Efficiency of the Chubon versus the QWERTY keyboard.

@article{citeulike:296304, abstract = {There is little available evidence for claims of the efficiency of alternative keyboard layouts. Part of the difficulty in providing such evidence is that available research subjects typically have extensive experience with the standard keyboard, making a fair comparison of keyboard layouts difficult. The purpose of this study was to provide a true comparison of the QWERTY and Chubon keyboard layouts for individuals who type with a single digit by neutralizing prior experience through an inversion of the QWERTY keyboard. A single-subject, repeated measures design was used with a convenience sample of nine participants. Each participant began typing on a preselected keyboard and continued typing until fluency was achieved. This procedure was replicated with each keyboard layout. The words per minute typed at fluency for the Reverse QWERTY was approximately 62\% of the QWERTY, indicating that the learned effect had been erased. The average typing speed of the Chubon was at least 5\% higher and at most 51\% higher than the Reverse QWERTY. There were no significant patterns of error. Results of this study indicate that the biomechanical layout of the Chubon is superior to that of the Reverse QWERTY and, by extension, to that of the QWERTY. Additional research is needed to expand knowledge of the effectiveness of the various alternative keyboard layouts.}, address = {College Misericordia, 301 Lake Street, Dallas, PA 18612, USA.}, author = {Anson, D. and George, S. and Galup, R. and Shea, B. and Vetter, R.}, citeulike-article-id = {296304}, comment = {"Although strides have been made in alternative access technologies persons with disabilities may find it no more functional today than two decades ago"}, issn = {1040-0435}, journal = {Assist Technol}, keywords = {chubon, keyboard, lit-review, qwerty}, number = {1}, pages = {40--45}, posted-at = {2005-08-17 11:51:00}, priority = {2}, title = {Efficiency of the Chubon versus the QWERTY keyboard.}, url = {http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12212435}, volume = {13}, year = {2001} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:296304 L3 - citeulike-article-id:296304 N2 - There is little available evidence for claims of the efficiency of alternative keyboard layouts. Part of the difficulty in providing such evidence is that available research subjects typically have extensive experience with the standard keyboard, making a fair comparison of keyboard layouts difficult. The purpose of this study was to provide a true comparison of the QWERTY and Chubon keyboard layouts for individuals who type with a single digit by neutralizing prior experience through an inversion of the QWERTY keyboard. A single-subject, repeated measures design was used with a convenience sample of nine participants. Each participant began typing on a preselected keyboard and continued typing until fluency was achieved. This procedure was replicated with each keyboard layout. The words per minute typed at fluency for the Reverse QWERTY was approximately 62% of the QWERTY, indicating that the learned effect had been erased. The average typing speed of the Chubon was at least 5% higher and at most 51% higher than the Reverse QWERTY. There were no significant patterns of error. Results of this study indicate that the biomechanical layout of the Chubon is superior to that of the Reverse QWERTY and, by extension, to that of the QWERTY. Additional research is needed to expand knowledge of the effectiveness of the various alternative keyboard layouts. IS - 1 JF - Assist Technol SN - 1040-0435 AD - College Misericordia, 301 Lake Street, Dallas, PA 18612, USA. EP - 45 TI - Efficiency of the Chubon versus the QWERTY keyboard. VL - 13 SP - 40 KW - chubon KW - keyboard KW - lit-review KW - qwerty N1 - "Although strides have been made in alternative access technologies persons with disabilities may find it no more functional today than two decades ago" AU - Anson, D AU - George, S AU - Galup, R AU - Shea, B AU - Vetter, R PY - 2001/// UR - http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12212435 ER -