24-29 April1993
`
`INTIRCHI’
`
`A One-handed Keyboard Facilitating
`Half-QWERTY:
`Skill Transfer From QWERTY
`
`Edgar Matiasf,
`
`I. Scott Mackenzie, William Buxton$
`
`tl%e Matias
`Corporation
`Boulevard
`178 Thistledown
`Canada
`M9V
`Rexdale,
`Ontario,
`(416)
`749-3124
`ematias@dgp.toronto.edu
`
`lK1
`
`3Dept.
`
`Guelph,
`824-4120
`
`(519)
`
`and Information
`of Computing
`of Guelph
`University
`2W1
`Canada
`NIG
`Ontario,
`mac@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca
`
`Science
`
`Xerox
`of Toronto&
`*university
`Research
`Systems
`c/o Computer
`of Toronto
`University
`Canada
`M5S
`Ontario,
`Toronto,
`(416)
`978-1961
`buxton@dgp.toronto.
`
`PARC
`Institute
`
`1A4
`
`edu
`
`ABSTRACT
`technique,
`typing
`is a new one-handed
`Half-QWERTY
`typing skill
`designed to facilitate
`the transfer of
`two-handed
`to the one-handed condition.
`It
`is performed
`on a standard
`keyboard, or a special half keyboard (with full-sized
`keys).
`In an experiment
`using touch typists, hunt-and-peck
`typing
`speeds were surpassed after 3-4 hours of practice. Subjects
`reached 50% of their
`two-handed
`typing speed after about 8
`hours. After 10 hours, all subjects typed between 41 % and
`73% of
`their
`two-handed
`speed, ranging from 23.8 to 42.8
`wpm.
`These results are important
`in providing
`access to
`disabled users, and for
`the design of compact
`computers.
`They also bring into question p;evious re;earch
`cl~ming
`finger
`actions if
`one ‘hand map to the other
`via spatial
`congruence rather
`than mirror
`image.
`
`tasks,
`input
`devices,
`Input
`K E Y WO R D S:
`keyboard, QWERTY,
`performance,
`one-handed
`computers, disabled users, skill
`transfer.
`
`human
`portable
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The idea of a one-handed keyboard is not new. As early as
`1968, Engelbart
`and English
`[2] used a one-handed
`chord
`keybomd
`in conjunction
`with
`a newly
`developed
`input
`device — the mouse. The user entered text with one hand,
`while using the mouse to enter spatial
`information
`with the
`other.
`However,
`unlike
`the mouse, acceptance
`of one-
`handed
`keyboards
`has been limited
`to very
`specific
`
`is
`this material
`of
`fee all or part
`without
`to oopy
`Permission
`for
`the copies
`are not made or distributed
`granted
`provided
`that
`direct
`commercial
`advantage,
`the ACM copyright
`notice
`and tha
`title
`the publication
`and its date
`appear,
`and notice
`is given
`of
`that
`copying
`is by permission
`of
`the Association
`for Computing
`Machinery.
`To copy
`otherwise,
`or
`to republish,
`requires
`a fee
`and/or
`specific
`permission.
`
`~ 1993
`
`ACM 0-89791
`
`-575-51931000410088
`
`. ..S 1.50
`
`88
`
`There are
`the disabled.
`such as keyboards for
`applications,
`several
`reasons for
`this, but chief among them is the need
`to learn a new typing
`technique.
`For most people,
`the
`benefit of
`touch typing with one hand is not worth the cost
`of
`learning to do it.
`
`text
`to one-handed
`This paper describes a new approach
`entry which exploits
`the skills already developed
`in two-
`handed typing.
`It
`is called,
`“Half-QWERTY~
`because it
`uses only half of
`the QWERTY
`keyboard.
`The technique
`can be used on an unmodified
`standard QWERTY keyboard
`(using only half of
`the available keys, Figure
`1), or with a
`special half keyboard (Figures 2 & 3). The former provides
`wide access to the technique,
`The latter provides a compact
`keyboard with full-sized
`keys supporting
`touch typing on
`portable computers,
`for example.
