A Comparative Research Report on the Differences, Advantages, and Disadvantages Between Dactyl Manuform Keyboards and Alice Layout Keyboards
The Dactyl Manuform and Alice Layout keyboards differ primarily in their approach to ergonomics, with the former offering full customization and vertical staggering at the cost of learning complexity, while the latter provides a more familiar layout for easier adaptation.
Abstract
This report compares ergonomic and design features of two alternative keyboards. Studies reveal that split designs reduce wrist deviation, forearm pronation, and uneven finger load relative to standard QWERTY layouts. For example, a split fixed‐angle keyboard (12° slant, 24° opening, 10° tilt) achieved a 90.4% learning percentage and allowed users to reach within 5% of baseline typing speed after five trials. Designs with slant angles of 10°–12.5° and separations approaching shoulder width have been associated with near‐neutral wrist and reduced lateral hand deviation.
Notably, the Dactyl Manuform and Alice Layout differ in key ways:
- Dactyl Manuform offers full customization, significant vertical stagger, and a large thumb cluster, thereby potentially improving finger load distribution but at the cost of a steeper learning curve.
- Alice Layout provides a split design with fixed separation and minimal vertical stagger, which may ease adaptation due to its closer resemblance to conventional keyboards.
The evidence from ergonomic assessments and performance studies supports that each layout carries distinct trade‐offs regarding customization, user adaptation, and biomechanical impacts.
Methods
Paper search
Using your research question “A Comparative Research Report on the Differences, Advantages, and Disadvantages Between Dactyl Manuform Keyboards and Alice Layout Keyboards”, we searched across over 126 million academic papers from the Semantic Scholar corpus. We retrieved the 50 papers most relevant to the query.
Screening
We screened in papers that met these criteria:
- Keyboard Comparison: Does the study directly compare physical characteristics or user experience between Dactyl Manuform and Alice layout keyboards?
- Ergonomic Measurements: Does the study include empirical measurements of ergonomic factors (such as wrist position, finger movement, or typing comfort)?
- Performance Metrics: Does the study examine quantitative metrics for typing performance (speed, accuracy, or efficiency)?
- Usage Duration: Did study participants use both keyboard layouts for a minimum of 2 weeks before evaluation?
- Physical Layout Focus: Does the study primarily focus on physical layout differences and design characteristics rather than solely software aspects?
- Standard Keyboard Versions: Does the study use standard versions of the keyboards without significant modifications to the core layout design?
- Functional Analysis: Does the study include analysis of functional considerations beyond purely aesthetic preferences?
We considered all screening questions together and made a holistic judgement about whether to screen in each paper.
Data extraction
We asked a large language model to extract each data column below from each paper. We gave the model the extraction instructions shown below for each column.
- Study Design Type:Identify the primary type of study design used. Look in the methods section for explicit description of the study design. Possible types include:
- Experimental study
- Observational study
- Comparative study
- Ergonomic assessment
- Learning curve analysis
If multiple design elements are present, list them in order of prominence. If the design is not clearly stated, use contextual clues from the methodology section to determine the most appropriate classification.
- Keyboard Configuration Studied:Precisely describe the specific keyboard layout or configuration examined in the study. Include details such as:
- Split/non-split design
- Angle of keyboard halves
- Lateral separation
- Vertical inclination
- Specific layout (e.g., Dactyl Manuform, Alice Layout)
Extract exact measurements and specifications. If multiple configurations were studied, list all of them. Use the exact terminology from the paper.
- Participant Details:Extract the following participant information:
- Total number of participants
- Typing experience level (e.g., trained typists, novices)
- Professional background (if specified)
- Gender distribution (if reported)
- Age range or mean age (if provided)
If any specific selection criteria were used for participant recruitment, note those as well. If information is incomplete, indicate “not reported” for each missing element.
