Why Alphabetic Keyboards Are Not Easy to Use: Keyboard Layout Doesn't Much Matter

Abstract

These studies demonstrate the inferiority of alphabetically organized keyboards as compared with a randomly organized keyboard and the standard Sholes (qwerty) keyboard. Use of the alphabetic keyboard requires considerable mental processing; the novice is faced with a trade-off between mental processing and visual search, and this makes different keyboard layouts equivalent. Comparison of different keyboard layouts by computer simulation of expert typing shows surprisingly little effect of keyboard arrangement for a wide class of keyboards. Performance with some alphabetical layouts is quite slow, but with others, it is within 2% of the speed achieved when using the Sholes keyboard. Performance with the Dvorak keyboard is only improved by about 5% over performance on the Sholes keyboard. The conclusion is that it is not worthwhile to use alphabetic keyboards for novice typists, nor to change to the Dvorak layout for experts. Keyboards can probably be improved, but only through radical redesign of the present physical key configuration.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alden, D. G. , Daniels, R. W. , and Kanarick, A. F. Keyboard design and operation: A review of the major issues. Human Factors, 1972, 14, 275–293.

Beeching, W. A. Century of the typewriter. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1974.

Card, S., and Moran, T. Personal communication, October 2, 1980.

Card, S. , Moran, T. and Newell, A. Applied information-processing psychology: The human-computer interface. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, in press.

Dvorak, A. There is a better typewriter keyboard. National Business Education Quarterly, 1943, 11, 58–66.

Dvorak, A. , Merrick, N. I. , Dealey, W. L. and Ford, G. C. Typewriting behavior. New York; American Book, 1936.

Gentner, D. R. , Keystroke timing in transcription typing. In W. E. Cooper (Ed.) Cognitive aspects of skilled typewriting. New York: Springer-Verlag, in press.

Gopher, D. and Eilam, Z. Deve]opment of the letter-shape keyboard: Anew approach to the design of data entry devices. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 23rd Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 1979, 40–44.

Hamilton, J. M. E. , and Sanford, A. J. The symbolic distance effect for alphabetic order judgements: A subjective report and reaction time analysis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1978, 30, 33–43.

10.

Hirsch, R. S. Effects of standard versus alphabetic keyboard formats on typing performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 484–490.

11.

Hirsch, R. S. Procedures of the human factors center at San Jose. IBM Systems Journal, 1981, 20, 123–171.

12.

Kinkead, R. Typing speed, keying rates, and optimal keyboard layouts. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 1975, 159–161.

13.

Litterick, I. , QWERTYUIOP-Dinosaur in a computer age. New Scientist, 1981 (January 8), 66–68.

14.

Lovelace, E. A. , and Snodgrass, R. D. Decision times for alphabetic order of letter pairs. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 2, 258–264.

15.

Michaels, S. E. Qwerty versus alphabetic keyboards as a function of typing skill. Human Factors, 1971, 13, 419–426.

16.

Norman, D. A. , and Rumelhart, D. E. Studies of typing from the LNR research group. In W. E. Cooper (Ed.) Cognitive aspects of skilled typewriting. New York: Springer-Verlag, in press.

17.

Rumelhart, D. E. , and Norman, D. A. Simulating a skilled typist: Astudy of skilled cognitive-motor performance. Cognitive Science, 1982, 6, 1–36.