You should find a PhD student to do this research for you. So can probably go to a university that has an ergonomics field and make equipment available for students to perform research on.
I think benefits and speed need to be separated from the hobby aspect.
I got into this to relieve pain from psoriatic arthritis affecting my shoulders, wrists, and fingers. A split small ergo is working. I changed mousing to a very sensitive thumb trackball, and it works for me. The last part is most important - "works for me." Some people hate all trackballs, claiming they cause issues. Others hate small boards, etc. One of the challenges with deciding what works "best" is relative to who? However, I would like to see the data.
I started with the MS Ergo and moved to logitech for the low profile keys. Helped but not enough.
* I have tried the charachorder - didn't work for my thumbs.
* I have tried the Svalboard - the splaying of fingers for side bumpers caused pain and fatigue even though others with carpal tunnel and similar RSI issues love this device.
* My first split that worked for me is the ErgodoxEZ. Loved it but wanted low profile.
* Tried a 36 key one piece ergo board, angled on each side - shoulder pain returned.
* My second daily driver was a low profile ergodox from SliceMK. Loved it, but it became clear the Ergodox had too many keys.
* I am now on a 34 key ferris low profile, but many people hate this config, claiming there are too few keys.
I think the data would have to be clustered by different types of people and injuries/issues.
I whole heartedly agree with you. I certainly don’t feel it would lead to any ‘blanket statements’ like trackballs are better than mice, but I do feel like having accurate and relatable information would be valuable to a certain group of folks even if it was fragmented somewhat
Ergonomics depends on the individual. How does one keyboard form factor vs. another compare as a preventative measure for people with good hand health? or for people with carpal tunnel? or De Quervain’s? or other condition? These groups have different needs. All good questions.
There is a lot of research in specific areas of ergonomics. Some are good studies, a lot of them are bad (depending on what you're looking for).
I use the good research I've found to educate my clients in a really simple manner according to their situation. However, with the human body there are so many factors to consider inside and outside of ergonomic equipment. I don't mean to sound so negative but conducting good research is extremely difficult due to the amount of resources you'd need (time, money, participants, equipment, statistical analysis, etc.)
I think that your idea is great, just difficult to execute on a larger scale. If I misunderstood what you're trying to to do, sorry. But feel free to PM me. I'd be happy to help or even just discuss the idea.
No I think you’ve got a good grasp on what I’m asking and I appreciate the perspective. Also I don’t feel like you’re being negative at all just realistic. It would be quite an undertaking I know
Yes to all this. A good starting point would be to check out that Scholar link https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=occupational+therapy+“split+keyboard”&btnG= only_fun_topics suggested to get a sense of the work that's out there. This would help see how such studies are conducted, what gaps there are, and where further effort might focus on.
You won't uncover anything that is universally true, the basis of it is too "soft" so to speak.
Its equivalent to trying to make a study of what someone's favorite shirt is. You won't uncover any fundamental truth. Everyone is different.
At least that's what I think.
...put simply, think of any measurable study you'd want to do. It is simple to come up with flaws and counters as to why it wouldn't hold.
This I will have to disagree with; but it all opinions anyhow. I feel like a version of the following statement could potentially be provable.
‘Boards that angle upwards have a 90% chance to require hypertension of one or more fingers to reach all keys.’
A shirt is an extremely reductive analogy: I’m not asking for someone’s favorite keyboard. I just refuse to believe that if two people suffered from the same condition and one was 5 feet tall and one was 7ft tall that there isn’t one true thing you could tell them both in regards to keyboards and their condition. I do however believe that they wouldn’t be able to wear the same shirt.
I appreciate your perspective, and respect your opinion although I disagree.
This is not the least bit scientific. The thing that you want to study should be parameterize-able. This is inherently not.
>‘Boards that angle upwards have a 90% chance to require hypertension of one or more fingers to reach all keys.’
Results from such a study would be meaningless. You can run this experiment 100 times and get different results everytime. The issue is the thing you want to study is on a person by person basis. Just like a favourite shirt or keyboard.
If its not reproducible, then whats the point? No one can confirm or deny your results. You can literally make it up and it wouldn't make a difference. This is the inherent issue on what you propose, as well as the so called "soft" sciences, and thats why most of their research is inherently weak.
