisk.org.uk/gt1212b/index.html
Crazy high res and absolute rather than relative which makes them very useful for some applications.
I have used the digitiser a few times and it seemed much more efficient than the mouse.
Also autocad has (or at least had, last time I looked at it years ago) a very prominent prompt where to input keyboard commands (in autolisp, no less!).
I have early signs. I often wonder if I will eventually be pushed into the grey disability area parent mentioned moreso from UI "progression" than from ET progression
I heavily use the keyboard, and for certain things (mostly apps I use daily) I'm highly proficient with it, barely touching the mouse at all. But once in a while I have to work with a spreadsheet, or edit an icon, or use some other piece of software I only use maybe a couple times per year. I simply don't remember shortcuts and I certainly can't justify spending the time to (re)learn enough to be more efficient keyboard-only that with a mouse, so I just rely on the mouse.
It's hard to imagine any keyboard-only (G)UI doing a better job at making usage discoverable than what can be done with a mouse-enabled one.
Particularly when he clarified that keyboard-only doesn't just mean text-based, and it can be graphical and keyboard-only. I'm trying to imagine UI that are graphical and beautiful but works with keyboard only, and it actually could be a very interesting world if that were popular. It's not unlike games from older days where ways of input is limited and input is purpose-driven.
For sure, as you said, there's the discovery/exploratory aspect of using a software where GUI helps a lot. But there's definitely merit in what the author is saying.