`
`the degree to which
`study examines
`The present
`transfers from QWERTY to Half-QWERTY
`keyboards.
`
`skill
`
`CONCEPT1
`THE HALF-QWERTY
`Most one-handed
`keyboards
`are chord keyboards.
`QWERTY
`is not. The design builds on two principles:
`
`Half-
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`A user’s abflity to touch type on a standard
`QWERTY keyboard.
`The fact
`that the human hands are symmetrical —
`one hand is a mirror
`image of the other.
`
`the keys
`of all
`is comprised
`keyboard
`A Half-QWERTY
`typed by one hand, with the keys of
`the other hand unused
`
`#
`International Application
`pending.
`lPatents
`PCT/CA90/00274 published March 21, 1991, under
`International Publication
`# W091/03782.
`
`GOOGLE EX. 1013
`Google v. Philips
`
`

`
`lNTkRcHr93
`
`24-29 April1993
`
`!
`
`1(J
`
`@
`29
`
`#
`38
`
`$
`47
`
`77
`56
`
`Tab
`
`Q
`
`w
`
`E
`
`R
`
`T
`
`Delete
`
`p
`
`o
`
`I
`
`u
`
`65
`
`Y
`
`74
`
`T
`
`83
`
`92
`
`01
`
`:
`
`=
`
`u
`
`I
`
`~
`
`~ Ow
`
`p
`
`;
`
`]
`
`;
`
`Shift
`
`/
`
`“
`
`*
`
`M
`
`N
`
`~ J
`
`KD
`
`L~
`
`Return
`
`N
`
`;
`
`B
`
`>
`<
`v $C .
`
`x /z
`
`Shift
`
`layouts on a standard QWERTY keyboard.
`
`Figure
`
`1. Left- and right-hand Half-QWERTY
`
`the missing
`or absent. When the space bar is depressed,
`characters are mapped onto the remaining
`keys in a mirror
`image
`(Figure
`1), such that
`the typing
`hand makes
`movements
`homologous
`to those previously
`performed
`by
`the other hand, Thus, using the space bar as a modifier,
`a
`typist can generate the characters of either side of a full-
`sized keyboard using only one hand.
`
`a timeout
`the space bar within
`and releasing
`Depressing
`reduces
`the
`a space character.
`The timeout
`generates
`number of erroneous
`spaces generated as a side-effect
`of
`using the space bar as a modifier
`key.
`It
`is often the case
`that a typist will depress the space bar with the intention
`of
`
`then change their
`key but
`the state of another
`mirroring
`such actions would
`mind and release. Without
`the timeout,
`result
`in an unwanted space character. For this experiment,
`the timeout was 16/60 seconds, or 267 ms.
`
`keys (such as shift and control) are supported via a
`Modifier
`“latch” mechanism,
`commonly
`known
`as “Sticky
`Keys.”
`Depressing and releasing a modifier
`key once activates it for
`the next key pressed. Depressing
`it
`twice locks that key
`until
`it
`is unlocked
`by depressing
`it again.
`Sticky Keys
`allows
`one finger
`to do the work
`of
`several,
`when
`performing
`key sequences that would otherwise require the
`simultaneous
`depression of
`two or more keys.
`
`#w
`\
`
`Tab
`
`Return
`
`Shift
`
`!Q @
`) 2(
`— 1
`o
`
`Delete
`
`P
`
`A
`
`II
`I
`
`i
`
`.
`
`#
`3*
`
`$
`4&
`
`?40
`5A
`
`+
`=}
`
`E*
`
`R’
`
`T6
`
`o
`
`I
`
`u
`
`Y
`
`s
`
`D
`
`F
`
`G
`
`Delete
`
`Option
`
`1
`
`I
`\{
`
`[
`Control
`
`z’
`
`XL
`
`CK
`
`VJ
`
`BH
`
`Alt
`
`?
`I
`
`>
`.
`
`<
`,
`
`M
`
`N
`
`portable keyboard (actual size). When a key is depressed,
`2. Left-hand
`Figure
`of the key is entered. When preceded by holding down the spacebar,
`the character
`
`the character
`in the lower
`
`left
`in the upper
`right
`is entered.