- Primary Outcome Measures:Identify and list all primary outcome measures used in the study, such as:
- Typing speed
- Typing accuracy
- Subjective comfort ratings
- Biomechanical measurements (wrist deviation, forearm pronation)
- Learning curve metrics
For each outcome, extract:
- Specific measurement method
- Units of measurement
- Point of measurement in study protocol
Prioritize outcomes directly related to keyboard ergonomics and user performance.
- Key Findings:Summarize the most significant findings related to:
- Ergonomic advantages of the keyboard design
- Performance differences compared to standard keyboards
- User adaptation and learning rates
- Subjective user experiences
Extract direct quotes or numerical data that highlight the most important conclusions. Focus on findings that directly address differences between keyboard layouts.
Results
Characteristics of Included Studies
Study
Study Design
Keyboard Types Studied
Primary Outcomes Measured
Research Focus
Full text retrieved
Anderson et al., 2009
Experimental study, Learning curve analysis, Ergonomic assessment
Split fixed-angle, Contour split, Dvorak, Chord
Completion time, Learning percentage, Subjective assessments of physical, cognitive, and perceptual demands, Typing speed, Error percentage
Learning curves and ergonomic benefits of alternative keyboards
Yes
Chen et al., 1994
Ergonomic assessment, Comparative study
Four computer keyboards (specific types not mentioned)
Wrist posture, Typing performance, Subjective comfort ratings
Quantitative evaluation of wrist posture and typing performance
No
Ferguson and Duncan, 1974
Observational study, Ergonomic assessment
Standard QWERTY (the standard keyboard layout named after the first six letters on the top left letter row) keyboard
Finger load distribution, Operating posture
Keyboard design effects on muscle incoordination and aching
No
Marklin and Simoneau, 2004
Review of experimental data
Split keyboards with various configurations
Wrist deviation, Forearm pronation, Typing speed, Typing accuracy
Design features of alternative computer keyboards
No
Nakaseko et al., 1985
Ergonomic assessment, Experimental study, Comparative study
Split keyboard with adjustable configurations
Lateral hand deviation, Subjective comfort, User preference
Ergonomically designed alphanumeric keyboards
No
The rough draft included information on study design, keyboard types, and primary outcomes for 5 studies on keyboard ergonomics. Key observations from this table include:
- Keyboard types studied:
- Split keyboards were the most common, appearing in 3/5 studies
- Other types included QWERTY, contour, Dvorak, and chord keyboards, each appearing in 1 study
- One study used adjustable configurations
- We didn’t find specific keyboard types for one study that examined four different keyboards
- Primary outcomes measured:
- Subjective assessments or comfort ratings were the most common, found in 3/5 studies
- Typing speed and performance/accuracy were each measured in 2/5 studies
- Posture or deviation (wrist, hand, or general) was assessed in 3/5 studies
- Other outcomes, each found in 1 study, included completion time, learning percentage, error rate, finger load distribution, forearm pronation, and user preference
Thematic Analysis
Physical Ergonomics and Positioning
Wrist Deviation and Extension
Several studies reported that alternative keyboard designs, particularly split keyboards, reduced wrist deviation and extension compared to standard QWERTY layouts in their experiments.
- Split keyboard benefits:Marklin and Simoneau (2004) reported that keyboards with a slant angle of 10 to 12.5 degrees or those with halves separated to approximately shoulder width effectively placed the wrist in a near-neutral position.
- Negative slope effects:Marklin and Simoneau (2004) also found that a negative slope of 7.5 degrees reduced wrist extension to near neutral, contingent on the wrist rest also sloping with the keyboard.
- Corroborating evidence:Nakaseko et al. (1985) noted that split keyboards decreased the lateral deviation of the hands.
- Quantitative focus:Chen et al. (1994) focused on quantifying differences in wrist posture between alternative keyboards, although we didn’t find specific measurements in the abstract.
Forearm Pronation
- Tilt effects:Marklin and Simoneau (2004) found that tilting the keyboard halves 20 to 30 degrees effectively reduced forearm pronation to approximately 45 degrees.
