QWERTY Research Articles

Evaluation of Typing Key Layouts for Stylus Input

We studied initial user performance with and preference for alternative typing-key layouts for typing with a stylus. Previous analyses have indicated that, after asymptotic practice with this kind of typing, users should type fastest with certain nonstandard layouts. Although asymptotic performance is important in selecting a layout, it also is important to evaluate initial performance with and preference for layouts. Twelve participants used paper models of six different layouts to type four sentences. The layouts were the QWERTY, Dvorak, standard alphabetic, square alphabetic, and two digraph-based layouts. Performance and preference favored the QWERTY over the other layouts. The square alphabetic layout took a distant second place. QWERTY should be a product's default layout even if users can type with only a single finger or a stylus. If the QWERTY layout is not feasible, designers should consider using the square alphabetic layout for limited typing or a digraph-based layout for extensive typing.

Development of a Digram-Based Typing Key Layout for Single-Finger/Stylus Input

Hand-held devices often include a keyboard on which a user types with one finger or a stylus. When a user types with one finger, conventional key layouts are not optimal for typing throughput. We used a predictive human performance model based on the frequency of English-language digrams and interkey distances to evaluate alternative key layouts. We also analyzed English digrams with a path-analysis program to determine the strongest links among English letters. The path analysis combined with the predictive human performance model provided a basis for developing and evaluating typing-key layouts for single-finger input. A nonstandard typing-key layout (in a roughly 5 times 5 key matrix) based on digram analysis should, after the development of skilled use, be about 27% better than the QWERTY layout. A nonstandard alphabetic typing-key layout (in a roughly 5 times 5 key matrix) should be about 13% better than the QWERTY layout for single-finger entry.

Alphabetic vs. Qwerty Keyboard Layouts for Touch Screens: Hasn't Someone Already Done That?

Forty-eight subjects (24 experienced and 24 inexperienced) entered name and address data on three types of keyboard layouts, the standard QWERTY, an alphabetic, and a random layout (as a control condition). Each keyboard was used in a squared arrangement where the keys were arranged in perfectly aligned rows and columns, and an offset version, where for every other row, the columns were slightly offset. The data show both preference and performance advantages for the QWERTY arrangement. Recommendations for design are discussed

Instant Print-Braille Compatibility with COBRA

This article describes an eight-dot computer braille notation, COBRA, with integrated mathematical and scientific notation that achieves immediate print-braille compatibility through one-to-one representation of letters and other characters. Text can be entered and manipulated from the braille or the Qwerty keyboard and can be viewed simultaneously in the same format on the braille display and monitor screen. Thus, translation to and from braille is unnecessary.

Efficient keyboard layouts for sequential access in augmentative and alternative communication

The study evaluated the efficiency, measured in typing speed (duration/character) and communication rate (sentence completion time and words/minute), of eight different keyboard layouts using a sequential scanning access method. The two 12-key keyboards tested contained three characters on each key with the second and third characters accessed with a two-key combination. Simulated conversational utterances were used as input to the keyboards and a custom computer program calculated the time and keystroke requirements of each keyboard for each sentence. The 43-key letter-frequency-based arrangement was the most efficient among the keyboards tested, followed closely by 12-key letter-frequency, 43-key alphabetical, and 12- key alphabetical keyboards. The modified QWERTY keyboards were, in comparison, grossly less efficient. The results also show that row-column scanning is nearly twice as fast as linear scanning for all keyboards. Implications of these findings for clinicians and for augmentative and alternative communication users are discussed.

QWERTY - the immortal keyboard

The chances are that you are a QWERTY keyboard user. If you use a computer, if you access the Internet, if you check for a book on the computerised database of your local library, you will probably use the standard keyboard. It is likely you will be confronted with an alphanumeric keyboard with a somewhat bizarre arrangement of letters that has been nicknamed QWERTY (after the first six characters on the top row of letters). The QWERTY keyboard is 130 years old, and must be one of the few Victorian inventions to have survived almost unchanged (but not unchallenged) into the electronic era in which we now live. Given the dominance and ubiquity of QWERTY in the world of advanced technologies, it is interesting to consider the reasons for this and the future of this keyboard as we enter the new millennium.

