|
|
|
|
@ -9,38 +9,39 @@ question \textit{``Does an adjusted actuation force per key have a positive
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Impact of Actuation Force on Typing Speed}
|
|
|
|
|
\label{sec:dis_speed}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our main experiment yielded, that there are differences in typing speed for both
|
|
|
|
|
Our main experiment yielded that there are differences in typing speed for both
|
|
|
|
|
metrics related to transcribed text we measured―namely \glsfirst{WPM} and
|
|
|
|
|
\glsfirst{AdjWPM}. Especially the keyboard with the lowest uniform actuation
|
|
|
|
|
force of 35\,g―\textit{Nyx}―performed worse than all other keyboards. In terms
|
|
|
|
|
of \gls{WPM}, \textit{Nyx (35\,g)} was on average 4.1\,\% slower than
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Athena (80\,g)} and \textit{Aphrodite (50\,g)} and 4.8\,\% slower than the
|
|
|
|
|
adjusted keyboard \textit{Hera (35 - 60\,g)}. Similarly, for \gls{AdjWPM},
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Athena (80\,g)} and \textit{Aphrodite (50\,g)} and 4.8\,\% slower than
|
|
|
|
|
the adjusted keyboard \textit{Hera (35 - 60\,g)}. Similarly, for \gls{AdjWPM},
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Nyx} was 4.3\,\% slower than \textit{Athena} and \textit{Aphrodite} and
|
|
|
|
|
4.9\,\% slower than \textit{Hera}. The 4\,\% to 5\,\% difference in \gls{WPM} and
|
|
|
|
|
\gls{AdjWPM} in our sample account for approximately 2 words per minute. When
|
|
|
|
|
extrapolated with the mean daily keyboard usage of 6.69 hours reported by our
|
|
|
|
|
participants, this difference would be as big as 803 words, which when put into
|
|
|
|
|
perspective, is equivalent to roughly two full pages of only written content
|
|
|
|
|
(11pt font size). Although, this specific example would assume constant typing
|
|
|
|
|
for 6.69 hours, it is still a useful estimate of the loss in productivity under
|
|
|
|
|
normal working conditions over the course of several days. These differences in
|
|
|
|
|
\gls{WPM} and \gls{AdjWPM} could be explained by the higher error rates and
|
|
|
|
|
thereby the loss of ``typing flow'' we discuss in the next section. \gls{KSPS}
|
|
|
|
|
reflects the raw input speed by including backspaces and previously deleted
|
|
|
|
|
characters. The reason we included \gls{KSPS} in our analysis was to reveal
|
|
|
|
|
possible differences in the physical speed participants type on a keyboard and
|
|
|
|
|
not to further asses speed in the sense of productivity. We could not find any
|
|
|
|
|
statistically significant differences in \gls{KSPS} but saw a trend, indicating
|
|
|
|
|
that subjects typed a bit slower (< 3\,\%) on \textit{Athena (80\,g)} compared to
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Aphrodite (50\,g)} and \textit{Hera (35 - 60\,g)}. With the differences
|
|
|
|
|
in metrics that are commonly used to measure typing speed more closely related
|
|
|
|
|
to productivity (\gls{WPM}, \gls{AdjWPM}) and the trends that indicate a slight
|
|
|
|
|
difference in operating speed we could have accepted our hypothesis. However,
|
|
|
|
|
with the relation between error rate and typing speed described in the next
|
|
|
|
|
section and the thereby rather indirect effect of the actuation force, we can
|
|
|
|
|
only partially accept our hypothesis that a difference solely in actuation
|
|
|
|
|
force, has an impact on typing speed.