`
`89
`
`GOOGLE EX. 1013
`Google v. Philips
`
`

`
`24-29 April1993
`
`lNTiiRctlr9
`
`IyTl”J’
`I
`
`,
`
`}-
`
`IOption
`IControl
`IAlt
`
`m
`
`..-
`
`,..
`
`-
`
`I R
`
`v
`
`m
`
`m
`
`. . ,
`
`m
`
`Which Hand to Use?
`Given the keyboard described above, we must now decide
`which hand is ‘best’
`for one-handed typing.,
`In general, we
`believe this is the non-dominant
`hand. This would free the
`more dexterous
`dominant
`hand to use a mouse (or other
`device)
`to enter spatial
`information.
`This arrangement
`would work e~ecially
`well on a palmtop
`computer.
`For
`example,
`the computer
`could
`open horizontally,
`like
`a
`wallet
`(Figure 4),
`thus keeping the keyboard comfortably
`to
`the side (where the hand is) and the screen in the centre
`(where the eyes are).
`If equipped with a touch screen,
`concurrent entry of
`text and graphics is possible. Note also
`that the left-hand and right-hand
`versions of Half-QWERTY
`are physically
`identical
`(Figures 2 & 3), differing
`only in
`their key cap markings
`and the mappings.
`So, a left-hand
`typist can easily adapt a right-hand
`keyboard for
`left hand
`use, and vice versa.
`
`using
`can be performed
`typing
`two-handed
`Furthermore,
`together.
`This has the added
`two of
`these half keyboards
`benefit
`of allowing
`the user
`to adjust
`each keypad
`indeWndently
`to whichever position is most comfortable.
`
`Computers
`Wearable
`than camied, has significant
`rather
`that
`is worn,
`A computer
`advantages for data collection
`“in the field.”
`By eliminating
`infrequently
`used keys (e.g.,
`the number keys) and reducing
`the size of
`the space bar, a Half-QWERTY
`keyboard can be
`made small enough to wear on the wrist of
`the dominant
`hand. With
`an LCD screen worn on the other wrist,
`the
`resulting
`typing posture allows
`the user to type and view
`the screen, simultaneously.
`Note that
`this arrangement
`is
`consistent
`with
`the convention
`of wearing
`one’s wrist
`watch on the non-dominant
`arm.
`
`allowing
`portable,
`be extremely
`Such a computer would
`or other
`the need of a table
`fast data entry without
`supporting
`surface required by most computers today. Data
`could even be entered while standing or walking.
`
`vs. Spatial Congruence
`Hand Symmetry
`the human
`is based on the principle
`that
`Half-QWERTY
`typing movements
`according
`to the finger
`brain controls
`used, rather
`than the spatial position
`of
`the key. Thus,
`the
`finger
`used to hit a key is the critical
`invariant — the
`critical
`similarity
`that
`is maintained
`across the training
`and
`transfer
`tasks — in the transfer of skill
`from QWERTY
`to
`Half-QWERTY.
`Lintem [81 writex
`
`keyboard. When a
`portable
`3. Right-hand
`Figure
`in the upper left of the
`key is depressed,
`the character
`key is entered. When preceded by holding down the
`space bar,
`the character
`in the lower
`right
`is entered.
`
`Implementation
`and
`Application
`a
`objective
`of
`this design was to establish
`The original
`keyboard
`for palmtop
`computerx
`one that was small yet
`permitted
`touch typists
`to use their existing
`skills.
`Prior
`efforts
`tended toward reducing
`the size and spacing of
`the
`keys of standard QWERTY
`[18].
`Such attempts
`are
`problematic
`since they lead to keyboards
`that are too small
`to accommodate
`two hands. We have side-stepped this by
`requiring
`only one hand for
`typing.
`However,
`the idea is
`versatile, and has more applications.
`
`in one hand, and a
`keyboard
`a Half-QWERTY
`Using
`in the other
`recaptures
`device,
`such as a mouse,
`pointing
`and English’s
`system
`the two-handed
`flavour
`of Engelbart
`[2]. Text can be entered with one hand, and items selected
`and manipulated
`with the other.
