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
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ColemanM.F.LoringB.A.WiklundM.E. (1991). User performance on typing tasks involving reduced-size, touch screen keyboards. Vehicle Navigation and Information Systems Conference, Society of Automotive Engineers, Dearborn, MI, 543–548.
2.
CapobiancoG.LeeM. D.CohenS. (1999). Using multiple specialized keyboards in touch screen displays: Is switching keyboards distracting to novice users? (unpublished data).
3.
HallA.D.CunninghamJ.B.RoacheR.P.CoxJ.W. (1988). Factors affecting performance using touch-entry systems: Tactual recognition fields and system accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (4), 711–720.
4.
HirschR.S. (1970). Effects of standard versus alphabetical keyboard formats on typing performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54 (6), 484–490.
5.
NormanD.A.FisherD. (1982). Why alphabetic keyboards are not easy to use: Keyboard layout doesn't much matter. Human Factors, 24 (5), 509–519.
6.
SiegalS., (1956). Non-parametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