|
|
|
|
|
4.9\,\% slower than \textit{Hera}. The 4\,\% to 5\,\% difference in \gls{WPM}
|
|
|
|
|
and \gls{AdjWPM} in our sample account for approximately two words per
|
|
|
|
|
minute. When extrapolated with the mean daily keyboard usage of 6.69 hours
|
|
|
|
|
reported by our participants, this difference would be as big as 803 words,
|
|
|
|
|
which when put into perspective, is equivalent to roughly two full pages of only
|
|
|
|
|
written content (11pt font size). Although, this specific example would assume
|
|
|
|
|
constant typing for 6.69 hours, it is still a useful estimate of the loss in
|
|
|
|
|
productivity under normal working conditions over the course of several
|
|
|
|
|
days. These differences in \gls{WPM} and \gls{AdjWPM} could be explained by the
|
|
|
|
|
higher error rates and thereby the loss of ``typing flow'' we discuss in the
|
|
|
|
|
next section. \gls{KSPS} reflects the raw input speed by including backspaces
|
|
|
|
|
and previously deleted characters. The reason we included \gls{KSPS} in our
|
|
|
|
|
analysis was to reveal possible differences in the physical speed participants
|
|
|
|
|
type on a keyboard and not to further asses speed in the sense of
|
|
|
|
|
productivity. We could not find any statistically significant differences in
|
|
|
|
|
\gls{KSPS} but saw a trend, indicating that subjects typed a bit slower (<
|
|
|
|
|
3\,\%) on \textit{Athena (80\,g)} compared to \textit{Aphrodite (50\,g)} and
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Hera (35 - 60\,g)}. With the differences in metrics that are commonly
|
|
|
|
|
used to measure typing speed more closely related to productivity (\gls{WPM},
|
|
|
|
|
\gls{AdjWPM}) and the trends that indicate a slight difference in operating
|
|
|
|
|
speed we could have accepted our hypothesis. However, with the relation between
|
|
|
|
|
error rate and typing speed described in the next section and the thereby rather
|
|
|
|
|
indirect effect of the actuation force, we can only partially accept our
|
|
|
|
|
hypothesis that a difference solely in actuation force, has an impact on typing
|
|
|
|
|
speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{phga_hyp*}[1 $\rightarrow$ \cmark\kern-1.1ex\raisebox{.7ex}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{125}{--}}]
|
|
|
|
|
Actuation force has an impact on typing speed (efficiency - speed).
|
|
|
|
|
@ -59,17 +60,18 @@ force, has an impact on typing speed.
|
|
|
|
|
As already briefly mentioned in Section \ref{sec:dis_speed}, measured error
|
|
|
|
|
rates like \glsfirst{UER}, \glsfirst{CER} and \glsfirst{TER} differed especially
|
|
|
|
|
between \textit{Nyx (35\,g)} and the other test keyboards. The statistical
|
|
|
|
|
analyses further revealed, that \textit{Athena}, the keyboard with the highest
|
|
|
|
|
analyses further revealed that \textit{Athena}, the keyboard with the highest
|
|
|
|
|
actuation force of 80\,g, produced on average 1\,\% less \gls{TER} than
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Hera (35 - 60\,g)} and \textit{Aphrodite (50\,g)} and 3\,\% less than
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Nyx (35\,g)}. Furthermore, \textit{Hera} and \textit{Aphrodite} both had a
|
|
|
|
|
2\,\% lower \gls{TER} than \textit{Nyx}. Additionally to the quantitative results,
|
|
|
|
|
fourteen of the twenty-four participants also reported, that \textit{Nyx's}
|
|
|
|
|
light actuation force was the reason for many accidental key presses. It further
|
|
|
|
|
stood out, that as shown in Figure \ref{fig:max_opc_ter}, \textit{Athena} was
|
|
|
|
|
the most accurate keyboard for 58\,\% of participants and also more accurate than
|
|
|
|
|
keyboard \textit{Own} for eleven of the subjects. Overall, this concludes, that
|
|
|
|
|
a higher actuation force has a positive impact on error rate.
