{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022253129346314324, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0034770514603616135, 'mean_word_length': 5.481981981981982, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
User Preferences between Keyboards while Performing “Real” Work: A Comparison of “Alternative” and Standard Keyboards

The proliferation of varying computer keyboard designs may pose problems to those who specify, purchase and ultimately use such devices. Are any of them “best” for my work? Will actual users derive any benefit from them? To assist in addressing such issues, we explored an approach to determining if any of three “alternative” keyboards provided a benefit to employees by increasing user comfort. A total of 34 employees participated in this study, each using an “alternative” keyboard for one week at a time while performing their actual work. After using each keyboard, including their standard “101” keyboard, subjects completed a questionnaire of seven psychophysical measures relating to the comfort and use of the keyboard. Questionnaire responses were tabulated and a Repeated Measures Analysis of variance conducted. Statistically significant differences were found among and between the four keyboards on four of the seven psychophysical measures. Overall results showed little differences in user assessments between three of the keyboards, with the fourth keyboard assessed less favorably when significant differences were found. The results suggest that user assessments can produce significant results between keyboards, and that no one “best” keyboard exists for any given set of tasks and group of users.