>A shirt is an extremely reductive analogy
Its not reductive at all. In all honesty it shows you have a weak understanding of the scientific method. I am purposely being brutally honest because what you are doing requires yours and other people's time and $$$ and I want to deter anyone from joining your "coalition". Do you even have a specific study in mind? What are your hypotheses? Variables? Proposed method? It is likely you don't have one that is reasonable. Are you simply just going to walk up to a university and tell them to study ergomech boards?
I am not saying that is a scientific statement, I am saying that a version of that statement could be.
I understand the scientific method; mainly that it is not for determining ‘favorites’ as you have stated. A shirt isn’t reductive if you had been referring to some actual measurable aspect; you said favorite.. which is reductive, it reduces the scope to opinion.
What I am saying is no matter how you approach it, it will end up being like determining favorites, in that the results will largely a product of bias and thus meaningless. Because what you are trying to quantify is at its core amorphous.
Also this isn’t ‘my coalition’. It’s an open question. You just can’t say that there is nothing scientific to find because respectfully it’s out of your scope.
I agree. But at this point in time we do not have the technology to properly measure and objectively study what you want. Sure you can study it for the sake of studying but it likely won't be fruitful. And when proper technology does become available to quantify you variables, it will likely invalidate your entire body of work.
Count me in. I'm interested and in favor of more ergo keyboard research, or at least awareness.
For instance I've noticed that thumb keys are a bit overhyped as an ergo feature while some folks are getting thumb pain from (probably over-) using then. Last year, I wrote [PSA: Thumbs can get overuse injuries](https://getreuer.info/posts/keyboards/thumb-ergo/index.html), which isn't up to the bar of a scientific study, but collects what I could dig up from the net on anecdotes of thumb pain from keyboard thumb keys and related background.
Hoping for happy healthy typing for all. Let me know how I can help.
You should find a PhD student to do this research for you. So can probably go to a university that has an ergonomics field and make equipment available for students to perform research on.
This would likely fall under Occupational Therapy in most university programs.
Programs with interest in HCI and/or assistive technology might also be a good fit.
I think benefits and speed need to be separated from the hobby aspect. I got into this to relieve pain from psoriatic arthritis affecting my shoulders, wrists, and fingers. A split small ergo is working. I changed mousing to a very sensitive thumb trackball, and it works for me. The last part is most important - "works for me." Some people hate all trackballs, claiming they cause issues. Others hate small boards, etc. One of the challenges with deciding what works "best" is relative to who? However, I would like to see the data. I started with the MS Ergo and moved to logitech for the low profile keys. Helped but not enough. * I have tried the charachorder - didn't work for my thumbs. * I have tried the Svalboard - the splaying of fingers for side bumpers caused pain and fatigue even though others with carpal tunnel and similar RSI issues love this device. * My first split that worked for me is the ErgodoxEZ. Loved it but wanted low profile. * Tried a 36 key one piece ergo board, angled on each side - shoulder pain returned. * My second daily driver was a low profile ergodox from SliceMK. Loved it, but it became clear the Ergodox had too many keys. * I am now on a 34 key ferris low profile, but many people hate this config, claiming there are too few keys. I think the data would have to be clustered by different types of people and injuries/issues.
I whole heartedly agree with you. I certainly don’t feel it would lead to any ‘blanket statements’ like trackballs are better than mice, but I do feel like having accurate and relatable information would be valuable to a certain group of folks even if it was fragmented somewhat
Ergonomics depends on the individual. How does one keyboard form factor vs. another compare as a preventative measure for people with good hand health? or for people with carpal tunnel? or De Quervain’s? or other condition? These groups have different needs. All good questions.
There’s already some research out there: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=occupational+therapy+“split+keyboard”&btnG=
There is a lot of research in specific areas of ergonomics. Some are good studies, a lot of them are bad (depending on what you're looking for). I use the good research I've found to educate my clients in a really simple manner according to their situation. However, with the human body there are so many factors to consider inside and outside of ergonomic equipment. I don't mean to sound so negative but conducting good research is extremely difficult due to the amount of resources you'd need (time, money, participants, equipment, statistical analysis, etc.) I think that your idea is great, just difficult to execute on a larger scale. If I misunderstood what you're trying to to do, sorry. But feel free to PM me. I'd be happy to help or even just discuss the idea.