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Nyx (35\,g)}. Furthermore, \textit{Hera} and \textit{Aphrodite} both had
|
|
|
|
|
a 2\,\% lower \gls{TER} than \textit{Nyx}. Additionally to the quantitative
|
|
|
|
|
results, fourteen of the twenty-four participants also reported, that
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Nyx's} light actuation force was the reason for many accidental key
|
|
|
|
|
presses. It further stood out that, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:max_opc_ter},
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Athena} was the most accurate keyboard for 58\,\% of participants and
|
|
|
|
|
also more accurate than keyboard \textit{Own} for eleven of the
|
|
|
|
|
subjects. Overall, this concludes that a higher actuation force has a positive
|
|
|
|
|
impact on error rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{phga_hyp*}[2 $\rightarrow$ \cmark]
|
|
|
|
|
Higher key actuation force decreases typing errors compared to lower key
|
|
|
|
|
@ -80,13 +82,13 @@ a higher actuation force has a positive impact on error rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The higher error rates and the possibility to correct erroneous input could have
|
|
|
|
|
also been a factor that led to lower \textit{WPM}. To evaluate the likelihood of
|
|
|
|
|
this additional relation, we conducted a \gls{LRT} of fixed effects for our
|
|
|
|
|
this additional relation we conducted a \gls{LRT} of fixed effects for our
|
|
|
|
|
linear mixed-effects model with two random effects (participant and first/second
|
|
|
|
|
typing test), fixed effect \gls{TER} and response variable \gls{WPM}. The
|
|
|
|
|
results of the \gls{LRT} ($\chi^2(1)$ = 110.44, p = 0.00000000000000022)
|
|
|
|
|
together with the trends of lower \gls{WPM} with increasing \gls{TER}, visible
|
|
|
|
|
in Figure \ref{fig:reg_ter_wpm}, suggest, that the \gls{TER} indeed had an
|
|
|
|
|
impact on \gls{WPM}. This could have been, because every time an error was made,
|
|
|
|
|
in Figure \ref{fig:reg_ter_wpm}, suggest that the \gls{TER} indeed had an
|
|
|
|
|
impact on \gls{WPM}. This could have been because every time an error was made,
|
|
|
|
|
almost all participants decided to correct it right away. With a higher error
|
|
|
|
|
rate, this obviously leads to many short interruptions and an increased number
|
|
|
|
|
of characters that are not taken into account when computing the \gls{WPM}
|
|
|
|
|
@ -108,7 +110,7 @@ We tried to narrow down the rather broad term ``satisfaction'' to individual
|
|
|
|
|
categories that we, with the information gathered through our literature review
|
|
|
|
|
and telephone interviews, defined as necessary for a positive user experience
|
|
|
|
|
while using a keyboard \cite{giese_sati}. We decided for the following metrics
|
|
|
|
|
to evaluate, whether or not a user experience with a keyboard that features
|
|
|
|
|
to evaluate whether or not a user experience with a keyboard that features
|
|
|
|
|
lighter actuation forces was more satisfactory:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{table}[H]
|
|
|
|
|
@ -129,26 +131,26 @@ lighter actuation forces was more satisfactory:
|
|
|
|
|
As described in Section \ref{sec:res_ueqs}, we could not find statistically
|
|
|
|
|
significant differences for any of the test keyboards regarding the pragmatic
|
|
|
|
|
scale of the \gls{UEQ-S}. From visual assessment of the graph shown in Figure
|
|
|
|
|
\ref{fig:ueq_tkbs_res} we could conclude, that there is a slight trend towards a
|
|
|
|
|
\ref{fig:ueq_tkbs_res} we could conclude that there is a slight trend towards a
|
|
|
|
|
more positive rating for keyboards that utilized keyswitches with higher
|
|
|
|
|
actuation forces than \textit{Nyx (35\,g)}. This trend in the opposite direction
|
|
|
|
|
of our hypothesized outcome, that lighter actuation force leads to more user
|
|
|
|
|
of our hypothesized outcome that lighter actuation force leads to more user
|
|
|
|
|
satisfaction, could be due to the longer familiarization time required for
|
|
|
|
|
keyboards with very light actuation force \cite{gerard_keyswitch}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\textbf{[\xmark] Additional Question of Satisfaction with Keyboard}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The results deduced from the additional question \textit{``How satisfied have
