|
|
|
\section{Methodology}
|
|
|
|
\label{sec:methodology}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Research Approach}
|
|
|
|
Because of the controversial findings about the impact of key actuation forces
|
|
|
|
on speed \cite{akagi_keyswitch, loricchio_force_speed} and the fact, that
|
|
|
|
keyboard related work can increase the risk for \gls{WRUED} \cite{ccfohas_wrued,
|
|
|
|
pascarelli_wrued}, we decided to further investigate possible effects of
|
|
|
|
different actuation forces and even a keyboard equipped with non-uniform
|
|
|
|
actuation forces on speed, error rate and satisfaction. To our best knowledge,
|
|
|
|
to this date, there is no published work about the influence of a keyboard with
|
|
|
|
non-uniform actuation forces on these metrics. Therefore, we first asked
|
|
|
|
seventeen people about their preferences, experiences and habits related to
|
|
|
|
keyboards to get a better understanding on what people might prefer as a
|
|
|
|
baseline for the design of the adjusted keyboard (keyboard with non-uniform
|
|
|
|
actuation forces) and to complement the findings obtained through our literature
|
|
|
|
review. Further, we collected information about available mechanical keyswitches
|
|
|
|
on the market. Additionally, we conducted a small preliminary experiment with 6
|
|
|
|
subjects, where we measured the peak forces each individual finger of the right
|
|
|
|
hand was able to apply to distinct keys in different locations. We then created
|
|
|
|
the design for the adjusted keyboard based on those measurements. Lastly, an
|
|
|
|
experiment with twenty-four participants was conducted, where we compared the
|
|
|
|
performance and user satisfaction while using four different keyboards,
|
|
|
|
including our adjusted keyboard, to values obtained with the participant's own
|
|
|
|
keyboards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Preliminary telephone interview}
|
|
|
|
Some of the studies we found that researched implications of actuation force on
|
|
|
|
speed, preference or other metrics were published between 1984 and 2010. That is
|
|
|
|
why we wanted to ascertain if and how, with the advance of technology in recent
|
|
|
|
years and especially the capabilities modern smartphones offer, keyboard usage
|
|
|
|
has changed. Further, we wanted to gather information about the preference of
|
|
|
|
key resistance, keyswitch type and experiences with \gls{WRUED}. Therefore, we
|
|
|
|
conducted a structured interview with seventeen volunteers (59\% females) via
|
|
|
|
telephone. The age of the subjects ranged between 22 and 52 with a mean age of
|
|
|
|
29 years. The professions of subjects were distributed among medical workers,
|
|
|
|
students, office employees, computer engineers and community workers. The first
|
|
|
|
question we asked was \textit{``Which keyboard in terms of actuation force would
|
|
|
|
be the most satisfying for you to use in the long run?''}. Thirteen (76\%) out
|
|
|
|
of the seventeen subjects mentioned, that they would prefer a keyboard with
|
|
|
|
light actuation force over a keyboard with higher resistance. The next question
|
|
|
|
\textit{``Have you ever had pain when using a keyboard and if so, where did you
|
|
|
|
have pain?''} yielded, that 41\% of those polled experienced pain at least
|
|
|
|
once while using a keyboard. The areas affected described by the seven who
|
|
|
|
already experienced pain were the wrist \underline{and} forearm (3 out of 7),
|
|
|
|
wrist only (2 out of 7), fingers (1 out of 7) and forearm only (1 out of 7). The
|
|
|
|
results for the third question \textit{``Which keyboard are you currently using
|
|
|
|
and for how many hours a day on average?''} were in line with the statements
|
|
|
|
we found during our literature review \cite{ergopedia_keyswitch,
|
|
|
|
peery_3d_keyswitch}. Nine answered that they use a notebook (scissor-switches,
|
|
|
|
membrane), six stated that they use an external keyboard with rubber dome
|
|
|
|
switches and only two responded that they use a keyboard featuring mechanical
|
|
|
|
keyswitches. The average, self-reported, usage ranged between half an hour and
|
|
|
|
10 hours with a mean of 4.71 hours. It is important to note, that a study by
|
|
|
|
Mikkelsen et al. found, that self-reported durations related to computer work
|
|
|
|
can be inaccurate \cite{mikkelsen_duration}. The last question \textit{``Which
|
|
|
|
