After 150 years, we should finally redesign the computer keyboard
Imagine a modern car: Well designed, comfortable and more efficient with each new generation. But apart from the engine, the seats and the wheels, there is not much resemblance to the first automobile. With computer keyboards, it’s a different story. Their predecessors were developed about 150 years ago for the first mechanical typewriters. Their intention was never to be easy to use, but to compensate for the technical shortcomings of the then new devices. Yet the general design of keyboards has not changed much to this day, although they have been revised and improved again and again with the transition to electronic typewriters and eventually to personal computers. This means that modern keyboards still inherit a major flaw: they are not designed to be ergonomic.
Table of contents
→ The problems
→ What causes the problems
→ About scientific studies
→ Possible solutions
→ About virtual keyboards
→ Rethinking digital interactions
→ Why we still need computer keyboards
Why I wrote this article
I’ve had pain in my right forearm for years. They disappear after a long weekend or a vacation, only to come back after a few days of work. Why is that so? Well, as a graphic designer, I do a lot of computer work — not just design jobs, but also research, e-mails and the organization of my projects. I am also a photographer, which means I frequently carry around a heavy camera. When I view and edit my images I again use the computer. So I can hardly avoid using the keyboard and mouse if I do what I like to do.
Many people can relate to that, and as digitalization progresses, their numbers increase. Today, most are jobs in industrialized countries include computer work. For many modern professions they are actually the basis of existence. At the same time, there have been more and more people suffering from it, even if they like their profession and their work. People like me. But again: Why is that so? And what causes it?
I started looking for answers. The more I read, the more questions came up. I learned a lot during that time, and gained new perspectives on my own work as a designer. But most of all, I looked very closely at my own fingers when writing.
This article sums up my research. I will talk about the drawbacks of traditional keyboards, about what problems they cause and why, about possible solutions, scientific studies, rethinking digital interactions and eventually why we still need normal keyboards in the digital future we may dream of.
The problems
Tense neck muscles, back problems and recurring pain in forearms and hands: Millions of people who work a lot with computers are familiar with these problems. They all belong to the Repetitive Strain Injury Syndrome (RSI syndrome for short). These are injuries in which tendon tissue slowly degenerates as a result of constant stress or strain. In this case, the human body’s advantage to adapt to repetitive postures or movements has a negative effect on the nervous system, the blood supply and the ability to regenerate. The consequences can be chronic pain, numbness, loss of fine motor skills and even muscle degeneration.
“There is always a long-lasting, repetitive movement in a fixed body posture involved in developing RSI syndrome.” (Dr. Bastian Marquaß, specialist in orthopedics)
It usually takes some time for the symptoms to get worse, but evenually they can lead to incapacity for work. In addition to ergonomic equipment and special exercises, doctors usually recommend regular breaks as well as strict rest if necessary. This means that the RSI syndrome not only has a major impact on the career of those affected, but also on the productivity of the employer and the finances of the insurance companies.
The RSI syndrome is by no means a modern phenomenon. It was first described around 1700. Even then, certain professions were affected in particular, such as musicians or typists. Their number has risen steadily since the increasing use of computer keyboards in the 1970s.
Back then, reports on complaints by typists, which from today’s perspective are typical of RSI syndrome, were increasingly published worldwide. Scientists were already considering conventional keyboards to be a the reason and voiced their concerns. But as the personal computer began to spread worldwide in the early 1980s, the criticized keyboards made their way into most offices and homes nonetheless. Although ergonomic designs were already known among experts — like the Maltron keyboard that was introduced in 1977. The problems became even worse when Apple introduced the computer mouse with the Lisa and the Macintosh in 1983/84 (20 years after its invention), because its design and shape caused further malpositions.
“The rapid growth of personal computers in the 1980s was accompanied by more reports of musculoskeletal problems among computer users.” (David Rempel, engineer, medical scientist and ergonomics specialist)
Simply put, the RSI syndrome indicates that certain movements and postures are not beneficial for our physical health. Related to the computer, it is usually caused by an unergonomic workstation. Not only the correct desk and seat height is important here, but also a correct posture. The greatest influence on the movement mechanics of fingers, hands and forearms, however, is caused by the keyboard and mouse. While the number of ergonomic and inexpensive computer mice has increased in recent years, international conventions prevent the necessary improvements when it comes to computer keyboards. And most people are accustomed to today’s keyboard design.