`Since both hands aw in
`“home position”
`for
`their
`respective task, no time is lost
`in
`moving
`between devices.
`Furthermore,
`by implementing
`the Half-QWERTY
`keyboard on a standard keybomd,
`one
`can easily switch between this type of input and two-handed
`typing.
`Finally,
`since each side of
`the keybotcud is mapped
`onto the other side when the space bar is depressed,
`the user
`can choose which hand to use for one-handed
`typing.
`In
`effect,
`the user has a choice of
`three keyboards
`in on~ a
`two-handed QWERTY
`keyboard,
`and two Half-QWERTY
`keyboards, one for each hand. All of this we have achieved
`entirely
`in software.
`This
`is especially
`beneficial
`to
`disabled
`computer
`users, since it obviates
`the need for
`specialized hardware.
`
`m““’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’”;’
`n )“’’’’’’’’’:
`
`left- and right-hand
`for
`screen placements
`4. Various
`Figure
`palmtop computers equipped with Half-QWERTY
`keyboards.
`
`90
`
`GOOGLE EX. 1013
`Google v. Philips
`
`

`
`lNlfRCH1’93
`
`24-29 April1993
`
`those that pose a
`(specifically,
`invariants
`If critical
`remain unchanged,
`learning challenge)
`meaningful
`[skill]
`transfer will be high even when many other
`features of
`the environment,
`context,
`or
`task are
`changed ... If an operator’s perceptual
`sensitivity
`to
`critical
`invariants
`can be improved,
`that enhanced
`sensitivity will serve to facilitate
`transfer.
`(p. 262)
`
`above)
`scheme (described
`encoding
`image
`The mirror
`encoding
`scheme is that of
`A rival
`follows
`from this.
`which maintains
`that
`the spatial
`spatial
`congruence,
`position
`of
`the key is the critical
`invariant.
`There is
`disagreement
`in the literature as to which of
`these schemes
`is ‘better.’
`In the context of
`this experiment,
`we believe
`mirror
`image mapping is preferred.
`
`in his analysis of error patterns in transcription
`Grudin [7],
`typing,
`found
`that homologous
`substitution
`errors
`are
`among the most common
`errors.
`These occur when the
`character corresponding
`to the mirror
`image position on the
`keyboard,
`is substituted for
`the one required.
`For example,
`substituting
`D for K (middle
`finger
`of either hand)
`is a
`homologous
`error. These findings, which were confined
`by Munhall
`and Ostry [10], suggest a predisposition
`among
`QWERTY
`typists to mirror
`image mapping.
`
`chord keyboard,
`of a one-handed
`the evaluation
`During
`and Sh~
`[17]
`trained one student
`Rochester, Bequaert,
`using the right hand only.
`The subject was later
`retrained
`to type with the left hand only. The subject
`“reached close
`to his right-hand
`typing
`speed in less than one third the
`time he spent
`learning right-handed
`typing”
`(p. 62). Their
`left-hand
`keyboard was a mirror
`image of
`the right-hand
`version.
`
`trained subjects on a two-
`[5]
`Gopher, Karis, and Koenig
`handed chord keyboard
`and then investigated whether
`the
`skill
`thus acquired transferred
`to the other hand by mirror
`image or spatial
`congruence.
`Their
`conclusions
`suggest
`that spatial
`congruence
`is the dominant mapping.
`They
`also tested a third condition,
`a combination
`of
`the two,
`using keyboards mounted vertically
`rather than horizontally.
`Hand-to-hand mapping was best in this condition.
`
`than
`congruence was stronger
`This suggests that spatial
`mirror
`image mapping, which would
`seem to contradict
`what we have argued above. However,
`closer
`inspection
`reveals
`that
`the combined
`scheme was actually
`the
`equivalent of
`the mirror
`image keyboard, but with a vertical
`rather
`than flat posture (i.e., with the hands positioned
`as
`though playing a saxophone, as opposed to a piano).
`
`to keep
`[5]
`despite the efforts of Gopher et al.