tasks do you still prefer to perform with a keyboard rather than your mobile
|
|
|
|
phone?''} revealed, that all of the subjects preferred to use a keyboard when
|
|
|
|
entering greater amounts of data (emails, applications, presentations,
|
|
|
|
calculations, research), but also surprisingly 41\% preferred to use a keyboard
|
|
|
|
to write instant messages (chatting via Whatsapp
|
|
|
|
Web\footnote{\url{https://web.whatsapp.com/}}, Signal
|
|
|
|
Desktop\footnote{\url{https://signal.org/download/}}, Telegram
|
|
|
|
Desktop\footnote{\url{https://desktop.telegram.org/}}).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Market analysis of available mechanical keyswitches}
|
|
|
|
\label{sec:market_forces}
|
|
|
|
To gather information about available actuation forces, we collected the product
|
|
|
|
lines of keyswitches for all well known manufacturers, namely
|
|
|
|
Cherry\footnote{\url{https://www.cherrymx.de/en/mx-original/mx-red.html}},
|
|
|
|
Kailh\footnote{\url{https://www.kailhswitch.com/mechanical-keyboard-switches/}},
|
|
|
|
Gateron\footnote{\url{http://www.gateron.com/col/58459?lang=en}},
|
|
|
|
Matias\footnote{\url{http://matias.ca/switches/}},
|
|
|
|
Razer\footnote{\url{https://www.razer.com/razer-mechanical-switches}} and
|
|
|
|
Logitech\footnote{\url{https://www.logitechg.com/en-us/innovation/mechanical-switches.html}}. Since
|
|
|
|
some of the key actuation forces listed on the manufacturers or resellers
|
|
|
|
websites were given in cN and most of them in g or gf, the values were adjusted
|
|
|
|
to gram to reflect a trend that is within a margin of ± 2 g of accuracy. The
|
|
|
|
results shown in Figure \ref{fig:keyswitches_brands} are used to determine the
|
|
|
|
minimum, maximum and most common actuation force for broadly available
|
|
|
|
keyswitches. According to our findings, the lowest commercially available
|
|
|
|
actuation force is 35 g ($\approx$ 0.34 \gls{N}) the most common one is 50 g
|
|
|
|
($\approx$ 0.49 \gls{N}) and the highest resistance available is 80 g ($\approx$
|
|
|
|
0.78 \gls{N}).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}[ht]
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{images/keyswitches_brands}
|
|
|
|
\caption{Available actuation forces for keyswitches of major keyswitch manufacturers}
|
|
|
|
\label{fig:keyswitches_brands}
|
|
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Preliminary study of finger strength}
|
|
|
|
To evaluate the impact of an adjusted keyboard (keyboard with non-uniform
|
|
|
|
actuation forces) on performance and satisfaction we first needed to get an
|
|
|
|
understanding on how to distribute keyswitches with different actuation forces
|
|
|
|
across a keyboard. Our first idea was to use a similar approach to the keyboard
|
|
|
|
we described in Section \ref{sec:lr_sum}, were the force required to activate
|
|
|
|
the keys decreased towards the left and right ends of the keyboard. This rather
|
|
|
|
simple approach only accounts for the differences in finger strength when all
|
|
|
|
fingers are in the same position, but omits possible differences in applicable
|
|
|
|
force depending on the position a finger has to enter to press a certain key.
|
|
|
|
To detect possible differences in peak force depending on the position of the
|
|
|
|
fingers, we conducted an experiment with six volunteers (50\%
|
|
|
|
females). Subject's ages ranged from 20 to 26 with a mean age of 24 years. The
|
|
|
|
subjects were all personal contacts. Subjects professions were distributed as
|
|
|
|
follows: computer science students (3/6), physiotherapist (1/6), user experience
|
|
|
|
consultant (1/6) and retail (1/6). All Participants were given instructions to
|
|
|
|
exert maximum force for approximately one second onto the key mounted to the
|
|
|
|
measuring device described in Section \ref{sec:force_meas_dev}. We also used a
|
|
|
|
timer to announced when to press and when to stop. We provided a keyboard to
|
|
|
|
every participant, which was used as a reference for the finger position before
|
|
|
|
every measurement. To reduce order effects, we used a balanced latin square to
|
|
|
|
specify the sequence of rows (top, home, bottom) in which the participants had
|
|
|
|
to press the keys \cite{bradley_latin_square}. Additionally, because there were
|
|
|
|
only six people available, we alternated the direction from which participants
|
|
|
|
had to start in such a way, that every second subject started with the little
|
|
|
|