What causes the problems
A common feature of all conventional keyboards is the almost identical arrangement and mapping of the keys. This layout is known as Qwerty in the US, after the first letters of the top row. The layout is slightly adapted to different languages and is therefore called Qwertz here in Germany.
The Qwerty layout dates back to the 1870s. At that time, the US newspaper publisher, printer and inventor Christopher Latham Sholes was looking for a new key and character arrangement for a typewriter he had developed. Conventional models often used alphabetical layouts at that time. This could make the print types, which were very close to each other, tilt during a fast key sequence and thus block the entire device. This was particularly a problem with letters that often appeared in pairs and followed one another in alphabetical order, such as S and T.
Sholes solved this problem by rearranging the keys and separating frequently used letter combinations. In contrast to common belief, this did not slow down the typing speed, but even accelerated it. With Sholes’ new typewriter, people could type text much faster than they could write by hand for the first time. For this reason, it became the first commercially successful model of its kind, known as the Remington №1. Interestingly, Sholes sold his own copy shortly after its completion and refused to continue using or recommending it. It is unclear why he did this. However, the marketing of his invention was so successful that the Qwerty layout eventually became the industry standard around 1920.
“We are committed to it, even though it was designed to satisfy constraints that no longer apply, was based on a style of typing no longer used, and is difficult to learn.” (Don Norman, cognitive scientist and usability specialist)
Over the years, the key layout was adapted to different languages, but its arrangement and the shape of the keyboard itself remained basically unchanged. But the limitations under which conventional keyboards had been developed have been long overcome, and the possibilities of today’s electronic keyboards are almost limitless. Technologically, there is no reason to stick to the conventional Qwerty layout any longer.
Keys: layout and mapping
In the conventional Qwerty layout, the rows of keys are offset horizontally. The reason for this is, again, the mechanical typewriter: The levers that connect the keys to the types are located next to each other, and so are the keys above them. This means that the fingers do not move naturally (up and down) but diagonally to the keys above or below, so sloping left for both hands. That may correspond to the natural angle of the right forearm but not to that of the left, which usually leads to deviated wrists and fingers of the left hand. And finally the offset of the rows of keys is different in each row, so that the finger movement is not only angled but also slightly curved.
Another problem is the mapping of the keys. In the conventional Qwerty layout, the letters are not arranged according to their frequency on more or less easy to reach keys. In English, for example, only three of the ten most frequently used letters are located on the middle row of letters where the fingers usually rest (the home row). This causes the fingers to be stressed unevenly and more than necessary.
For those who use touch typing, the problem is even worse. Here the weak and not very flexible little fingers are responsible for a disproportionate number of keys, including frequently used ones such as Shift, Enter and Backspace. For the right hand that sometimes include important additional characters — like the German umlauts (äöü) and eszett (ß). The strong and flexible thumbs, in return, are only used for the space bar and the lower function keys.
Design: Size and shape
Todays common keyboard shape is a flat, landscape-format rectangle. As a relic of early computer keyboards, this design is widespread as well as unergonomic. In their natural position, our hands do not lie flat on the table but rather like if we were to grab a glass of water. Our hands usually are about shoulder-width apart in this case. In this position we can write with a pen in a very intuitive and relaxed way. But in order to use the approximately 30 centimeters wide main area of a conventional keyboard, we have to twist or bend the forearm, wrist and middle hand in three axes (wrist extension, radial deviation and forearm pronation in medical terms). A straight line from elbow to fingertips would be the natural posture though.
In addition to the standard keys, full-size keyboards also feature the common arrow keys and a numeric keypad. For right-handers this means that the mouse is far away from the main area of the keyboard, so the hand has to cover longer distances than necessary between the two devices. This seems to cause a bad posture in the shoulder and neck area which can lead to tension and other problems.
About scientific studies
It is obvious that today’s keyboard design is functional but yet does not offer the best possible usability and ergonomics. But unlike computer mice, keyboards are relatively complex input devices, so small changes can have big consequences, both positive and negative. For this reason, cause and effect should be examined carefully when creating improvements or appropriate standards.
Since the 1970s, scientists have published many papers on the ergonomics of different keyboard designs. German engineer and researcher Dr. Karl Kroemer demonstrated the ergonomic benefits of split keyboards as early as the 1960s, even before personal computers became popular. Although alternative keyboard designs never spread widely, interest has grown in recent years.