`Furthermore,
`error
`rates low,
`the errors
`that did slip
`through were
`primarily
`homologous
`errors made by subjects using the
`This
`suggests
`a
`spatial
`congruence
`keyboard.
`predisposition
`among chord keybomd
`typists
`to mirror
`image mapping.
`
`section, we describe
`In the following
`the degree to which
`skill
`intended
`to test
`QWERTY
`to Half-QWERTY
`keyboardy
`touch typists.
`
`an experiment
`transfers
`from
`among skilled
`
`METHOD
`
`Subjects
`Ten right-handed,
`a local university
`their non-dominant
`The Edinburgh
`handedness.
`
`literate, QWERTY typists from
`computer
`served as paid volunteers.
`Subjects used
`(left) hand when typing with one hand.
`Inventory
`[13] was used to determine
`
`Equipment
`11 and IIci
`on Apple Macintosh
`Tasks were performed
`A cardboard
`computers using a standard Apple keybomd.
`shield was placed between the keyboard
`and the subjects’
`eyes in order to pwent
`them from looking at the keyboard.
`
`Procedure
`10 sessions, with no more than one
`Each subject performed
`session per day.
`Each session contained
`a two-handed
`pretest, multiple
`blocks of one-handed
`typing,
`and a two-
`handed post-test. The fwst session included a few specially
`prepared one-handed blocks, designed to ease subjects into
`understandin~
`the oDeration
`of
`the keyboard.
`All
`one-
`handed typin~was
`p;tionned
`with the le~ hand.
`
`Measure
`
`Hands
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Session
`6
`
`5
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Speed
`(wpm)
`
`Errors
`(%)
`
`;
`
`1
`2
`
`13.2
`58.5
`
`18.3
`59.8
`
`21.1
`62.3
`
`24.4
`61.6
`
`27.1
`63.7
`
`15.96 12.13
`3.40
`3.25
`
`9.93
`2.45
`
`9.70
`3.05
`
`9.21
`3.40
`
`29.0
`63.3
`
`8.98
`3.55
`
`30.7
`64.0
`
`7.55
`3.55
`
`31.6
`64.6
`
`8.23
`3.55
`
`33.6
`66.2
`
`7.54
`3.30
`
`34.7
`64.9
`
`7.44
`4.20
`
`scores for speed and accuracy
`Figure 5. Mean performance
`on one-handed and two-handed typing over 10 sessions.
`
`91
`
`GOOGLE EX. 1013
`Google v. Philips
`
`

`
`24-29 April1993
`
`lNTfRtH1’9
`
`50-
`
`45-
`
`40-
`
`35-
`
`30-
`
`25-
`
`20-
`
`15-
`
`10-
`
`Subject
`
`--1
`+-2
`43
`+4
`-9-5
`46
`*7
`-A-8
`+9
`+
`
`10
`
`5-
`
`0!
`
`-1
`
`I
`01234567
`
`1
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`i
`8910
`
`I
`
`(
`
`Session
`
`Figure
`
`6. One-handed typing speed by subject and session.
`
`IV1 with
`to that of Typing Tutor
`The interface was similar
`text. The
`the subject’s
`typing displayed
`beneath the input
`delete key was disabled so subjects could not correct errors.
`A beep was heard for every error made.
`Subjects were
`instructed
`to type as quickly
`and accurately
`as possible,
`while remaining
`in sync with the input
`text.
`They could
`rest as desired between blocks.
`
`for all
`The text
`Japanese-American
`lower
`case letters,
`period),
`
`about
`typing was taken from a novel
`relations.
`It contained only upper and
`and simple
`punctuation
`(comma
`and
`
`Design
`the learning
`of
`is an investigation
`This
`experiment
`Each 50 minute
`potential
`of
`the Half-QWERTY
`keyboard.
`session consisted
`of a series a text blbcks
`typed by the
`subject.
`The block
`length was set
`to 60 characters by 4
`lines in the first session (using Courier
`14 point
`type), and
`was increased to 6 lines when subjects managed to type 30
`one-handed
`blocks in one session. Subjects completed
`as
`many blocks as were possible in a session,
`ranging from 7
`to 35 blocks, depending on speed and the amount of rest.