finger instead of the index finger. An example of four different positions of
|
|
|
|
the finger while performing the measurements for the keys \textit{Shift, L, I}
|
|
|
|
and \textit{Z} can be observed in Figure \ref{fig:FM_example}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}[ht]
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{images/FM_example}
|
|
|
|
\caption{Prototype of the force measuring device used to gather data about the
|
|
|
|
maximum applicable force to a key with different finger positions. The
|
|
|
|
positions for certain keys are simulated by aligning the wrist pad (left
|
|
|
|
picture) to the scale of the device. The four different positions for the
|
|
|
|
keys \textit{Shift, L, I, Z} (right pictures) are color coded according to
|
|
|
|
the keys on the scale}
|
|
|
|
\label{fig:FM_example}
|
|
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The results of the measurements are given in Table \ref{tbl:finger_force}. The
|
|
|
|
median of the means (15.47 N) of all measurements was used to calculate the
|
|
|
|
actuation forces in gram for the keyswitches later incorporated in the layout
|
|
|
|
for adjusted keyboard. We used Eq. (\ref{eq:N_to_g}) and
|
|
|
|
Eq. (\ref{eg:actuation_forces}) to calculate the gram values for each measured
|
|
|
|
keyswitch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
|
|
\label{eq:N_to_g}
|
|
|
|
GFR = \frac{50 g}{M_{maf}} = \frac{50 g}{14.47 N} = 3.23 \frac{g}{N}
|
|
|
|
\end{equation}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
|
|
\label{eq:actuation_forces}
|
|
|
|
AF_{key} = GFR * MAF_{key}
|
|
|
|
\end{equation}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With $M_{maf}$ the median of the means of applicable forces, $50 g$ the most
|
|
|
|
commonly found actuation force on the market (Section \ref{sec:market_forces}),
|
|
|
|
$GFR_{key}$ the gram to force ratio, $MAF_{key}$ the median of applicable force
|
|
|
|
for a specific key and $AF_{key}$ the actuation force for that specific key in
|
|
|
|
grams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An example where we calculated the theoretical actuation force for the \textit{P}
|
|
|
|
key can be seen in Eq. (\ref{eq:force_example}).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
|
|
\label{eq:force_example}
|
|
|
|
AF_{P} = GFR * MAF_{P} = 3.23 \frac{g}{N} * 10.45 N \approx 33.75 g
|
|
|
|
\end{equation}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because there are only certain spring
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Custom spring stiffness
|
|
|
|
% https://www.engineersedge.com/spring_comp_calc_k.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{table*}[]
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
\ra{1.3}
|
|
|
|
\begin{tabularx}{13cm}{?l^l^l^l^l^l^l^l}
|
|
|
|
\toprule
|
|
|
|
\multicolumn{8}{c}{\textbf{Bottom Row}}\\
|
|
|
|
\rowstyle{\itshape}
|
|
|
|
\emph{Key} & ↑ & - & : & ; & M & N & B \\
|
|
|
|
\midrule
|
|
|
|
\emph{Mean Force (N)} & 11.23 & 10.84 & 14.22 & 15.34 & 16.38 & 15.6 & 14.36\\
|
|
|
|
\emph{Actuation Force (g)} & 36.05 & 34.8 & 45.65 & 49.24 & 52.58 & 50.08 & 46.1\\
|
|
|
|
\end{tabularx}
|
|
|
|
\begin{tabularx}{13cm}{?l^l^l^l^l^l^l^X}
|
|
|
|
\multicolumn{8}{c}{\textbf{Home Row}}\\
|
|
|
|
\rowstyle{\itshape}
|
|
|
|
\emph{Key} & Ä & Ö & L & K & J & H &\\
|
|
|
|
\midrule
|
|
|
|
\emph{Mean Force (N)} & 11.88 & 12.27 & 15.84 & 18.56 & 17.78 & 18.43 &\\
|
|
|
|
\emph{Actuation Force (g)} & 38.13 & 39.39 & 50.85 & 59.58 & 57.07 & 59.16 &\\
|
|
|
|
\end{tabularx}
|
|
|
|
\begin{tabularx}{13cm}{?l^l^l^l^l^l^l^l}
|
|
|
|
\multicolumn{8}{c}{\textbf{Top Row}}\\
|
|
|
|
\rowstyle{\itshape}
|
|
|
|
\emph{Key} & + & Ü & P & O & I & U & Z \\
|
|
|
|
\midrule
|
|
|
|
\emph{Mean Force (N)} & 10.8 & 10.7 & 10.45 & 14.34 & 17.95 & 17.0 & 16.8 \\
|
|
|
|
\emph{Actuation Force (g)} & 34.67 & 34.35 & 33.54 & 46.03 & 57.62 & 54.57 & 53.93\\
|
|
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
|
|
\end{tabularx}
|
|
|
|
\caption{Maximum force measurements for all digits of the right hand in
|
|
|
|
different positions. The mean force of six participants is shown in the
|
|
|
|
first row of each table and the resulting actuation force for the
|
|
|
|
corresponding keyswitch in the following row. The columns indicate the label
|
|
|
|
of the scale on the measuring device which can be seen in Figure
|
|
|
|
\ref{fig:FM_example}. \textit{↑} stands for the shift key.}
|
|
|
|
\end{table*}
|