EHB_2015_paper_701

1. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304413393 The keyboard remains the least economically designed computer device Conference Paper · November 2015 DOI: 10.1109/EHB.2015.7391585 CITATIONS 0 READS 450 3 authors, including: Cristian Catalin Gavat GRIGORE T. POPA University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 16 Universitatii Street Iasi… Radu Cozmei Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie Grigore T. Popa Iasi 23PUBLICATIONS   15CITATIONS    2PUBLICATIONS   0CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Cristian Catalin Gavat on 03 February 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2. The 5th IEEE International Conference on E-Health and Bioengineering - EHB 2015 Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Iaşi, Romania, November 19-21, 2015 The keyboard remains the least ergonomically designed computer device Octavian Ciobanu1, Cristian Gavat1, Radu Cozmei1 Affiliation 1: Medical Bioengineering Faculty, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, UMF Iaşi, Iaşi, Romania Abstract—Ergonomic devices are often designed to provide more comfort and to increase productivity but they can also help avoid pain and specific injuries. The ergonomic design of a computer keyboard needs expertise in ergonomics and biomechanics. The existence of a large category of typists with slow typing skills, visually searching the seemingly random keyboard, including novice users and the analysis of existing standards and keyboards leads to the conclusion that existing QWERTY based keyboards still remain the least ergonomically designed computer devices and need to be improved. This paper discusses the existing standards in ergonomics and the various commercial keyboards and makes observations about the ergonomic design features and the wrong recommendations of some standards. This paper takes into consideration the existence of a large category of typists with slow typing skills, visually searching the seemingly random keyboard, including novice users and even persons with disabilities and the expectation that ergonomic keyboards have to meet the requirements of all users. Some of them may suffer from learning disabilities such as dyslexia and dysgraphia which are characterized by difficulties in reading and in writing respectively. The first typing machine was developed in 1808. The QWERTY design is based on a layout created in 1873. The QWERTY layout was produced in order to avoid mechanical key jamming. A lot of alternative layouts were designed including the Dvorak layout but all these layouts have no ergonomic qualities. There are two major groups of keyboard users. They could be classified as advanced typists, working with no visual aid when typing and typists with slow typing skills which work searching for keys. An ergonomic keyboard should answer the expectations of both categories. A significant number of analyses focusing on the examination of keyboard layout showed that for novice users, both the QWERTY and DVORAK keyboards look like random configurations. This raises the question whether another configuration can reduce the search time that inexperienced typists need to spend in order to find the right key. The review of standards, the analysis of biomechanics, the analysis of a number of scientific papers and the discussion of some keyboards with advanced characteristics will be used in order to reach certain conclusions regarding existing commercial keyboards. Keywords—keyboard; ergonomics; design; standards;analysis. I. INTRODUCTION A well-designed ergonomic keyboard has to provide more comfort, to increase text speed entry, and to reduce the risk factors for specific injuries. Ergonomic computer keyboards might provide improved comfort and should actually allow faster PC activities but these qualities are accompanied by higher prices and the price may be an obstacle for some users. Improved design and better ergonomic characteristics, determine the effectiveness and suitability of computer keyboards. The design process of keyboards requires not only accomplishing ergonomic objectives, but also the balancing of complexity, versatility and especially of cost. The user must match these characteristics to personal specific needs. Systematic literature reviews assessing the quality of keyboards and a number of studies testing their ergonomics showed important design deficiencies in these computer devices and proposed improvements [1,2,3,4]. Also, some authors [5, 6] found that the alphabetic keyboard determined slightly increased typing speeds. Alves, Castro and Sousa [7] showed in a study that from 21 tested users, 10 were identified as slow typists and 11 were classified as fast typists according to the typing speed of a certain text; while typing, slow typists must construct in mind the representation of what they intend to write, pay attention to the printed letters, plan further sentences, revise the written sentences, and especially pay attention to finding the keys on the keyboard. II. ANALISYS For a device to be considered effective, it should improve both comfort and productivity. Certain general design principles for keyboards furnished by ISO 9241-410, EN ISO 9241-410:2008/A1:2012 and HF-STD-001 are widely accepted as necessary to create an effective and ergonomic keyboard. III. 1 General Design Principles for Computer Keyboards Main indications for keyboard design refer to: - Minimizing adaptation time and key positions memorization, - Maintaining ergonomic posture, - Avoiding excessive force, vibration, and repetition; 978-1-4799-2373-1/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE

3. - Avoiding awkward reaching for mouse; - Adjustability. Among these design principles, the minimization of adaptation time it is the most difficult characteristic to be achieved by existing commercial keyboards. For typists with slow typing skills and new users, the QWERTY, DVORAK and all similar keyboards seem to have random configurations and using them is a time consuming process. These old types of keyboards were initially made for mechanic keyboards and may be considered the least ergonomically designed devices. These layouts facilitate the frequent alternation of the left and right forehand on a physical keyboard, with no solutions for further ergonomic improvements [8]. The most important drawbacks of the QWERTY keyboard are: - Requires all key positions memorization; - Slows down the speed of typing; - Produces mental and physical fatigue; - Increases the number of typing errors; - Biomechanics of hands and fingers are affected with disproportionate amount of work. QWERTY and all derived layouts contradict an ergonomic principle presented in HF STD 001: systems and equipment should be designed to minimize personnel and training requirements within the limits of time, cost, and performance trade-offs (Chapter 2; 2.6.6 Minimize training requirements). Some potential health issues are associated with the maintaining of non-ergonomic posture: - Physical discomfort, pain or injury; - Visual discomfort; - Stress; - Fatigue. Among the stressing factors, some may be inevitable. Stressing factors could be: starting a new job; learning a new skill; fluctuations in work flow; emergencies in the work activities. It is obvious that “learning a new skill” may be associated with the difficulties of learning the keyboard layout by typists with slow typing skills and new users. Fatigue is the decrease in work efficiency due to previous physical, mental or emotional intense activities. Even the effort to maintain an ergonomic posture for a certain period of time can cause fatigue III. 2 Technical Standards regarding keyboards ISO 9241-410 and EN ISO 9241-410:2008/A1:2012 recommend that the conventional keyboard is rectangular and flat, with alphabetic, numeric and other function keys laid out in a generic way. According to these standards, the features that may contribute to the ergonomic qualities of a keyboard are: • Keyboard thickness: maximum 30 mm at the asdf row of keys; • Slope of keyboard: between 0° and 15°; • Keys with a matt finish to prevent reflections • Keys with concave or flat surfaces; • Keys with visible printed characters; • Appropriate key force; • Keys with feedback mechanism to show when the keystroke is successful; Smaller keys size of the alphabetic-only keypad are more comfortably and efficiently; • The keys have to be positioned with the „g‟ and „h‟ keys in the centre of the keyboard. Among these features recommended by ISO and EN ISO standards some require particular attention because they are in conflict with the performance expectations of typists with slow typing skills and of new users: “the alphabetic section of the keyboard has to be positioned directly in front of the user; the „g‟ and „h‟ keys are usually considered the centre of the keyboard, and these should be aligned to the midline of the body “ and “keyboards thickness of no more than 30 mm at the asdf... row of keys”; but centered g and h keys and the asdf arrangement belongs to the QWERTY layout and it does not represent an ergonomic keyboard. This means that ISO and EN ISO standards include a number of recommendations which could not be described as ergonomically. Human factors design standard recommendations for alphanumeric keyboards: “Keyboards intended for the entry of both alphabetic and numeric information shall conform to the standard "QWERTY" arrangement” (9.1.6 Alphanumeric keyboards); “fixed- function keys shall be grouped logically and shall be placed in distinctive locations” (9.2.4 Grouping). As shown before, QWERTY layouts are less ergonomically because the fixed- function keys are not grouped logically and all these are in conflict with the performance expectations of typists with slow typing skills and of new users. These examples show that even Human factors design standard HF-STD-001 fails recommendations. Also Parkinson [9] complained that the American National Standards