`
`rate.
`The dependent measures were typing speed and error
`Typing speeds are given in words per minute (wPm), with a
`word defined as 5 characters (4 letters plus a space). Error
`
`1Kriya Systems, Inc. Published by Simon & Schuster
`Software, Gulf+Western Building, One Gutf+Western Plaza,
`New York, NY 10023, USA.
`
`rates are given as a percentage of total keystrokes (the lower
`the better). Subjects had to type the correct character
`in the
`correct position.
`Thus,
`they had to type in sync with the
`If
`text on the screen.
`they
`fell
`out of sync,
`it was
`considered an error
`(as consistent with Typing Tutor
`IV).
`
`level data were also collected which
`keystroke
`Complete
`for a detailed
`examination
`of
`interkey
`timings
`allowed
`across states (space-up, space-down) and fingers, and of error
`patterns across letters and state sequences. Due to space
`limitations,
`these analyses are not provided
`in the present
`paper.
`
`RESULTS
`Subjects were able to adapt
`typing very
`to Half-QWERTY
`quickly.
`As shown in Figure
`5, session 1 resulted in an
`average speed of 13.2 wpm, with over 84% accuracy. This
`performance
`is impressive, especially considering
`how little
`training was given. For instance, subjects were not required
`to memorize
`the layout
`before
`starting
`the one-handed
`typing
`task, and therefore
`had to rely entirely
`on skill
`transfer
`from two-handed typing.
`
`the ten
`over
`significantly
`speed improved
`One-handed
`sessions (F9,sI = 80.7, p < .0001)
`to reach a tenth session
`average of 34.7 wpm.
`Improvement
`in one-handed
`error
`(F9,81 = 14.6, p <
`rate was also statistically
`significant
`.0001) dropping
`to an average of 7.44% errors in the tenth
`session.
`This is approximately
`double the rate of errors
`made in two-handed typing.
`
`92
`
`GOOGLE EX. 1013
`Google v. Philips
`
`

`
`lNlfRcH1’93
`
`24-29 April1993
`
`Subject
`
`*1
`+2
`43
`+4
`+5
`-o-6
`+7
`+8
`+9
`+
`
`10
`
`I
`01234567
`
`I
`
`I
`
`1
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`f
`
`1
`8910
`
`Session
`
`Figure
`
`7. One-handed typing error
`
`rates by subject and session.
`
`varied a
`As Figures 6 and 7 show, one-handed performances
`great deal among subjects. For example, subject 6 averaged
`19.5 wpm in session
`1.
`Subject
`7 did
`not
`reach
`a
`comparable
`speed until
`session 6. Many
`factors
`likely
`contribute
`to this disparity
`among subject performances:
`two-handed speed and accumcy,
`regularity of practice, etc.
`
`the subjects had peaked by session 10,
`Note that none of
`even though three of
`them were typing in the low 40 wpm
`range. Subjects 5, 8, and 9 have agreed to undergo further
`long-term testing to determine what possible peak speeds
`can be achieved. These tests, which are on-going,
`indicate a
`potential
`for touch typists to achieve 88% (or more) of
`their
`twdwmded
`speed.
`
`speeds
`typing
`two-handed
`of note is that
`Also worthy
`the ten S&X$iOt’M (F9,8I = 4,43,
`improved
`significantly
`over
`p < .0001). This
`is likely
`due to subjects
`getting
`accustomed
`to the software and the feel of
`the keyboard.
`One-handed typing may also have had an effect. There was
`no significant
`reduction
`in two-handed
`error
`rates over
`the
`ten sessions (F9,81 = 1,12, p > .05).
`
`were typing in this range in less than two hours of practice,
`and exceeded 50% of
`their two-handed speed after about 8-9
`hours of use. This is comparable
`to Wiklund
`et al’s
`[18]
`measure of average handwriting
`speed (33 wpm).
`By the
`tenth session, subjects were typing between 41% and 73%
`of
`their
`two-handed
`speed. These speeds ranged from 23.8
`to 42.8 wpm.
`This is strong evidence that skill
`transfers
`hand-to-hand by mirror
`image and not spatial congruence.