Looking at a variety of existing studies and papers, scientists seem to agree on two points in particular: The pronation of the forearms caused by conventional keyboards does not meet the biomechanical requirements of the human hand. Ergonomic designs, on the other hand, have a proven positive effect on complaints associated with RSI.
However, the question whether there actually is a connection between the Qwerty layout (regardless of the keyboard shape) and the increasing occurrence of RSI has not been sufficiently researched.
Selected and freely accessible publications:Keyboard to increase productivity and reduce postural stress, Stephen W. Hobday, 1988Ergonomic Test of the Kinesis Contoured Keyboard, Global Ergonomic Technologies, Inc., 1992Hand Tracking, Finger Identification, and Chordic Manipulation on a Multi-Touch Surface, Wayne Westerman, University of Delaware, 1999Design and evaluation of a curved computer keyboard, Hugh E. McLoone et al., University of Washington, 2004The Effect of Three Alternative Keyboard Designs on Forearm Pronation, Wrist Extension, and Ulnar Deviation: A Meta-Analysis, Nancy Baker und Erin L. Cidboy, University of Pittsburgh, 2006The Split Keyboard: An Ergonomics Success Story, David Rempel, University of California, 2008Biomechanics of the Upper Limbs: Mechanics, Modeling and Musculoskeletal Injuries, Andris Freivalds, CRC Press, 2011Comparison of typing speeds on different types of keyboards and factors influencing it, Siddharth Ghoshal und Gaurav Acharya, Suresh Gyan Vihar University, 2015How We Type: Movement Strategies and Performance in Everyday Typing, Aalto University, 2016Modelling Learning of New Keyboard Layouts, Aalto University, 2017
Possible solutions
In addition to these studies and empirical values, there are extensive measurements of the human body as well as various medical tests, for example on finger mobility. Such data are important for the development of ergonomic keyboard designs and crucial for their acceptance and economic success. Only products that meet the physical characteristics of a large user group can be manufactured in higher quantities and thus sold at reasonable prices. An expensive niche product is unlikely to compete with a large number of much cheaper models.
There is no doubt that conventional Qwerty keyboards dominate the market. Nevertheless, their ergonomic shortcomings have not gone unnoticed. A lot has been experimented with, especially within the small but very productive DIY scene. Although this often is learning by doing, it eventually led to some remarkably good designs. The scientific community is also largely in agreement here. In its conclusion, a meta-study compares various studies on the ergonomics of computer keyboards and finally even recommends an ideal shape: individually adjustable, divided into two parts that can be tented and tilted.
Different key mappings
The French government showed that the Qwerty layout can be improved without making a completely new mapping out of it. In 2015, they commissioned the Académie Française (the French language preservation institution) to rework the Azerty layout used in the French-speaking world. The improved layout was developed in collaboration with researchers from the Aalto University in Finland and introduced in April 2019. It has been the new standard ever since. Until then, the French layout was considered to be one of the most inefficient because frequently used characters were difficult to reach and others were completely missing.
As I mentioned earlier, the most serious drawback of the Qwerty layout is the poor distribution of characters. Several alternative layouts adress this problem, including Dvorak (1930), Colemak (2006), Workman (2010) or, for the German language, Neo (2010). The approaches are different, though the purpose remains the same: to improve the distribution of the characters among the keys, depending on how often they appear in the respective language. In theory, these layouts reduce finger movements, increase typing speed, and ensure a more even load on each hand and individual fingers. The actual practical benefits, however, are not without some controversy, and learning a new layout my not be a practicable solution for many people.
“Someday key labeling will be done by electronic displays on each key, so changing labels will become trivial. So computer technology may liberate us from forced standardization. Everyone could select the keyboard of personal choice.” (Don Norman, 2002)
One of the main problems of today’s keyboard designs — including alternative layouts — is the fixed key labeling. This means that other layouts are not visible and therefore harder to learn. A possible solution would be the use of small displays integrated into the keys. This would also allow individual mappings (when a keyboard is used by several people or in different environments), multilingualism, software-related modifications or the graphic display of certain functions (hotkeys).