Institute gave no chances “to those people who don't now type, but might like to learn if only it weren't so hard and time-consuming to do so”. III.3 Ergonomic posture and biomechanical studies Keyboards activities require repetitive strokes (about 10,000-20,000 keystrokes per hour) and an ergonomic posture. Ergonomic posture for keyboards users consists of thighs and forearms being approximately horizontal. The ergonomic posture may be obtained using an existing ergonomic chair and a keyboard with ergonomic qualities which slightly elevates the thumbs and allows forearm muscles to be relaxed during typing activities. The objective of ergonomic posture during typing is to avoid strained muscles and contracted joints which determine low blood feeding and put nerves under tension. Sommerich, Marras and Parnianpour [10] made a study about typing biomechanics, including key strike force, joint and tendon postures and dynamics. Some data obtained from this study could be used as training characteristics and used in the rehabilitation activities and for the correction of bad posture of computer keyboard users. Perreira & al [11] showed that the contraction of muscles increases in the left forearm and decreases in the right forearm with decreasing horizontal key spacing. Also they showed that the left wrist extension movement increases and • HF-STD-001 has in making ergonomic

4. left ulnar movement decreases with smaller horizontal key spacing. These findings may influence keyboard standards and design of keyboards. Upper extremity biomechanics in keyboard activities differ by gender. Wona [12] showed that differences in upper forearm force, muscle contraction and posture depend on gender and these differences in biomechanical characteristics were more evident when computer users were grouped by highness. Research clearly confirms that certain alternative keyboards may improve ergonomic qualities [4]. Also, a recent scientific literature review assessing the quality of keyboards and number of studies assessing the influence of keyboards on users found moderate evidence that “rest breaks and postural training are ineffective and mixed to moderate evidence that alternative input devices can be effective” [13]. III.4. Alternative solutions for ergonomic keyboard design Ergonomic factors have to be considered when discussing the design of computer keyboard devices, as well as the position of components and the postures of users. The following commercial solutions are presented and discussed: - Colemak - KalQ - Keybowl - Swype - DataHand The Colemak keyboard is an alternative to the QWERTY and Dvorak layouts. It was designed for speeding the typing in English but has no ergonomic qualities. Users are forced to memory the key locations. KalQ it is a virtual keyboard, which uses a split-screen layout and allows higher typing speeds for touchscreen users (Fig. 1). It has no ergonomic qualities being based on a random layout but shows a future trend in keyboards. Users are forced to memory the key locations. eliminate excessive finger movement, to avoid wrist movement and to improve the hand biomechanics. The conception is original but it needs more improvements in connection with the ergonomic position of letters. Fig. 2 The Keybowl keyboard The DataHand keyboard (Fig.3) was introduced in 1995 and has two separate modules, one for each hand. Each finger presses five buttons, four in perpendicular directions and a central one. The thumb has five buttons to press, one inside and two outside and an up and down button. The modules are adjustable to fit the user's fingers and each module can be moved in any direction. It seems to be the most advanced ergonomic keyboard but the position of letters has to be improved as it is based on the non-ergonomic QWERTY. Fig. 3 The Datahand keyboard Different alternative keyboards designed to promote neutral wrist and ergonomic forearm positions are also available. The ergonomic qualities of the different keyboards layouts will depend on the individual user and the type of the work activities. Some small ergonomic improvements were made for keyboards in recent years and most of them possess disputable qualities according to both good and slow typists: • Large variety of controversial qualities); • Rotated keyboards (for rapid typing); • Separate alphabetic and numeric keypads (with disputable qualities); • Adjustable slope (to help the wrist); • Keyboards for disabled persons and for users with specific needs; • On screen keyboards. Fig.1 The touchscreen keyboard KalQ Swype is a predictive text keyboard for tablets and smartphones where words are entered by sliding a finger on the touchscreen. This kind of virtual keyboard uses functions to guess the word. It also includes a speech recognition function, and a predictive text system. It has certain ergonomic qualities but the vocabulary is small. The Keybowl keyboard (Fig.2) uses two buttons in order to type letters and permits the formation of combinations of radial positions of the buttons. The keyboard was designed to keyboard layouts (with