`
`to the learning
`these results
`to compme
`is instructive
`It
`Gopher artd Raij
`[6]
`tested
`curves of chord keyboards.
`subjects’
`rate of skill acquisition
`on both one-handed
`and
`two-handed chord keyboards, as well as standard QWERTY.
`at
`After
`10 hours,
`the one-handed
`group was typing
`approximately
`21 wpm and the two-handed
`group at 22
`wpm.
`l%is compares to the Half-QWERTY
`subjects’
`tenth
`session average of 34.7 wpm,
`Gopher
`et al.’s
`[6] one-
`handed and two-handed
`subjects did not reach comparable
`rates until
`the sessions 29 and 26, respectively.
`Therefore,
`horn an economic
`standpoint,
`it is more cost effective for a
`QWERTY
`typist
`to adopt
`the Half-QWERTY
`technique
`than to learn to type on a one-handed chord keyboard.
`
`DISCUSSION
`On average, subjects were able to exceed hunt-and-peck
`typing speeds after about 3-4 hours. Wiklund
`et al.
`[181
`determined the average speed for one-handed hunt-and-peck
`typing on a standard keyboard to be approximately
`23 wpm.
`Performances on the different compact keyboards tested were
`They
`ranged
`from 15-21 wpm,
`considerably
`worse.
`depending
`on key type, size, and spacing, Our subjects
`
`[6] also found that until about session 25,
`Gopher et al.
`two-handed
`performance was only slightly better
`than one-
`handed performance
`on their chord keyboard.
`This begs an
`intenxting
`question: What percentage of
`two-handed
`speed
`can be achieved with one hand? This, of course,
`is not yet
`known, but we feel
`it maybe
`as high as 88%. The answer
`is liely
`different
`for chord and Half-QWERTY
`keyboards.
`More study is required.
`
`93
`
`GOOGLE EX. 1013
`Google v. Philips
`
`

`
`24-29 April1993
`
`lNTfRtH1’9
`
`(pp. 95-120).
`
`a
`
`aspects of skilled typewriting
`Cognitive
`New York Springer-Verlag.
`The
`(1985).
`Gopher, D., Karis, D., & Koenig, W.
`in long-term
`representation
`of movement
`schemas
`Lessons
`from
`the
`acquisition
`of
`memory:
`transcription
`skill. Ada Psychological,
`60, 105-134.
`Gopher, D., & Raij, D.
`(1988).
`Typing with a two-
`handed chord keyboard Will
`the QWERTY
`become
`obsolete?
`IEEE Transactions
`on Systems, Man, and
`Cybernetics,
`18,601-609.
`and
`in novice
`Error patterns
`Grudin,
`J. T.
`(1983).
`(Ed.),
`typing.
`In W. E. Cooper
`skilled
`transcription
`(pp. 121-143).
`Cognitive
`aspects of skilled typewriting
`New York Springer-Verlag.
`on
`perspective
`Lintem, G.
`(1991).
`An informational
`skill
`transfer
`in human-machine
`systems.
`Human
`Factors, 33,251-266.
`—
`8). OWERTYUIOP
`Januarv
`Litterick.
`I.
`(1981.
`dinosaur
`‘in a computer
`age.’ N~w S;ientist,
`pp. 66-68.
`Munhall, K. G., & Ostry, D. J. (1983). Mirror-image
`In W. E. Cooper
`(Ed.),
`movements
`in typing.
`Cognitive
`aspects of skilled typewriting @p. 247-257).
`New York Springer-Verlag.
`Noyes,
`J.
`(1983).
`Chord
`Ergonomics,
`14,55-59.
`keyboard
`Noyes, J. (1983).
`The QWERTY
`[nternalional
`Journal
`of Man-Machine
`265-281.
`The assessment and analysis of
`Olfield, R. C. (1971).
`inventory.
`Edinburgh
`The
`handedness:
`Neuropsychologica,
`9,97-113.
`times in
`interkey
`of
`Ostry, D. J. (1983). Determinants
`typing.