|
|
|
|
|
you been with this keyboard?''}, which could be answered on a \glsfirst{VAS}
|
|
|
|
|
you been with this keyboard?''}, which were answered on a \glsfirst{VAS}
|
|
|
|
|
from 0 to 100 after both tying tests with a keyboard, suggested that \textit{Nyx
|
|
|
|
|
(35\,g)}, the keyboard with the lightest actuation force and also
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Athena (80\,g)} the keyboard with the highest actuation force, were rated
|
|
|
|
|
significantly worse than \textit{Aphrodite (50\,g)}. Additionally, \textit{Hera
|
|
|
|
|
(35 - 60\,g)}, the adjusted keyboard showed a trend towards a significantly
|
|
|
|
|
better rating than \textit{Nyx}. These results indicate, that neither of the
|
|
|
|
|
(35 - 60\,g)}, the adjusted keyboard, showed a trend towards a significantly
|
|
|
|
|
better rating than \textit{Nyx}. These results indicate that neither of the
|
|
|
|
|
keyboards with extreme actuation forces were perceived as a overwhelmingly
|
|
|
|
|
pleasant keyboard to use during our typing tests. This is further supported by
|
|
|
|
|
the visualisation of the mean ratings in Figure \ref{fig:res_tkbs_sati} where
|
|
|
|
|
the visualization of the mean ratings in Figure \ref{fig:res_tkbs_sati} where
|
|
|
|
|
the average ratings for \textit{Aphrodite} and \textit{Hera} were approximately
|
|
|
|
|
10 points higher than those for \textit{Nyx} and \textit{Athena}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -159,11 +161,11 @@ questions related to effort or fatigue while operating a keyboard,
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Athena (80\,g)} received significantly lower ratings than the other test
|
|
|
|
|
keyboards. Additionally to the measured differences in error rates discussed in
|
|
|
|
|
Section \ref{sec:dis_error}, we discovered that participants also perceived the
|
|
|
|
|
accuracy of \textit{Athena (80\,g)} and \textit{Aphrodite (50\,g)} higher compared
|
|
|
|
|
to \textit{Nyx (35\,g)}. Similarly to the results discussed in the last
|
|
|
|
|
accuracy of \textit{Athena (80\,g)} and \textit{Aphrodite (50\,g)} higher
|
|
|
|
|
compared to \textit{Nyx (35\,g)}. Similarly to the results discussed in the last
|
|
|
|
|
paragraph, the scores of the two keyboards with extreme actuation forces,
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Nyx (35\,g)} and \textit{Athena (80\,g)} fluctuated quite a bit and on
|
|
|
|
|
average those two keyboards scored lower than \textit{Aphrodite (50\,g)} or
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Nyx (35\,g)} and \textit{Athena (80\,g)}, fluctuated quite a bit and, on
|
|
|
|
|
average both keyboards scored lower than \textit{Aphrodite (50\,g)} or
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Hera (35 - 60\,g)} (Figure \ref{fig:kcq_tkbs_res}). Thereby, these
|
|
|
|
|
results do not indicate a clear trend towards enhanced user experience when
|
|
|
|
|
using keyboards with lower actuation forces.
|
|
|
|
|
@ -191,15 +193,15 @@ Lastly, we analysed all recordings of the post-experiment interviews and
|
|
|
|
|
categorized the feedback given for each keyboard into positive and negative
|
|
|
|
|
responses. We then calculated a ratio of these responses, which can be seen in
|
|
|
|
|
Figure \ref{fig:ratio_interview}, to evaluate preferences towards specific
|
|
|
|
|
keyboards, that could not be expressed by our participants through any other
|
|
|
|
|
keyboards that could not be expressed by our participants through any other
|
|
|
|
|
supplied method during the experiment. Like all other factors we identified as
|
|
|
|
|
reasonable indicators for satisfaction, these ratios yielded, that neither
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Athena (80\,g)} nor \textit{Nyx (35\,g)} received more positive than
|
|
|
|
|
negative feedback. It should be noted, that previous research has shown that
|
|
|
|
|
people tend to remember and process bad experiences more thorough than good
|
|
|
|
|
ones, which could be a reason for the increased number of negative feedback for
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Nyx} and \textit{Athena} but would also indicate a worse experience with
|
|
|
|
|
those two keyboards \cite{baumeister_bad}.