The Effect of Split and Vertically-Inclined Computer Keyboards on Wrist and Forearm Posture

The significant findings from this study of 90 clerical subjects, whose forearm and wrist posture were measured while they typed on three alternative QWERTY computer keyboard designs, are the following: 1) when setup correctly, commercially-available split QWERTY keyboards reduced mean ulnar deviation of the right and left wrists from approximately 12 deg. to within 5 deg. of a neutral position compared to a conventional QWERTY keyboard. 2) with at least a 30 deg. tilt of the keyboard halves, a commercially-available vertically-inclined QWERTY keyboard reduced mean pronation of the forearm by approximately 20 deg. compared to a conventional QWERTY computer keyboard (60 to 40 deg.) The finding that split keyboards place the wrist closer to a neutral posture in the radial/ulnar plane substantially reduces one occupational risk factor of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs), namely ulnar deviation of the wrist. The finding that vertically-inclined keyboards reduce forearm pronation substantially is advantageous, at least theoretically, to the keyboard user. However, since the origins of WMSDs, which include carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and tenosynovitis, tend to be multifactorial, the extent to which split keyboards or vertically-inclined keyboards could reduce the frequency or severity of WMSDs is unknown.

The tools of the trade

Did you know that the QWERTY keyboard was designed to slow typists down? No, not many folk do. In that Urzeit before wordprocessors, typewriters had the letters and symbols mounted on typeheads at the end of long, thin, metal arms, and a skilled typist was capable of hitting the keys so fast that one arm could be driven forward before the previous one had time to retract, so causing the machine to jam. Some smart guy dreamed up the QWERTY keyboard to put as much distance as possible between the most common letters or their combinations and reduce the operator's speed. As typewriter-design improved this became less of a problem and other, more efficient, keyboards were invented but such are the vagaries of human nature that none really seemed to catch on.

Wrist postures in video display terminal operators (VDT) using different keyboards

This study examined the differences in wrist motion using three types of keyboards: a standard QWERTY design and two alternative designs, the Truform Ergonomic keyboard and the Health Care Comfort keyboard. The Comfort keyboard (adjusted at a lateral slope of 30° and horizontal split of 20° and the Truform keyboard (with a 20° horizontal split) were compared with the standard flat QWERTY keyboard. Twenty adult video display terminal (VDT) workers from the Boston area ranging from 22 to 68 years of age volunteered to participate in this study. In randomly assigned sequences, participants typed for 5 min on each keyboard while their wrist motions were measured using the WristSystem by Greenleaf Medical Systems, Inc. Contrast score analysis was used to analyze mean values in flexion-extension and radial-ulnar deviation of the right and left hands between the three sessions. The alternative keyboards significantly reduced ulnar deviation (left: t(19) = 3.46, P < 0.0025; right: t(19) = 5.83, P < 0.00001), and extension (left: t(19) = 2.82, P < 0.001; right: t(19) = 3.99, P < 0.0005). Results suggest that the Comfort keyboard yielded less ulnar deviation and extension as compared to the standard QWERTY keyboard (Left Extension: QWERTY mean = 21.45, Comfort mean = 18.67; Right Extension: QWERTY mean = 22.9, Comfort mean = 14.45; Left Ulnar Deviation: QWERTY mean = 14.54, Comfort mean = 7.44; Right Ulnar Deviation: QWERTY mean = 17.1, Comfort mean = 6.12). Although the Truform keyboard reduced ulnar deviation (Left: QWERTY mean = 14.54, Truform mean = 9.42; Right: QWERTY mean = 17.1, Truform mean = 9.67), it also yielded extension values comparable to those using the QWERTY (Left Extension: QWERTY mean = 21.45, Truform mean = 24.66; Right Extension: QWERTY mean = 22.9; Truform mean = 22.4). Both alternative designs yielded slightly higher values for radial deviation (left: t(19)=-2.4, P > 0.25; right: t(19)=-3.75, P > 0.25) and flexion (left: t(19)=-1.39, P > 0.25; right: t(19)=-3.75, P > 0.25). Still, these increases remained well within the 'neutral' zone (< 15-20°). The results suggest that among the three keyboard designs, the Comfort keyboard was the most effective in maintaining a neutral wrist posture. Although the Truform significantly reduced ulnar devation, it also yielded extension values beyond the neutral range (> 15°). Clinically, these findings may assist occupational therapists in suggesting appropriate keyboard designs during workstation ergonomic modification or consultation. Further research is needed to reinforce these findings.

Developments in Voice-Input Technology

Abstract As computer technology becomes more sophisticated, business educators are again confronted with an alternative form of data input. For years, the QWERTY keyboard, with its design flaws, has been the primary means of data input. However, researchers have developed an alternative means that uses speech-to-text dictation and that will most likely present a serious challenge to the QWERTY keyboard-voice-input technology. Considering the level of sophistication and relative ease of use of this technology, its impact on busi-ness education appears imminent.