Over the years, there have been a few attempts to create such a display-key keyboard. The first programmable LCD keyboard was the LC Board, built by a German student in the mid-1980s. More recent ones have been the luxurious 2007 Optimus Maximus (1500$ price tag and reported as tedious to type on), the 2015 Sonder keyboard (reported as scam) and the 2018 Nemeio keyboard (pending, not shipped yet). There is even a dynamically controlled keyboard patent from Apple, filed in 2007.
Despite sparking interest, none of these concepts (yet) made into volume production — or into production at all. However, all of these concepts still suffer from the ergonomic drawbacks of the conventional keyboard layout.
Different key layouts and keyboard shapes
Without the restrictions of mechanical typewriters, the layout of today’s electronic keyboards can be altered almost at will. In ortholinear layouts, for example, the rows of keys are no longer offset, but are arranged in a linear grid. In the so-called columnar stagger, on the other hand, the rows of keys are vertically offset and thus take into account the different lengths of our fingers. Both approaches allow a more natural hand position and finger movement.
“Split keyboards are not associated with increased productivity — the main value is improved health.” (David Rempel)
Split keyboards divide the keyboard into two separate areas for each hand, usually at a slight angle. They often are also split into two separate units that can be positioned freely and even tilted or tented — though users should learn touch typing to take full advantage of these keyboards.
The split design is by no means new as Apple was the first major manufacturer to launch a splittable keyboard in the early 1990s. Microsoft followed a year later and, unlike Apple, has been successfully designing and selling follow-up models ever since.
Keyboards with a split layout often assign significantly more keys to the thumb than what we are familiar with —usually enter, shift, alt, remove or backspace as well as the space bar. This reduces the load on the weaker little fingers that are otherwise responsible for these keys in the conventional Qwerty layout. Popular commercial models of this type include Microsoft’s Sculpt Ergonomic, TrulyErgonomic and the ErgoDox EZ developed by the DIY scene. In contrast to conventional full-size designs, almost all ergonomic keyboards lack an integrated numeric keypad. This allows the mouse to move closer to the main area of the keyboard, relieving hand, arm and shoulder strain for right-handers and preventing incorrect posture.
In recent years, some new keyboard models have been enhanced with additional controls, such as the rotary knob on the Logitech Craft. This allows cursor sizes, zoom levels and other screen contents to be controlled very easily and intuitively. As a separate device, Microsoft’s Surface Dial takes this idea a step further and enables completely new interactive elements. And for certain photo, video or music software there are even stand-alone input devices available, such as from Loupedeck or Steinberg, which allow users to work largely without mouse and keyboard.
Using well proven technologies, today’s ergonomic keyboards solve many of the problems caused by conventional designs. Most of them are aiming at a rather small scene of frequent writers, software developers and gamers. Accordingly, commercial models are comparatively expensive (up to $500), while DIY keyboards require a high level of skill and technical understanding.
Apart from that, many of these keyboards allow for less tiring, efficient text input and a more ergonomic hand position. They also allow individual fingers to be used more appropriately according to their strenght and flexibility. The keys used in this keyboards often have a classic spring mechanism which, compared to other mechanisms, offer more precise feedback and are much more durable — therefore they are quite popular in the mentioned target group. A downside is that they usually require deeper keyboard housings. With no wrist support pads, this can result in an uncomfortable upward angulation of the hands.
Some of these alternative designs are also much smaller than conventional ones because they lack a number pad or f-keys. Instead, each key is assigned several functions, creating multiple virtual keyboard layers.
Most models also feature the US-American layout (ANSI) in the Windows or Linux layout, which lacks a key compared to the European layout. If you want to use these keyboards on an Apple computer, you will often also miss the Command key (which is essential for MacOS) and some other Apple-specific keys. The key mapping can be changed by software of course— but is not an appropriate solution, because the labels on the keyboard would still remain the same.
In many jobs it is also a question of how to work as ergonomically as possible with both keyboard and mouse. Here, one hand is often responsible for pressing hotkeys and shortcuts, while the other hand operates the mouse. Depending on the software, many professional users also use other input devices such as graphics tablets, midi keyboards or special CAD mice. Only a two-piece keyboard is flexible enough to allow all devices to be ergonomically positioned on the desk. If necessary, only one half of the keyboard could be used here. But unfortunately most two-piece split designs are not meant to be that modular — at least not without sacrificing functionality.