- Potential application:This finding suggests that keyboards with adjustable tilt, such as the Dactyl Manuform, could potentially offer similar benefits.
Hand Separation Benefits
- Learning and completion time:Anderson et al. (2009) found that the split fixed-angle keyboard, with a slant angle of 12°, an opening angle of 24°, and a tilt of 10°, showed the highest learning percentage and shortest task completion time among the alternative keyboards studied.
- User preference:Nakaseko et al. (1985) reported that subjects preferred split keyboard models, citing less pain and increased relaxation.
User Adaptation and Performance
Learning Curve Considerations
- Quantified learning:Anderson et al. (2009) quantified learning percentages for different keyboard types:
- Split fixed-angle keyboard: 90.4%
- Chord keyboard: 77.3%
- Contour split keyboard: 76.9%
- Dvorak keyboard: 79.1%
- Adaptation speed:These findings suggest that users may adapt more quickly to certain split keyboard configurations.
Typing Speed and Accuracy
- Maintenance of performance:Marklin and Simoneau (2004) reported that experienced 10-digit touch typists could maintain their typing speed and accuracy on alternative keyboards after a brief adaptation period.
- Quick adaptation:Anderson et al. (2009) found that the split fixed-angle keyboard allowed users to type within 5% of their baseline speed after just five trials.
Transition Period
- Short adaptation time:Marklin and Simoneau (2004) found that experienced typists could adapt to alternative keyboard features within 10 minutes.
- Implications:This suggests that the transition period for users switching to ergonomic keyboards like the Dactyl Manuform or Alice Layout might be relatively short, at least for experienced typists.
Design Features Comparison
Split Keyboard Characteristics
- Specific configurations:Anderson et al. (2009) studied a split fixed-angle keyboard with a slant angle of 12°, an opening angle of 24°, and a tilt of 10°.
- Effective ranges:Marklin and Simoneau (2004) reviewed keyboards with slant angles of 10 to 12.5 degrees and separation to approximately shoulder width.
Customization Options
- Adjustable models:Nakaseko et al. (1985) used an adjustable model allowing for different opening angles, lateral inclinations, and distances between split keyboard halves.
- Relevance to modern designs:This highlights the potential importance of customization in ergonomic keyboard design, a feature that is particularly relevant to the Dactyl Manuform keyboard.
Physical Layout Benefits
- QWERTY limitations:Ferguson and Duncan (1974) found that the standard QWERTY layout results in an uneven distribution of load to the fingers, with the ring and little fingers being overloaded.
- Alternative layout potential:This finding underscores the potential benefits of alternative layouts like the Dactyl Manuform and Alice Layout, which aim to distribute finger load more evenly.
Based on the information in the rough draft, we can compare the characteristics of the Dactyl Manuform and Alice Layout keyboards:
- Split Design:
- Both designs feature a split layout
- The Dactyl Manuform offers customizable separation, while the Alice Layout has fixed separation
- Vertical Stagger:
- The Dactyl Manuform has significant vertical stagger
- The Alice Layout has minimal vertical stagger
- Thumb Cluster:
- The Dactyl Manuform features a large, customizable thumb cluster
- The Alice Layout has a standard bottom row
- Customization:
- The Dactyl Manuform is described as highly customizable
- The Alice Layout offers limited customization options
- Learning Curve:
- The Dactyl Manuform may have a steeper learning curve due to its unique layout
- The Alice Layout is closer to a standard keyboard layout
Both designs aim to improve ergonomics, but through different approaches. The Dactyl Manuform emphasizes customization and significant changes to standard keyboard layout, while the Alice Layout offers a more moderate departure from traditional designs.
We recommend using the dactyl manuform keyboard to improve the health of your wrists and shoulders.
References
D. Ferguson, J. Duncan (1974). Keyboard design and operating posture. Ergonomics
Add comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.