Analysis of Alternative Keyboards Using Learning Curves

Abstract

Objective: To quantify learning percentages for alternative keyboards (chord, contoured split, Dvorak, and split fixed angle) and understand how physical, cognitive, and perceptual demand affect learning. Background: Alternative keyboards have been shown to offer ergonomic benefits over the conventional, single-plane QWERTY keyboard design, but productivityrelated challenges may hinder their widespread acceptance. Method: Sixteen participants repeatedly typed a standard text passage using each alternative keyboard. Completion times were collected and subsequent learning percentages were calculated. Participants were asked to subjectively rate the physical, cognitive, and perceptual demands of each keyboard, and these values were then related to the calculated learning percentages. Results: Learning percentage calculations revealed the percentage for the split fixed-angle keyboard (90.4%) to be significantly different (p < .05) from the learning percentages for the other three keyboards (chord, 77.3%; contour split, 76.9%; Dvorak, 79.1%). The average task completion time for the conventional QWERTY keyboard was 40 s, and the average times for the fifth trial on the chord, contoured split, Dvorak, and split fixed-angle keyboards were 346, 69, 181, and 42 s, respectively. Conclusions: Productivity decrements can be quickly regained for the split fixed-angle and contour split keyboard but will take considerably longer for Dvorak and chord keyboards. The split fixed-angle keyboard involved physical learning, whereas the others involved some combination of physical and cognitive learning, a result supported by the subjective responses. Application: Understanding the changes in task performance time that come with learning can provide additional information for a cost-benefit analysis when considering the implementation of ergonomic interventions.

Assessing the Usability of Six Data Entry Mobile Interfaces for Caregivers: A Randomized Trial

“…In order to minimize this bias, we included a training session for each interface in our protocol. It is unclear whether this was sufficient to ensure a similar level of mastery for all categories of interfaces, but this limited the risk of variability due to insufficient training rather than to a true difference between interfaces [ 30 , 31 ].…”

Effects of motor restrictions on preparatory brain activity

“…The complete stimulus list and details on stimulus selection can be found in Online Resource 1 (Section B). To compare the two conditions irrespective of any influence of stimulus difficulty on typing performance, we used the same stimuli in both Baseline and Rule Change (see also Anderson et al 2009 ; Gordon et al 1994 ; Parasher et al 2001 ; Sperl and Cañal-Bruland 2020c ). We conducted ERP analyses only for trials with critical letters in the first position (stimulus- and response-locked) since ERPs for trials with critical letters in the fifth position were likely contaminated by previous keystrokes.…”

Keycube: Text Entry Evaluation with a Cubic Device

“…On the other hand, the third and Unknown-based cubic layout was to avoid potential benefits from participants previous knowledge. Instead of simply randomizing the assignment of characters, the cubic layout (shown in Figure 3) was based (home and top row swapped) on the DSK (Dvorak Simplified Keyboard) layout optimized for English language [1]. Among the three cubic layouts, only the letter placement was changed because none of the special characters except Space, Enter and Backspace would be involved with the phrases set.…”