What is missing is a range of different devices that meet both the ergonomic and technical needs of a large user group and do not require difficult adjustment. Devices that simply work.
About virtual keyboards
On smartphones and tablets, we no longer use physical keys. Instead, we write on a touch-sensitive display. A few keyboard designs have adopted this idea as well (though they only made it to a commercial level in some rare cases). What makes these keyboards stand out is that the virtual keys can be fully adapted to the human hand in terms of size, layout, mapping, shape and arrangement. The display also enables completely new forms of interaction, such as virtual rotary or slide controls, gesture control or the recognition of handwriting. In addition, virtual keyboards lack the usual stroke travel — so pressing a key requires hardly any force. There is evidence that this has a positive impact on RSI syndrome and similar injuries.
But virtual keyboards have a huge drawback: We have to see what we are typing because we can’t feel what keys we are pressing or not. But haptic feedback is the essential aspect of our normal interactions with things we touch. If we lack this feedback on a keyboard, we have to rely solely on our muscle memory and our eyes.
On smartphones and tablets virtual keyboards are not a problem. Their screens are both the input and output device, so the eye hardly has to move between the two areas. On a laptop, keyboard and screen are two separate areas or even two completely different devices when using a normal computer. If the keyboard would be a screen as well as the monitor, our eyes would have to travel back and forth between them — because we have to see where to tap. This is not an improvement when you consider that an experienced touch typist with a conventional keyboard doesn’t need to look at the keys at all. If he had to do so on a display keyboard this would either lead to a lower typing speed or a higher error rate.
Additionally, the fingers have to hover above the touch surface to prevent unwanted input. This position is unergonomic and another drawback, as the resting position on certain keys is the most important feature of touch typing.
Before display keyboards with a usably high technical level were even available or affordable, there were already some hybrid models that combined the advantages of both concepts. In the early 2000s, for example, a small US company began manufacturing some remarkable keyboards. They featured touch-sensitive pads instead of keys, combined them with a multitouch sensor. Devices like the TouchStream LP could recognize all ten fingers, enabling a variety of gestures that previously required special keys, key combinations or mouse movements. The name of the largely unknown yet groundbreaking company: Fingerworks, founded by Prof. John Elias and Dr. Wayne Westermann from the University of Delaware.
“The conventional mechanical keyboard, for all of its strengths, is physically incompatible with the rich graphical manipulation demands of modern software.” (Wayne Westerman, engineer and multitouch specialist)
The products of Fingerworks were based on Westermann’s dissertation which he presented in 1999. Westermann intensively studied the capabilities of multitouch surfaces to find solutions for people with RSI syndrome. In 2005, Fingerworks surprisingly stopped selling its keyboards when Apple silently acquired the company. Both Elias and Westermann were appointed senior engineers. In this way, their gesture control research and patents made their way into the first iPhone (2007) and later into most Apple devices. By now they have become the worldwide standard for touch sensitive surfaces.
But without further studies it remains uncertain how much tactile feedback is required to make writing on a touch-sensitive surface as fast and error-free as on a mechanical keyboard. Or if this is possible at all. In recent years, several research projects and companies have worked on these challenges and came up with some possible solutions. In a patent from March 2018, for example, Apple outlined ideas for a display with a flexible surface that can simulate the feel of individual keys using small bumps. A second patent from October 2019 extended this idea and showed the combination of a display with tiny electrodes. These allow the key shapes to be felt through electrostatic fields without physically altering the surface of the display. The late 2019 Logitech Ultra concept keyboard shows the potential of this idea in a more lifelike simulation.
The current Macbook models from Apple already prove that this rethinking can work. Their touchpads are fixed and only simulate the click feedback with the help of a small sensor that hits the surface from below. The illusion is so good that users hardly notice that the surface does not move at all.
Rethinking digital interactions
Like I mentioned earlier, traditional keyboards solved a technical problem of the 19th century mechanical typewriters. They were never designed to meet the biomechanical requirements of our hands. So perhaps we not only need new keyboard shapes — we should also rethink the way we use and interact with computers.
It goes back to the time of the Industrial Revolution that we began to abandon individual solutions in almost all areas of life and became used to generic products. Please do not get me wrong: Standards are important. They ensure that a fork remains a fork — a perfect, simple tool with a clear purpose. Complex tasks, on the other hand, require more individual tools. The fact that most people working with computers use an almost identical keyboard although they have different tasks is basically absurd. Chefs, shoemakers and surgeons do not use the same type of knife either.