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Nyx} and \textit{Athena}, but would also indicate a worse experience
|
|
|
|
|
with those two keyboards \cite{baumeister_bad}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
|
|
|
\centering
|
|
|
|
|
@ -211,16 +213,16 @@ those two keyboards \cite{baumeister_bad}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\textbf{Conclusion}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contrary to the responses of our preliminary telephone interview, where 76\,\% of
|
|
|
|
|
attendees preferred a keyboard with light actuation force, none of the factors
|
|
|
|
|
we defined as relevant for user satisfaction suggests, that keyboards with lower
|
|
|
|
|
actuation force are more satisfactory to use than keyboards with higher
|
|
|
|
|
actuation force. Therefore, we have to fully reject our hypothesis. We can
|
|
|
|
|
conclude thought, that keyboards with actuation forces in between those two
|
|
|
|
|
Contrary to the responses of our preliminary telephone interview, where 76\,\%
|
|
|
|
|
of attendees preferred a keyboard with light actuation force, none of the
|
|
|
|
|
factors we defined as relevant for user satisfaction suggests that keyboards
|
|
|
|
|
with lower actuation force are more satisfactory to use than keyboards with
|
|
|
|
|
higher actuation force. Therefore, we have to fully reject our hypothesis. We
|
|
|
|
|
can conclude thought that keyboards with actuation forces in between those two
|
|
|
|
|
extremes (35\,g / 80\,g), are persistently perceived as more pleasant to use and
|
|
|
|
|
that ratings keyboards with extreme actuation forces are highly influenced by
|
|
|
|
|
personal preference, which is indicated by the high fluctuation of almost all
|
|
|
|
|
responses regarding our evaluated factors.
|
|
|
|
|
that ratings of keyboards with extreme actuation forces are highly influenced by
|
|
|
|
|
personal preference. The latter is indicated by the high fluctuation of almost
|
|
|
|
|
all responses regarding our evaluated factors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{phga_hyp*}[3 $\rightarrow$ \xmark]
|
|
|
|
|
Keys with lower actuation force are perceived as more satisfactory to type
|
|
|
|
|
@ -229,12 +231,12 @@ responses regarding our evaluated factors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Impact of Actuation Force on Muscle Activity}
|
|
|
|
|
\label{sec:dis_emg}
|
|
|
|
|
In contrast to other studies that suggested, that actuation force has an impact
|
|
|
|
|
In contrast to other studies that suggested that actuation force has an impact
|
|
|
|
|
on muscle activity, we could not identify significant differences in terms of \%
|
|
|
|
|
of \glsfirst{MVC} for any of our \gls{EMG} measurements. Only a slight trend,
|
|
|
|
|
that \textit{Nyx (35\,g)} produced the highest flexor \%\gls{MVC} for only 14\,\%
|
|
|
|
|
of participants, could be interpreted as anecdotal evidence towards our
|
|
|
|
|
hypothesis, that actuation force has an impact on muscle activity. Therefore we
|
|
|
|
|
of \glsfirst{MVC} for any of our \gls{EMG} measurements. Only a slight trend
|
|
|
|
|
that \textit{Nyx (35\,g)} produced the highest flexor \%\gls{MVC} for only
|
|
|
|
|
14\,\% of participants, could be interpreted as anecdotal evidence towards our
|
|
|
|
|
hypothesis that actuation force has an impact on muscle activity. Therefore, we
|
|
|
|
|
have to reject our hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{phga_hyp*}[4 $\rightarrow$ \xmark]
|
|
|
|
|
@ -251,7 +253,7 @@ As discussed in the previous sections, there were no statistically significant
|
|
|
|
|
differences in terms of satisfaction for any of the test keyboards, including
|
|
|
|
|
our adjusted keyboard \textit{Hera}. Still, the rather unconventional design
|
|
|
|
|
choice of non-uniform actuation forces across a keyboard did not negatively
|
|
|
|
|
influence the satisfaction compared to \textit{Aphrodite} which was often
|
|
|
|
|
influence the satisfaction compared to \textit{Aphrodite}, which was often
|
|
|
|
|
perceived as equivalent to the participant's own keyboard. In fact,
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Hera} was the keyboard with the most occurrences in the top three, tied
|
|
|
|
|
first place with \textit{Aphrodite} and was never ranked 4th place during the
|
|
|
|
|
@ -263,10 +265,10 @@ familiarization period required by keyboards with lighter actuation forces
|
|
|
|
|
reported a currently present disease of the left arm and wrist (Syndrome Sudeck,
|
|
|
|
|
complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS)), ranked Hera 30 points higher than all
|
|
|
|
|
other keyboards. \textit{I3Z4XI7H} also reported in the post-experiment
|
|
|
|
|
interview, that \textit{Hera} was surprisingly pleasant to use and that pain was
|
|
|
|
|
interview that \textit{Hera} was surprisingly pleasant to use and that pain was
|
|
|
|
|
significantly lower than with all other keyboards including
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Own}. However, because of the nearly identical scores to
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Aphrodite} in almost all categories, we have to reject our hypothesis,
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Aphrodite} in almost all categories, we have to reject our hypothesis
|
|
|
|
|
that an adjusted keyboard is more satisfactory to use than standard keyboards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{phga_hyp*}[7 $\rightarrow$ \xmark]
|
|
|
|
|
@ -274,19 +276,20 @@ that an adjusted keyboard is more satisfactory to use than standard keyboards.
