The Essence of the IBM/ANSI Keyboard Layout

[jacobolus]

When we slim down all the oversized keys on a standard keyboard, and add some color coding by function and dots to represent the “home row”, we can better see the true design features of the standard keyboard layout. Its origins in the 1870s† (see also http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=61586) become very obvious:



Discuss.


† The design dates from before much study of human factors / ergonomics, before the concept of “touch typing”, and this was little changed from the first idea that popped into the designers’ heads after their previous design which was a 2-row piano-like layout. Later additions were haphazard, and IBM is mostly responsible for the version we have today.

[spiceBar]

When we slim down all the oversized keys on a standard keyboard, and add some color coding by function and dots to represent the “home row”, we can better see the true design features of the standard keyboard layout. Its origins in the 1870s† (see also http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=61586) become very obvious:

Show Image

Discuss.


† The design dates from before much study of human factors / ergonomics, before the concept of “touch typing”, and this was little changed from the first idea that popped into the designers’ heads after their previous design which was a 2-row piano-like layout. Later additions were haphazard, and IBM is mostly responsible for the version we have today.

I think I agree with you, but aren't you beating a dead horse here?

What's your point?

There are billions of such keyboards out there, and it will never change. Technology will make keyboards obsolete before their layout is fixed.

I think creative minds, like you, should dedicate their efforts to these questions:
- How do we make the keyboard obsolete?
- What comes next?

We don't have any satisfying answer yet, because it involves rethinking the computer and the way it interacts with people.

[Oobly]

I agree.

The factors that governed the design of the first typewriters and then the first computer keyboards are now largely irrelevant. It's time for a better design.

Some of us are doing this already 

Getting it to gain widespread acceptance is another story, though.

[1391406]

I agree.

The factors that governed the design of the first typewriters and then the first computer keyboards are now largely irrelevant. It's time for a better design.

Why is a better design necessary if the current one is perfectly satisfactory?

[fohat.digs]

funny

[Oobly]

I agree.

The factors that governed the design of the first typewriters and then the first computer keyboards are now largely irrelevant. It's time for a better design.

Why is a better design necessary if the current one is perfectly satisfactory?

Ask those who suffer from RSI, carpal tunnel, etc... Even if their keyboards didn't cause their problem, they are not easy or nice to use once you are a sufferer of these types of issue.

"Proper" typing technique (touch typing) force a user's wrists into ulnar deviation, full pronation and often the wrists are also bent upwards. QWERTY character and key layout puts too much stress on the pinkie of the right hand, doesn't use the thumbs enough and pressures the user into typing with an angle to the board. Not to mention awkward "jumping" between bottom and top rows, awkward shift+key combinations, etc..

I certainly don't find that satisfactory. The layout has its roots in factors that are no longer relevant (such as requiring levers under the keys which led to the staggered rows layout) and the designers didn't take ANY ergonomic factors into account (shape of the hands, positions of the fingers, relative finger dexterity, etc.). The character layout was designed to prevent jamming of the original mechanism, which is about as relevant nowadays as training to be a professional ice cutter or switchboard operator. As time went on extra keys were needed and tagged on around the outside to provide those functions, until we arrive at the monstrosity that is a modern 104/5 key keyboard.

It's time we had a keyboard design that DOESN'T cause irreparable harm to those who use them a lot. One designed with modern users in mind, taking into consideration only relevant factors, such as neutral hand position, relative finger dexterity, easy to use key combinations, not overloading weak fingers, programmable character and Fn layer layouts, etc.

Most "ergonomic" designs only try to address one or two of the faults of the traditional design, but we need a redesign from scratch, not an ad-hoc fix.

That's what prompted me to design my own ergonomic board. I am rather satisfied with the result, but working on the next prototype to improve a few small niggles. I would love to make it available as a product and probably will if I can finalise a few production techniques.

It's not something that should remain as an expensive "ergonomic" alternative only for those who need it, but for general use. In order to do so it needs to show itself to be superior enough to woo people away from normal layout boards. That's the hard part. Convincing people like you who are "quite satisfied" with their keyboards to change to something better.

It's truly great for gaming, too, BTW. 

[1391406]

The following is an excerpt written by an ergonomics consultant for Options, Inc.

"A review of 38 articles from the start of the electronic record to January 2005 indicated that, “the balance of evidence on keyboard and computer work did not indicate an important association with CTS” (Palmer, 2007). Similarly, a study conducted by the Mayo Clinic looked at CTS in frequent computer users and concluded that 3.5% of computer users had CTS which was similar to the general population (Stevens, 2001)."

One study suggested that typing speed may affect risk. For example, it was observed that individuals with CTS strike keys with greater force than those without the disorder.

I would be curious to know how many orthodox touch typists are affected by CTS compared to non-standard touch typists, as well. For example, I touch type between 60 - 90 WPM, but I use a non-standard, untraditional method and never experience burning or tingling in my wrists.

Hand / keyboard positioning is also a factor.

The above is simply to suggest there are a number of factors that could influence susceptibility to CTS extraneous to a users layout.

[jacobolus]

I think I agree with you, but aren't you beating a dead horse here?

What's your point?

Maybe. But I think analysis is helpful, and diagrams are a good way to aid analysis.

There are billions of such keyboards out there,

Unfortunate, huh?

and it will never change. Technology will make keyboards obsolete before their layout is fixed.

I think this is excessively pessimistic. I think making a change would be difficult, but not impossible. There has been very much research and development effort put into the physical construction of typewriters and computer keyboards (in particular for the last 20 years in how to make them cheaply), and tremendous effort put into the hardware that does computations. By contrast there has been relatively little research effort put into improving the layout or function of keyboard hardware or keyboard-handling software, because computer and peripheral vendors either don’t see the point, or think it’s impossible to find a market in it.

We’ve been typing on basically the same keyboard design for 140 years now. I don’t think keyboards will be obsolete any time soon. Maybe in 30–50 years?

Keyboard-driven user interfaces are still among the most efficient we know of for many computing tasks, in the hands of an expert user. They much better reward learning and practice than many graphical interfaces, and can have a very high skill ceiling.

They are better for inputting diverse texts (e.g. letters, novels, tables of data, computer code) than any other existing device, and they are good for control of many types of software.

They also cause a large number of people severe injuries, and many more some amount of discomfort. They have many substantial problems which can be fixed relatively easily by adopting a new physical key layout, even without throwing out the general concept. This can make them more efficient, more accurate, more comfortable, and more pleasant to use.

I think creative minds, like you, should dedicate their efforts to these questions:
- How do we make the keyboard obsolete?
- What comes next?

I think these questions are misguided. Any other device or technology is going to need to grapple with the same difficulties a keyboard has, and keyboards have several important advantages that will be hard to replicate while switching to something substantially different. I haven’t seen anything else that comes close to replacing most of the keyboard’s use cases in an acceptable way.

On the flip side, keyboards don’t do analog input, and so are not suited for many other tasks.

[jacobolus]

The above is simply to suggest there are a number of factors that could influence susceptibility to CTS extraneous to a users layout.

There are clearly many other factors involved:
* The setup of the overall workspace
* The person’s work habits and schedule (e.g. how many breaks, how often? how much typing per day?)
* Diet, exercise, quantity of sleep, and amount of stress
* Force required by keyswitches, impact involved at bottom-out when actuating the switches, travel distance, etc.
* Sitting or standing posture (affected by e.g. the height of the keyboard relative to the chair)
* Need to switch between the keyboard and other tasks (like using a mouse) quickly

But the design of the keyboard is also I think important, and worthy of consideration.