1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to text-entry devices. More specifically, the present invention relates to determining an acceptable key entry by the angle in which the key is pressed.
2. Background of the Invention
Texting and messaging have become increasingly popular among wireless users. Texting gives users a quick and easy way to send a note to someone else without necessarily interrupting. Cellular providers have created a category of Quick Messaging Devices that are consumer based, messaging centric phones that utilize a virtual or physical full QWERTY keyboard to make typing easier. Within the span of less than a year, this segment has grown at a double digit rate.
The current text input methods on mobile devices are quite cumbersome. The hard keyboards on mobile devices require a careful positioning of the finger on the character to prevent mistyping. This is particularly problematic for the elderly and visually handicapped users. These and many other users have the problem of striking multiple keys at once, often due to the relatively small size of the individual keys.
Physical keys generally require a certain amount of force to depress the key to make a physical contact to register a key press. While the manufacturer can increase or reduce the amount of force needed to press a key, the amount of force needed to press a key is set and does not change. Many mobile devices offer modes of predictive text to help customers enter the words that they intend to type. However most of these modes are based on correcting a word after the word has been mistyped or allowing the customer to choose from a likely list of possibilities as they are typing. Both methods address the problem during or after the process of mistyping a word.
What is needed is a way of avoiding mistyping before the mistyping ever occurs in order to prevent errors and give a user a better experience. Such a device or method should also be able to be used with current predictive text models.
The present invention includes systems and methods for improving the efficiency of text input by measuring the angle of each key press and rejecting improbable keys pressed at an off-center angle. Exemplary embodiments of the present invention include a text-entry device which has logic for resisting error while the user enters text on a keyboard of the text-entry device. Each key determines the angle at which the key is pressed. Keyboard logic on the text-entry device assigns a range of acceptable angles to each key. If a key is pressed within the range of acceptable angles, which is typically around the center, then the entry is permitted. If a key is pressed outside the range of acceptable angles, which is typically on the edges, then the entry is denied. Once text is entered, the keyboard logic assigns a prediction value to each key based on a statistical probability that the key will be entered next. The keyboard logic then adjusts the range of acceptable angles based on that statistical probability.
In one exemplary embodiment, the present invention is a text-entry device for resisting error while entering text. The text-entry device includes a processor, a memory in communication with the processor, a keyboard in communication with the processor having a plurality of keys and each key determining an angle of force, a display in communication with the processor, and a keyboard logic stored on the memory. The keyboard logic assigns a prediction value to each key after a user enters a key, and adjusts an acceptable angle for at least one key relative to the assigned prediction value.
In another exemplary embodiment, the present invention is a method of resisting error while entering text on a text-entry device having a keyboard. The method includes assigning a prediction value to each key after a user enters a key, and adjusting an acceptable angle for at least one key relative to the assigned prediction value. The keyboard is coupled with a text-entry device.
In yet another exemplary embodiment, the present invention is a computer program stored on a computer readable medium for enhancing a dynamic keyboard. The computer program includes a first code segment for assigning a prediction value to each key after each key entered, and a second code segment for adjusting an acceptable angle for at least one key relative to the assigned prediction value. The keyboard is coupled with a text-entry device.
The present invention is a system and method for improving the efficiency of text input by measuring the angle of each key press and rejecting improbable keys pressed at an off-center angle. Exemplary embodiments of the present invention include a text-entry device which has logic for resisting error while the user enters text on a keyboard of the text-entry device. Each key determines the angle at which the key is pressed. Keyboard logic on the text-entry device assigns a range of acceptable angles to each key. If a key is pressed within the range of acceptable angles, which is typically around the center, then the entry is permitted. If a key is pressed outside the range of acceptable angles, which is typically on the edges, then the entry is denied. Once text is entered, the keyboard logic assigns a prediction value to each key based on a statistical probability that the key will be entered next. The keyboard logic then adjusts the range of acceptable angles based on that statistical probability.
Based on predictive text and the intended target key, the text-entry device adjusts acceptable angles of pressure and/or force needed at a particular angle, necessary to hit the secondary or non-target keys surrounding the target key. For example, service providers may want the key pressure to be 190 grams of force to press a key on the QWERTY pad. Service providers may also desire for the keys to be in a convex shape such that they will allow that key to be “clicked” at various angles with varying pressure at each angle.