Theoretical upper and lower bounds on typing speed using a stylus and a soft keyboard

Abstract A theoretical model is presented to predict upper-and lower-bound text-entry rates using a stylus to tap on a soft QWERTY keyboard. The model is based on the Hick-Hyman law for choice reaction time, Fitts law for rapid aimed movements, and linguistic tables for the relative frequencies of letter-pairs, or digrams, in common English. The model's importance lies not only in the predictions provided, but in its characterization of text-entry tasks using keyboards. Whereas previous studies only use frequency probabilities of the 26 × 26 digrams in the Roman alphabet, our model accommodates the space har—the most common character in typing tasks. Using a very large linguistic table that decomposes digrams by position-within-words, we established start-of-word (space-letter) and end-of-word (letter-space) probabilities and worked from a 27 × 27 digram table. The model predicts a typing rate of 8.9wpm for novices unfamiliar with the QWERTY keyboard, and 30.1wpm for experts. Comparisons are drawn with empirical studies using a stylus and other forms of text entry.

A Comparative Analysis of Typing Errors between the Keybowl and the Qwerty Keyboard

The Keybowl keyboard is the first known keyboard alternative to totally eliminate finger movement and drastically reduce wrist motion. With the significant reduction of finger and wrist motion comes concern over where the repetitive forces are being transferred. In typing with the Keybowl, biomechanical requirements are somewhat different than those in using a QWERTY keyboard. One way to help determine how well typists perform biomechanically is through keystroke error analysis. Typing performances were therefore analyzed via keystroke errors to determine if Keybowl “key” activation was different from QWERTY key activation. An error analysis for each character, hand, and gender was performed. This analysis has built a foundation for comparing two very different types of upper extremity motions and how they might affect a proficient QWERTY typist's performance in typing with the Keybowl.

Perceived Workload between the Keybowl and the Qwerty Keyboard

The Keybowl alphanumeric input device was designed and developed to totally eliminate finger movement and drastically reduce wrist motion. Typing without finger movement requires a typist to adapt to a new method of key activation. This new method requires new mental, physical, and temporal demands, associated with new levels of performance, effort, and frustration. Together these requirements are measured to produce an overall measure of workload. Keybowl workload requirements are somewhat different than QWERTY keyboard workload requirements. With the significant reduction of finger and wrist motion comes concern over how much workload is expected in re-learning to type with the Keybowl. Typing workload was analyzed via the NASA Task Load Index. Typing workload analyses were performed to determine how the two groups of subjects (Keybowl and QWERTY) compared in terms of overall workload.

The Minimal Remote: A Standard Input Device for Consumer Interactive TV

This paper is a polemic and a plea. The almost complete lack of user interface conventions in consumer entertainment equipment, if carried over to the new world of Consumer Interactive TV (CITV), will result in chaos and confusion for CITV users as well as developers. Interface designers of computer software know exactly what sort of input devices a computer user will have, namely, a QWERTY keyboard with 83 to 103 keys, including 10 to 12 function keys, a control key, escape key, a tilde, slash, and so on. In addition, the user will have a mouse (or an equivalent pointer) with two unlabeled buttons, one for “selection” and the other for “menu.” This standardization of keys and labels allows great freedom in the design of software because software can be designed independently of any hardware. It also permits users to move from system to system with no relearning of the basic capabilities of the physical input device (albeit, how these “key primitives” are assembled into commands may require significant relearning.) As a community devoted to reducing the anxiety levels of consumers, our goal should be to create the same environment for CITV, a world that is a stranger to conformance and convention today. A basic set of core controls should be present on all CITV devices. We must define these core controls carefully because they will be the tools by which the future shape of CITV applications will be cut. In this paper, I argue that all CITV input devices should include • a pointer (with associated select key), • a twelve button dial pad, and • four function keys. Individual input devices can enhance this set of “core controls” (as a keyboard can add a separate number entry pad), but they should not omit any of them. I call this CITV input device with only the basic set of core controls a “Minimal Remote.”

Virtuoso pianism from the QWERTY keyboard: The electronic realization of Liszt's scores

For a decade or so, Liszt thrilled and astounded audiences at a time when virtuosity (often as an end in itself) was the norm and the piano had rapidly evolved into a form recognisable as a close relative of the instrument we know today. During this period Liszt frequently performed hisGrandes Etudes (1838), which he had developed from his boyhoodEtude en 12 exercices (1826) and which he later revised and technically simplified asEtudes d'Execution transcendante (1851). Although Liszt's own performances cannot be recreated, procedures for generating electronic realizations, which contain nuances of balance and tempo, are described. All three versions of the eighth of Liszt's set of 12 studies are used for illustration. Contrary to received opinion, it is argued that the 1838 version is more satisfying than the 1851 revision and that this is due to its formal structure.