`In W. E. Cooper
`(’Ed.), Cognitive
`aspects of
`skilled
`typewriting
`(pp.
`225-246).
`New York:
`Springer-Verlag.
`In M.
`Keys and keybomds.
`(1988).
`Potosnak, K. M.
`Helander
`(Ed.), Handbook
`of
`human-computer
`interaction
`op. 475-494).
`Amsterdam: Elsevier.
`(1968).
`Provins,
`K.
`A.,
`& Glencross,
`D.
`J.
`Handwriting,
`typewriting
`and handedness. Quarterly
`Journal of Experimental
`Psychology,
`20,282-320.
`(1978,
`Rochester, N., Bequaert,
`F. C., Sharp, E. M.
`December).
`The chord keyboard. Computer, 57-63.
`Wiklund,
`M. E,, Dumas,
`J. S., & Hoffman,
`L. R.
`(1987). Optimizing
`a portable terminal
`keyboard
`for
`combined one-handed and two-handed use. Proceedings
`of
`the Human Factors Society — 31st Annual Meeting
`— 1987 (pp. 585-589).
`Santa Monica, CA: Human
`Factors Society.
`
`keyboards.
`
`Applied
`
`A review.
`Studies, 18,
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`We have shown that
`typists to
`is possible for QWERTY
`it
`achieve
`high one-handed
`typing
`rates (40+ wpm)
`in a
`relatively
`short period
`of
`time (< 10 hr) using the Half-
`QWERTY
`technique.
`These speeds are 2-3 times the rates
`achievable
`using
`compact
`keyboards,
`and
`exceed
`handwriting
`speeds. These high learning rates are due to the
`transfer of
`two-handed
`skill
`via Half-QWERTY’s
`mirror
`image hand-to-hand mapping scheme.
`
`for human-computer
`These results lead to new possibilities
`interfaces.
`By exploiting
`standard two-handed
`typing skill
`and the Half-QWERTY
`concept described above, we have
`demonstrated the potential
`to build a keyboard with full-size
`keys, but no larger
`than a paperback
`book.
`Furthermore,
`since the design can be implemented
`in software, wide and
`convenient
`access to one-handed typing is also possible on
`a standard
`keyboard.
`These findings
`are important
`for
`designers of compact
`computing
`systems and systems for
`disabled users.
`
`ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
`of
`the contributions
`We would
`like
`to acknowledge
`Jonathan Cheng who wrote
`the software
`and the input
`Research Group at the University
`of Toronto who provided
`the forum for
`the design and execution
`of
`this project.
`In
`addition,
`we gratefully
`acknowledge
`the support
`of
`the
`Natural
`Sciences and Engineering
`Research Council
`of
`Canada, Digital Equipment Corporation,
`Xerox Palo Alto
`Research Centre
`(PARC),
`Apple
`Computer’s
`Human
`Interface Group,
`IBM Canada’s Toronto Laboratory Centre
`for Advanced
`Studies,
`and the Amott Design Group
`of
`Toronto.
`
`2,
`
`REFERENCES
`1. Buxton, W. (1990). Chord keyboads.
`The pragmatic
`of haptic input, Tutorial
`26 Notes of CHI’90,
`6.1-6.9.
`Engelbart, D., & English, W. K.
`(1968).
`A research
`center for augmenting
`human intellect.
`Proceedings
`of
`the Fall
`Joint Computer
`Conference
`(pp. 395-410).
`Washington, DC: Thompson Book Co.
`S., Norman,
`3. Gentner, D. R., Grudin,
`J. T., Larochelle,
`A glossary
`of
`D. A., & Rumelhart,
`D. E.
`(1983).
`terms including
`classification
`of
`typing errors.
`In W.
`E. Cooper
`(Ed.),
`Cognitive
`aspects
`of
`skilled
`typewriting
`(pp. 39-43). New York: Springer-Verlag.
`in
`4. Gentner,
`D. R.
`(1983).
`Keystroke
`timing
`In W. E. Cooper
`(Ed.),
`transcription
`typing.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`150
`
`16,
`
`174
`
`18,
`
`94
`
`GOOGLE EX. 1013
`Google v. Philips