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.
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.
978-1-4799-2373-1/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
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.
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;
 - 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 HF-STD-001 has
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 in making ergonomic
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
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.
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
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 keyboard layouts (with
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.
 III. CONCLUSIONS
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, User-centered perspective
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.
[7]. 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.
[8]. 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.
[9]. 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.

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.
[2]. P. Zipp, E. Haider, N. Halpern, S.V. Rohmert, “Keyboard design
through physiological strain measurements”. Applied Ergonomics,;
14(2), pp.117-122, 1983.
[3]. 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.
[4]. 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.
[5]. 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.
[6]. I.S. MacKenzie, S.X. Zhang, R.W. Soukore, “Text entry using soft
keyboards”. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18, pp. 235-244,
1999.