5. III. [7]. CONCLUSIONS R.A. Alves, S.L, Castro, L. Sousa, “Influence of typing skill on pause– execution cycles in written composition”. In Rijlaarsdam, G. (Series Ed.); M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Volume Eds.), Writing and Cognition: Research and Applications. Studies in Writing, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007, Vol. 20, pp. 55–65. D.A. Norman, D. Fisher, “Why alphabetic keyboards are not easy to use: Keyboard layout doesn't much matter”. Human Factors, 24(5), pp.509-519. 1982. R. Parkinson “The Dvorak simplied keyboard: Forty years of frustration”. Computers and Automation,; p. 18-25, Nov 1972. [10]. C.M. Sommerich, W.S. Marras, M. Parnianpour, “A quantitative description of typing biomechanics”, Journal of Occupational rehabilitation, vol 6, No 1, pp. 33-55, 1996. [11]. A. Pereira, D.L. Lee, H. Sadeeshkumar, C. Laroche, D. Odell, D. Rempel, “The effect of keyboard key spacing on productivity, usability, and biomechanics in touch typists with large hands”, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 56th annual meeting, 2012. Pp. 1872-1876. [12]. E.J. Wona, P.W. Johnson, L. Punnett, J.T. Dennerlein, “Upper extremity biomechanics in computer tasks differ by gender”. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 19, pp.428–436, 2009. [13]. B.A. Smith, S. Zhai, “Optimised virtual keyboards with and without alphabetical ordering - a novice user study”. In Proceedings of Interact'2001 - IFIP International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Tokyo, 2001. pp. 92-99. [14]. J. Tebelskis, “Speech Recognition using Neural Networks”. Carnegie Mellon University. Doc. Thesis, 1995, p. 2-3. According to several researches, QWERTY based layouts are the least ergonomically and the keys are not grouped logically and all these are in conflict with the performance expectations of typists with slow typing skills and of new users. The literature review assessing the quality of keyboards and the alternative solutions review showed little evidence of ergonomic qualities in the design of various commercial keyboards. Until now, only small ergonomic improvements were made for keyboards but most of them possess disputable qualities. Some ergonomic principles and reported studies clearly show that all QWERTY based keyboards are less ergonomically and need to be replaced. An important issue is that even Human Factors Design Standard HF-STD-001 and other ergonomics standards fail in making ergonomic recommendations because they are based on QWERTY layouts. This means that all ergonomics standards have to be revised. According to Human factors design standard HF-STD-001 (Simplicity, Consistency, principles) an ergonomic keyboard layout should have the following main ergonomic characteristics: -The keys to be easy to find and typing should be easy to learn; -The layout should provoke minimum errors in typing; -The layout should maintain an ergonomic posture of fingers and joints and body; The future belongs to voice recognition systems [14] which have theoretically strong ergonomic features being an ideal speech-to-text solution. Improved performances of voice recognition systems are difficult to achieve because of pronunciation that varies from person to person. It is obvious that the future keyboards will have new improved characteristics and functions. But until such changes occur, intermediary ergonomic keyboards need to be developed. [8]. [9]. User-centered perspective REFERENCES [1]. D. Morelli, P. Johnson, C. Reddell, “A comparison of user preferences between keyboards while performing "real" work: a comparison of “alternative” and standard keyboards”. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society's 39th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA, HFES, pp. 361 – 365, 1995. P. Zipp, E. Haider, N. Halpern, S.V. Rohmert, “Keyboard design through physiological strain measurements”. Applied Ergonomics,; 14(2), pp.117-122, 1983. S. Brewer, D. Van Eerd, B.C. Amick, E. Irvin, K.M. Daum, F. Gerr et al. “Workplace interventions to prevent musculoskeletal and visual symptoms and disorders among computer users: a systematic review”, J. Occup. Rehab. 16 (3), pp.1053-0487, 2006. P. Tittiranonda, D. Rempel, T. Armstrong, S. Burastero, “Effect of four computer keyboards with computer users with upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders”, Am J Ind Med.; 35 pp.647-661, 1999. S. Zhai, B.A. Smith, “Alphabetically biased virtual keyboards are easier to use- layout does matter”. In Julie A. Jacko, Andrew Sears, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, and Robert J. K. Jacob, editors, Extended Abstracts of CHI 2001, New York, ACM Press, 2001. pp. 321-322. I.S. MacKenzie, S.X. Zhang, R.W. Soukore, “Text entry using soft keyboards”. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18, pp. 235-244, 1999. [2]. [3]. [4]. [5]. [6]. View publication stats View publication stats