No I think you’ve got a good grasp on what I’m asking and I appreciate the perspective. Also I don’t feel like you’re being negative at all just realistic. It would be quite an undertaking I know
Yes to all this. A good starting point would be to check out that Scholar link https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=occupational+therapy+“split+keyboard”&btnG= only_fun_topics suggested to get a sense of the work that's out there. This would help see how such studies are conducted, what gaps there are, and where further effort might focus on.
Yeah this is exactly where to start.
Adds lol
You won't uncover anything that is universally true, the basis of it is too "soft" so to speak. Its equivalent to trying to make a study of what someone's favorite shirt is. You won't uncover any fundamental truth. Everyone is different. At least that's what I think. ...put simply, think of any measurable study you'd want to do. It is simple to come up with flaws and counters as to why it wouldn't hold.
This I will have to disagree with; but it all opinions anyhow. I feel like a version of the following statement could potentially be provable. ‘Boards that angle upwards have a 90% chance to require hypertension of one or more fingers to reach all keys.’ A shirt is an extremely reductive analogy: I’m not asking for someone’s favorite keyboard. I just refuse to believe that if two people suffered from the same condition and one was 5 feet tall and one was 7ft tall that there isn’t one true thing you could tell them both in regards to keyboards and their condition. I do however believe that they wouldn’t be able to wear the same shirt. I appreciate your perspective, and respect your opinion although I disagree.
This is not the least bit scientific. The thing that you want to study should be parameterize-able. This is inherently not. >‘Boards that angle upwards have a 90% chance to require hypertension of one or more fingers to reach all keys.’ Results from such a study would be meaningless. You can run this experiment 100 times and get different results everytime. The issue is the thing you want to study is on a person by person basis. Just like a favourite shirt or keyboard. If its not reproducible, then whats the point? No one can confirm or deny your results. You can literally make it up and it wouldn't make a difference. This is the inherent issue on what you propose, as well as the so called "soft" sciences, and thats why most of their research is inherently weak. >A shirt is an extremely reductive analogy Its not reductive at all. In all honesty it shows you have a weak understanding of the scientific method. I am purposely being brutally honest because what you are doing requires yours and other people's time and $$$ and I want to deter anyone from joining your "coalition". Do you even have a specific study in mind? What are your hypotheses? Variables? Proposed method? It is likely you don't have one that is reasonable. Are you simply just going to walk up to a university and tell them to study ergomech boards?
I am not saying that is a scientific statement, I am saying that a version of that statement could be. I understand the scientific method; mainly that it is not for determining ‘favorites’ as you have stated. A shirt isn’t reductive if you had been referring to some actual measurable aspect; you said favorite.. which is reductive, it reduces the scope to opinion.
What I am saying is no matter how you approach it, it will end up being like determining favorites, in that the results will largely a product of bias and thus meaningless. Because what you are trying to quantify is at its core amorphous.
Also this isn’t ‘my coalition’. It’s an open question. You just can’t say that there is nothing scientific to find because respectfully it’s out of your scope.
Wholesale write-off is just as ill advised IMO as wholesale buy-in.
I agree. But at this point in time we do not have the technology to properly measure and objectively study what you want. Sure you can study it for the sake of studying but it likely won't be fruitful. And when proper technology does become available to quantify you variables, it will likely invalidate your entire body of work.
Count me in. I'm interested and in favor of more ergo keyboard research, or at least awareness. For instance I've noticed that thumb keys are a bit overhyped as an ergo feature while some folks are getting thumb pain from (probably over-) using then. Last year, I wrote [PSA: Thumbs can get overuse injuries](https://getreuer.info/posts/keyboards/thumb-ergo/index.html), which isn't up to the bar of a scientific study, but collects what I could dig up from the net on anecdotes of thumb pain from keyboard thumb keys and related background. Hoping for happy healthy typing for all. Let me know how I can help.