Furthermore, through predictive text, while typing “questi . . . ” the intended ‘O’ key is the next key to be hit. The text-entry device changes the allowed angle of surrounding keys to avoid accidentally pressing those keys. Common mistypes occur when the user presses the intended key but their thumb accidentally presses the edge of the key next to it. By not allowing off-center angles of presses of non-target keys to be entered, based on predictive text, this would not occur. The key can still be pressed but only at a direct angle.
This design helps facilitate the advantages of predictive text, also known as T9, but combines with the initial input of text before the initial input of text occurs, thereby resisting mistaken keystrokes by the user before they occur. This implementation is not limited to text but can be implemented for numeric and other forms of input where a keyboard is used. For instance, someone dialing a common phone number with a 10 digit dialing keypad that changes the acceptable angles required to press keys as a common number is identified encompasses a further implementation.
For example, most hard keyboards known in the art have small keys that are roughly the same size. With many of these devices, multiple keys may be hit at the same time due to their small size and the lack of space between keys. When the user is an elderly person or visually handicapped person using one of these keyboards, the user may have a hard time pressing the correct key and only the correct key. These groups often accidentally press multiple keys at once as their dexterity and/or vision is decreased. However, they may still desire a small device. The present invention helps to alleviate the issues faced by these groups. As the present invention decreases the sensitivity of keys around the likely keystrokes, the invention makes the intended keys easier to hit. Thus, the user, even with limited sight or dexterity, is able to easily type a message without having to constantly correct accidental keystrokes.
Given a corpus of a language (say English), exemplary embodiments of the invention break down the words into a sequence of characters. Using these sequences of characters, the probability of a particular letter following a character is calculated. Using the above example, the probability of ‘U’ following ‘Q’ is very high in the English language since ‘Q’ is almost always followed by ‘U’. This notion can be extended to larger contexts as well, such as the probability of an ‘E’ entered after the three characters ‘S’, ‘T’, and ‘E’. These probabilities can be used to modify many facets of the soft keyboard.
“Text-entry device,” as used herein and throughout this disclosure, refers to an electronic device which accepts an alphanumeric input often supplied by a virtual or physical keyboard. Examples of a text-entry device include notebook computers, tablet computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), cellular telephones, smart phones, etc.
“Logic,” as used herein and throughout this disclosure, refers to any information having the form of instruction signals and/or data that may be applied to affect the operation of a processor. Examples of processors are computer processors (processing units), microprocessors, digital signal processors, controllers and microcontrollers, etc. Logic may be formed from signals stored in a device memory. Software is one example of such logic. Examples of device memories that may comprise logic include RAM (random access memory), flash memories, ROMS (read-only memories), EPROMS (erasable programmable read-only memories), and EEPROMS (electrically erasable programmable read-only memories). Logic may also be comprised by digital and/or analog hardware circuits, for example, hardware circuits comprising logical AND, OR, XOR, NAND, NOR, and other logical operations. Logic may be formed from combinations of software and hardware.
For the following description, it can be assumed that most correspondingly labeled structures across the figures (e.g., 132 and 232, etc.) possess the same characteristics and are subject to the same structure and function. If there is a difference between correspondingly labeled elements that is not pointed out, and this difference results in a non-corresponding structure or function of an element for a particular embodiment, then that conflicting description given for that particular embodiment shall govern.
There are many other embodiments of a text-entry device that use a dynamic keyboard. The embodiment in
Other exemplary embodiments of a dynamic key include more sophisticated angle determinations. The dynamic key in
The foregoing disclosure of the exemplary embodiments of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed. Many variations and modifications of the embodiments described herein will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the above disclosure. The scope of the invention is to be defined only by the claims appended hereto, and by their equivalents.