In daily use, it often becomes obvious that keyboard and mouse are no longer sufficient for the many possibilities and functions of modern computer software. Additional input methods — such as new devices, voice control or gestures — make it easier to use certain types of software. But most software cannot make full use of new interactive features because everything must be controllable with keyboard and mouse. For this reason, the two classic input devices are also the limiting factor when it comes to the development of new software or operating systems.
And so the introduction of the mouse in the mid-1980s was the last major innovation in the computer industry. It allowed engineers to move from a monochrome command line to a colorful graphical user interface, which was one of the reasons for the spread of the personal computer. Apart from a steady increase in computing power — in 2015, the Apple Watch was twice as fast as the fastest supercomputer of 1985 — little has happened since then. Especially the computer keyboard is like a rock in the surf of technological development. But for many years, Hollywood movies and computer games have been showing us visionary user interfaces and input methods. With today’s possibilities, some of them are no longer as futuristic as they may appear at first glance.
In its Productivity Future Vision 2015, for example, Microsoft has adopted many concepts and transferred them to real-life application. It is remarkable that the designers completely abandoned the computer mouse. There are also no keyboards to be seen. Without having to pay attention to conventions, Microsoft shows interactive interfaces that can be operated intuitively using gestures, digital pens and voice control.
“I believe we will look back on 2010 as the year we expanded beyond the mouse and keyboard and started incorporating more natural forms of interaction such as touch, speech, gestures, handwriting, and vision — what computer scientists call the natural user interface.” (Steve Ballmer, former CEO of Microsoft)
Microsoft seems to be serious about this vision. For the past ten years, it is the only major company that has continually tried to improve digital work spaces. As a result, most devices of its Surface series focus heavily on ergonomics, functionality and productivity — which has so far led to some groundbreaking products such as Studio, Hub or Neo. Microsoft takes the same approach with its user interface (although the design still promises much more than it actually delivers). This is also the reason why the company has opened its proprietary software architecture and is now the largest contributor to open source software. Looking at this evolution in its entirety, it becomes clear how much value, benefit and even economic success can be achieved when a company places people and their needs at the heart of its product development, or at least gives them a significant role.
Apple on the other hand has long neglected its professional users. The same company that changed the way we communicate — when it added a groundbreaking multi-touch interface to a phone back in 2007 — has repeatedly drawn attention to itself over the past decade because of some serious ergonomic issues. It is an example of how usability can go wrong when what is supposed to be an innovation does not meet the needs of customers or the way they use a product. When Apple unveiled the 2021 Macbook Pros, it marked a turning point in the company’s product policy. For the first time, Apple reintroduced still widely used features it had itself removed years ago for the sake of progress: the SD card slot and the HDMI port.
This shows that new functions or features are not automatically useful just because they are feasible. For that reason it is also an utopian idea that we will completely abandon the computer mouse or a physical keyboard in the foreseeable future.
However, this does not mean that new workspaces could not be significantly enhanced by new tools. Artificial intelligence and machine learning already show a glimpse of what could be possible. In fact, we are already taking advantage of them using virtual assistants like Apple’s Siri or Amazon’s Alexa, translating text online, letting Netflix suggest movies based on our viewing behaviour, or unlocking electronic devices using facial recognition. Also, special glasses like Microsoft’s HoloLens can already blend our real environment with virtual objects we can interact with — which is something we have only seen in science fiction movies so far.
All this is made possible by capable software. In contrast to complex artificial intelligence, these applications can only make independent decisions in small, predefined areas — if they do so at all. They have their greatest potential in workspaces where computers have not played a significant role so far, such as in medical education and diagnostics. But also in our everyday life, these virtual assistants allow an increasingly natural form of digital interaction through body, gesture and speech recognition: They help us to drive more safely because we can control the car’s navigation by voice command and keep our hands on the steering wheel. They help us wake up more refreshed because they analyze our sleep rhythm and wake us up in a suitable sleep phase rather than at an exact time. The major disadvantage of most of these applications is that, although they need to collect user data, they do not process this data themselves, but using a remote computer — which of course leads to difficulties with privacy and data protection.
Nevertheless, enhancing digital workplaces with intelligent software offers great potential for professional computer users.