|
|
|
|
|
to standard keyboards.
|
|
|
|
|
\end{phga_hyp*}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly, the resulting error rates measured for \textit{Hera (35 - 60\,g)} were
|
|
|
|
|
close to equal to the results of \textit{Aphrodite (50\,g)} and for speed related
|
|
|
|
|
metrics between those two keyboards only slight improvements while using
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Hera} in \gls{WPM} (0.8\,\%), \gls{AdjWPM} (0.6\,\%) and \gls{KSPS} (1\,\%)―
|
|
|
|
|
that were not statistically significant―were recorded during our experiment. It
|
|
|
|
|
was still interesting to see, that \textit{Hera} was the fastest, out of all
|
|
|
|
|
four test keyboards, for eleven (45\,\%) out of the twenty-four subjects and that
|
|
|
|
|
albeit the usage of 30\,\% keyswitches\footnote{That were actually pressed during
|
|
|
|
|
our typing tests} that required 35 - 40\,g actuation force, which is similar to
|
|
|
|
|
the actuation force of \textit{Nyx (35\,g)}, we did not see comparably high error
|
|
|
|
|
rates. Because of the lacking evidence, that an adjusted keyboard produces less
|
|
|
|
|
errors or supports the typist in achieving higher typing speeds, we have to
|
|
|
|
|
reject our two hypotheses regarding those improvements.
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly, the resulting error rates measured for \textit{Hera (35 - 60\,g)}
|
|
|
|
|
were close to equal to the results of \textit{Aphrodite (50\,g)} and for speed
|
|
|
|
|
related metrics between those two keyboards only slight improvements while using
|
|
|
|
|
\textit{Hera} in \gls{WPM} (0.8\,\%), \gls{AdjWPM} (0.6\,\%) and \gls{KSPS}
|
|
|
|
|
(1\,\%)― that were not statistically significant―were recorded during our
|
|
|
|
|
experiment. It was still interesting to see, that \textit{Hera}, out of all four
|
|
|
|
|
test keyboards, was the fastest for eleven (45\,\%) out of the twenty-four
|
|
|
|
|
subjects and that albeit the usage of 30\,\% keyswitches\footnote{That were
|
|
|
|
|
actually pressed during our typing tests} that required 35 - 40\,g actuation
|
|
|
|
|
force, which is similar to the actuation force of \textit{Nyx (35\,g)}, we did
|
|
|
|
|
not see comparably high error rates. Because of the lacking evidence, that an
|
|
|
|
|
adjusted keyboard produces less errors or supports the typist in achieving
|
|
|
|
|
higher typing speeds, we have to reject our two hypotheses regarding those
|
|
|
|
|
improvements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{phga_hyp*}[5 $\rightarrow$ \xmark]
|
|
|
|
|
An adjusted keyboard improves typing speed compared to standard keyboards
|
|
|
|
|
@ -298,7 +301,7 @@ reject our two hypotheses regarding those improvements.
|
|
|
|
|
to standard keyboards.
|
|
|
|
|
\end{phga_hyp*}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our experiment basically revealed, that keyboards which utilized keyswitches
|
|
|
|
|
Our experiment basically revealed that keyboards which utilized keyswitches
|
|
|
|
|
with actuation forces that were neither too light (35\,g) nor too heavy (80\,g),
|
|
|
|
|
generally outperformed keyboards which featured those extreme actuation
|
|
|
|
|
forces. In the following section, we elaborate on possible limitations of our
|
|
|
|
|
|
phga
4 years ago