Further, in describing representative embodiments of the present invention, the specification may have presented the method and/or process of the present invention as a particular sequence of steps. However, to the extent that the method or process does not rely on the particular order of steps set forth herein, the method or process should not be limited to the particular sequence of steps described. As one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate, other sequences of steps may be possible. Therefore, the particular order of the steps set forth in the specification should not be construed as limitations on the claims. In addition, the claims directed to the method and/or process of the present invention should not be limited to the performance of their steps in the order written, and one skilled in the art can readily appreciate that the sequences may be varied and still remain within the spirit and scope of the present invention.
This application is a continuation of and claims priority to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/571,192, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,810,516, filed on Sep. 30, 2009, entitled “Angular Sensitized Keypad,” which is expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5128672 | Kaehler | Jul 1992 | A |
5483235 | Hanson et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5574482 | Niemeier | Nov 1996 | A |
5963671 | Comerford et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
6307541 | Ho et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6573844 | Venolia et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6614422 | Rafii et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6724370 | Dutta et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
7215327 | Liu et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7376938 | Vander Hoeven | May 2008 | B1 |
7583206 | Volckers | Sep 2009 | B2 |
20020035486 | Huyn et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020152203 | Ostergaard et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020171633 | Brinjes | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030095102 | Kraft | May 2003 | A1 |
20040018857 | Asokan et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040095327 | Lo | May 2004 | A1 |
20040215726 | Arning et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050071778 | Tokkonen | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050167251 | Sugimura et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050188330 | Griffin | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050225540 | Kawakami et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050253816 | Himberg et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060009891 | Pawlak et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060132446 | Soh et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060168539 | Hawkins et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060256139 | Gikandi | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060279434 | Wang | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070016572 | Bates et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070046641 | Lim | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070229476 | Huh | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070288578 | Pantalone | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080174570 | Jobs et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080281583 | Slothouber | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080309621 | Aggarwal et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090040184 | Pu et al. | Feb 2009 | A9 |
20090051661 | Kraft et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090062623 | Cohen et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090106695 | Perry et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090150322 | Bower et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090189864 | Walker | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090195506 | Geidl | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090289958 | Kim et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090319694 | Slezak et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100026650 | Srivastava et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100036833 | Yeung et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100085313 | Rider | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100085317 | Park et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100203874 | Scott et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100259561 | Forutanpour | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100265181 | Shore | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20110029862 | Scott et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20120050169 | Ladouceur et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120244914 | Lundy et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2000330946 | Nov 2000 | JP |
Entry |
---|
Office Action mailed Oct. 3, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,117. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/570,096 Office Action mailed Oct. 3, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/570,096 Office Action mailed Mar. 8, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/570,096 Office Action mailed Apr. 24, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/570,096 Office Action mailed Sep. 23, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,053 Office Action mailed Nov. 28, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,053 Office Action mailed Jul. 9, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,053 Office Action mailed Nov. 21, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,053 Office Action mailed May 24, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,053 Office Action mailed Sep. 25, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,053 Office Action mailed Apr. 4, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,053 Office Action mailed Jun. 9, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,117 Office Action mailed Nov. 23, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,117 Office Action mailed Jul. 18, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,117 Office Action mailed Nov. 26, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,117 Office Action mailed May 24, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,117 Office Action mailed Sep. 25, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,117 Office Action mailed May 7, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,157 Office Action mailed Dec. 23, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,157 Office Action mailed Aug. 16, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,157 Office Action mailed Mar. 14, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,192 Office Action mailed Dec. 22, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,192 Office Action mailed Nov. 20, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,192 Office Action mailed Jun. 19, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,239 Office Action mailed Dec. 2, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,239 Office Action mailed Jul. 19, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,239 Office Action mailed Nov. 21, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,239 Office Action mailed May 24, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,239 Office Action mailed Sep. 11, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,239 Office Action mailed Apr. 9, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/571,239 Office Action mailed Jun. 6, 2014. |
Hoggan et al., “Investigating the Effectiveness of Tactile Feedback for Mobile Touchscreens,” Proc. of SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1573-1582 (Apr. 2008). |
Hoffmann et al., “TypeRight: A Keyboard with Tactile Error Prevention,” Proc. Of the SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2265-2268 (Apr. 2009). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140354552 A1 | Dec 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12571192 | Sep 2009 | US |
Child | 14461608 | US |