QWERTY, Nashville, and country music

(1994). QWERTY, Nashville, and country music. Popular Music and Society: Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 41-55.

Alphanumeric entry on pen-based computers

Two experiments were conducted to compare several methods of numeric and text entry for pen-based computers. For numeric entry, the conditions were hand printing, tapping on a soft keypad, stroking a moving pie menu, and stroking a pie pad. For the pie conditions, strokes are made in the direction that numbers appear on a clock face. For the moving pie menu, strokes were made directly in the application, as with hand printing. For the pie pad, strokes were made on top of one another on a separate pie pad, with the results sent to the application. Based on speed and accuracy, the entry methods from best to worst were soft keypad (30 wpm, 1.2% errors), hand printing (18.5 wpm, 10.4% errors), pie pad (15.1 wpm, 14.6% errors), and moving pie menu (12.4 wpm, 16.4% errors).For text entry, the conditions were hand printing, tapping on a soft keyboard with a QWERTY layout, and tapping on a soft keyboard with an ABC layout (two rows of sequential characters). Tapping on the soft QWERTY keyboard was the quickest (23 wpm) and most accurate (1.1% errors) entry method. Hand printing was slower (16 wpm) and more error prone (8.1% errors). Tapping on the soft ABC keyboard was very accurate (0.6% errors) but was slower (13 wpm) than the other methods.These results represent the first empirical tests of entry speed and accuracy using a stylus to tap on a soft keyboard. Although handwriting (with recognition) is touted as the entry method of choice for pen-based computers, the much simpler technique of tapping on a soft keyboard is faster and more accurate.

A Comparison of three Methods of Character Entry on Pen-Based Computers

Methods for entering text on pen-based computers were compared with respect to speed, accuracy, and user preference. Fifteen subjects entered text on a digitizing display tablet using three methods: hand printing, QWERTY-tapping, and ABC-tapping. The tapping methods used display-based keyboards, one with a QWERTY layout, the other with two alphabetic rows of 13 characters. ABC-tapping had the lowest error rate (0.6%) but was the slowest entry method (12.9 wpm). It was also the least preferred input method. The QWERTY-tapping condition was the most preferred, the fastest (22.9 wpm), and had a low error rate (1.1%). Although subjects also liked hand printing, it was 41% slower than QWERTY-tapping and had a very high error rate (8.1%). The results suggest that character recognition on pen-based computers must improve to attract walk-up users, and that alternatives such as tapping on a QWERTY soft keyboard are effective input methods.

Investigation of Applied Forces in Alphanumeric Keyboard Work

This paper considers one way that occupational health professionals can assess the force exerted by keyboard users and the possible relationship between that force and the key force-displacement relationship. First, three personal-computer keyboards with the standard QWERTY layouts were tested as described by the American National Standard for Human Factors Engineering of Visual Display workstations (ANSI/HFS 100-1988) to determine the peak forces, 0.47-0.89N; displacements prior to the "breakaway" force that acknowledges key registration, 2.0-2.5 mm; and total key travel, 3.3-4.3 mm. Second, keyboard reaction forces were recorded while 10 subjects typed 4 alphanumeric sentences on the keyboards. It was found that the peak forces corresponding to each keystroke were 2.5 to 3.9 times the required activation forces, indicating that the subjects consistently displaced the keys to their limits. The average of the peak forces for all keystrokes was lowest for the keyboard with the lowest required activation force. It was concluded that keyboard reaction forces can be used as an index of finger forces for keying tasks. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the relationship between keyboard reaction forces, fatigue, and chronic muscle, tendon, and nerve disorders.

Investigation of Applied Forces in Alphanumeric Keyboard Work

This paper considers one way that occupational health professionals can assess the force exerted by keyboard users and the possible relationship between that force and the key force-displacement relationship. First, three personal-computer keyboards with the standard QWERTY layouts were tested as described by the American National Standard for Human Factors Engineering of Visual Display workstations (ANSI/HFS 100-1988) to determine the peak forces, 0.47–0.89N; displacements prior to the “breakaway” force that acknowledges key registration, 2.0–2.5 mm; and total key travel, 3.3–4.3 mm. Second, keyboard reaction forces were recorded while 10 subjects typed 4 alphanumeric sentences on the keyboards. It was found that the peak forces corresponding to each keystroke were 2.5 to 3.9 times the required activation forces, indicating that the subjects consistently displaced the keys to their limits. The average of the peak forces for all keystrokes was lowest for the keyboard with the lowest required activation force. It was concluded that keyboard reaction forces can be used as an index of finger forces for keying tasks. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the relationship between keyboard reaction forces, fatigue, and chronic muscle, tendon, and nerve disorders.