• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

通过对四款键盘进行人体工程学比较来分析用户对键盘的偏好。

An analysis of users' preference on keyboards through ergonomic comparison among four keyboards.

作者信息

Yoshitake R, Ise N, Yamada S, Tsuchiya K

机构信息

Yamato Laboratory, IBM Japan Ltd.

出版信息

Appl Human Sci. 1997 Sep;16(5):205-11. doi: 10.2114/jpa.16.205.

DOI:10.2114/jpa.16.205
PMID:9431707
Abstract

The usability of four kinds of keyboards as regards touch and feel was evaluated by measuring the performance and eliciting the preferences of a total of 24 Japanese participants in a test that consisted of typing English text. It was found that quiet keyboards with an indistinct tactile feedback tend to give higher uncorrected error rates than keyboards with a distinct tactile feedback and clicking sound, while no significant difference in throughput was found among the four keyboards. As regards preference, the test participants were divided into two groups: those who preferred keyboards with a distinct tactile feedback and clicking sound, and those who preferred keyboards with an indistinct tactile feedback and no sound. Analysis revealed that these two groups also showed different sensations and preferences with respect to several aspects of the touch and feel of keyboards. This result suggests that suppliers of computer keyboards should provide two kinds of keyboards, with distinct and indistinct tactile key switches, in order to satisfy as many users as possible.

摘要

通过测量24名日本参与者在输入英文文本测试中的表现并询问他们的偏好,对四种键盘在触感方面的可用性进行了评估。结果发现,与具有明显触觉反馈和按键声的键盘相比,触觉反馈不明显的静音键盘往往会产生更高的未校正错误率,而四种键盘在吞吐量方面未发现显著差异。在偏好方面,测试参与者被分为两组:一组更喜欢具有明显触觉反馈和按键声的键盘,另一组更喜欢触觉反馈不明显且无声音的键盘。分析表明,这两组在键盘触感的几个方面也表现出不同的感觉和偏好。这一结果表明,计算机键盘供应商应提供两种键盘,一种具有明显的触觉按键开关,另一种具有不明显的触觉按键开关,以满足尽可能多的用户需求。

相似文献

1
An analysis of users' preference on keyboards through ergonomic comparison among four keyboards.通过对四款键盘进行人体工程学比较来分析用户对键盘的偏好。
Appl Human Sci. 1997 Sep;16(5):205-11. doi: 10.2114/jpa.16.205.
2
Differences in typing forces, muscle activity, wrist posture, typing performance, and self-reported comfort among conventional and ultra-low travel keyboards.常规和超低行程键盘在打字力度、肌肉活动、手腕姿势、打字性能和自我报告舒适度方面的差异。
Appl Ergon. 2019 Jan;74:10-16. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.07.014. Epub 2018 Aug 3.
3
I-Keyboard: Fully Imaginary Keyboard on Touch Devices Empowered by Deep Neural Decoder.I-Keyboard:基于深度神经解码器的触摸设备上全虚拟键盘。
IEEE Trans Cybern. 2021 Sep;51(9):4528-4539. doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2019.2952391. Epub 2021 Sep 15.
4
The input efficiency of chord keyboards.弦键盘的输入效率。
Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2018 Dec;24(4):638-645. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2017.1362171. Epub 2017 Sep 4.
5
Relationship between key space and user performance on reduced keyboards.精简键盘上的键位空间与用户操作表现之间的关系。
Appl Human Sci. 1995 Nov;14(6):287-92. doi: 10.2114/ahs.14.287.
6
Differences in typing forces, muscle activity, comfort, and typing performance among virtual, notebook, and desktop keyboards.虚拟键盘、笔记本电脑键盘和台式机键盘在打字力度、肌肉活动、舒适度及打字表现方面的差异。
Appl Ergon. 2014 Nov;45(6):1406-13. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.04.001. Epub 2014 May 22.
7
Ergonomic piano keyboards.人体工程学钢琴键盘。
Med Probl Perform Art. 2014 Dec;29(4):248. doi: 10.21091/mppa.2014.4050.
8
An evaluation of the ergonomics of three computer keyboards.三款电脑键盘的人体工程学评估。
Ergonomics. 2000 Jan;43(1):55-72. doi: 10.1080/001401300184666.
9
The effect of keyboard key spacing on typing speed, error, usability, and biomechanics, Part 2: Vertical spacing.键盘按键间距对打字速度、错误率、可用性和生物力学的影响,第 2 部分:垂直间距。
Hum Factors. 2014 Jun;56(4):752-9. doi: 10.1177/0018720813502524.
10
The effect of key size of touch screen virtual keyboards on productivity, usability, and typing biomechanics.触摸屏虚拟键盘的按键大小对生产力、可用性和打字生物力学的影响。
Hum Factors. 2014 Nov;56(7):1235-48. doi: 10.1177/0018720814531784.