Why we still need computer keyboards
So, if the mouse is something that we are probably not supposed to use in the future and digital interactions and virtual assistants become more natural and powerful year by year: Is it really worth thinking about a new generation of computer keyboards now?
The answer is yes, it does, and it is long overdue. Nobody knows how virtual environments will really look like in ten, twenty or thirty years from now. Nobody know how we will interact with them. Industry leading companies like Microsoft, Google and Apple are showing their vision of our digital future, of course. Many researchers and developers even show what is already possible today. But although there is a great deal of technological enthusiasm, the main drawbacks of those next-gen solutions are rarely mentioned: They are quite imprecise and inefficient compared to what we have.
“Good design makes a product useful.” (Dieter Rams, German industrial designer)
For professional computer users, intelligent software assistants likely have the greatest benefit. Machine learning already helps devices to adapt to our personal habits and workflows. That too is what ergonomics is about: A uniform software environment is neither a perfect fit nor is it useful. But ultimately, new technologies only mean progress if they make our lives easier, better and safer. Putting people and their needs at the heart of product development means evaluating new features and functions first and foremost by their usability — and not just by whether they are feasible.
It is obvious that touchscreens cannot be used as precisely with the hands or a digital pen as with a computer mouse. Yet they are increasingly replacing classic control elements. This is not always a good idea — for example, with applications that require accuracy, speed and clear haptic feedback, or those that have to be controlled without visual contact. Touchscreens in ovens, stoves or cars show how quickly classic switches and rotary knobs can be of advantage or even a factor of safety. This also includes newer forms of interaction such as touchless gesture control.
There is also no reasonable replacement for the classic computer keyboard. It remains essential for writing and editing large amounts of text. Just think of the complex software code that makes our digital visions of the future become a reality — it easily adds up to many millions of lines by now.
But fortunately, we no longer have to stick to the technical limitations of past decades. There is no reason to continue using keyboards that don’t work the way our fingers, hands and forearms work, causing injuries like RSI syndrome, or that limit the capabilities of current or future software. And yet that is exactly what many computer users do. Most of us keep using a mass-produced standard device where we need a special tool, because we lack proper or affordable alternatives.
Today, the low-power E Ink display technology known from e-readers could be a game changer. It would make a display-key keyboard not only feasible at larger scale, but also affordable and tough enough for everyday use. It would allow people to individually change key mappings, like for various languages or applications. And with different layouts and shapes or even a modular design, we could also adapt the keyboard to our respective physical needs.
“Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.” (Frank Zappa, musician)
Developing a new keyboard means nothing less than aiming for the most ergonomic and efficient interface between users and computer. It is about finally adapting one of the most widely used devices to our physical needs. Form must no longer follow function, but usability. If we free ourselves from unnecessary conventions, we can think digital workspaces and necessary input devices with a much wider scope. We have the technology and the knowledge. All we need is to combine them.
And if we do, we can as well start thinking beyond ergonomics and display-key keyboards as a promising solution. There is more to improve than that. Good cleanability would help make keyboards less unhygienic. 3D printing could reduce costs and make customised solutions more accessible and affordable. With overall optimised engineering and production this could also help ensure that the devices are made in democratic countries with ethical working conditions and fair wages. Repairability would extend the life of keyboards and allow for improvements over time. And eventually, systematic recycling would reduce plastic e-waste — a cycle that could start with making next-generation keyboards mostly from recycled materials.
End note: I myself still haven’t found an ergonomic low profile split keyboard that fits into my graphic design workflow. So after prolonged keyboard use the RSI keeps coming back. But a strict pause app, the Wacom tablet+pen I replaced my mouse with years ago and overall less time in front of the computer help to reduce the it to a tolerable level.
Disclaimer
All rights are reserved to the respective authors or copyright holders. I have used all pictures for explanatory, reference or illustrative purposes only and thank all those who I could ask for permission and who granted it to me. Wherever possible I have mentioned the sources. I have also received neither financial support nor free test products from any of the companies mentioned.
☞ Visual research on Pinterest
Edit December 2021: Reworked intro, reworked and updated the display-key keyboards section, updated conclusion. Thanks to this discussion, especially to the user m0llusk, whose striking thoughts inspired most of the last paragraph.
Edit December 2022: Fixed broken links, polishing.
