Reasons for using an on screen keyboard
willi...@aol.com
keyboards?
Thank you in advance ...
Guy Macon
willi...@aol.com wrote:
>In your opinion, what are the main reasons why people use on screen
>keyboards?
Some people are handicapped and use inputs (eye trackers, puff tubes)
that emulate a mouse but not a keyboard.
Some people are concerned about keyloggers and prefer to use an
onscreen keyboard for entering passwords, credit card numbers,
etc. Some online banks will only let you enter passswords,
account numers, etc. through their own web-based onscreen keyboard.
See [ http://www.combobulate.com/node/22 ]
Some people areusing systems without keyboards such as kiosks,
ATMs, or handheld devices.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
willi...@aol.com
>
> Some people are handicapped and use inputs (eye trackers, puff tubes)
> that emulate a mouse but not a keyboard.
>
> Some people are concerned about keyloggers and prefer to use an
> onscreen keyboard for entering passwords, credit card numbers,
> etc. Some online banks will only let you enter passswords,
> account numers, etc. through their own web-based onscreen keyboard.
> See [http://www.combobulate.com/node/22]
> Some people areusing systems without keyboards such as kiosks,
> ATMs, or handheld devices.
>
think that the prevailing use of on screen keyboards is in
applications where there is a need to eliminate the space needed for a
physical keyboard to make devices more portable, though?
Guy Macon
willi...@aol.com wrote:
No. That would not be reasonable to think. If it takes X square
inches to have a keyboard, it takes the same X square inches to
have an onscreen keyboard and still display the other information.
Look at the most portible systems: cell phones; how many do you
see that use onscreen keyboards instead of physical keyboards.
It would be a big help if you were to explain what you are trying
to accomplish. Are you designing a portable system? Writing
software for a PC? Working on a class project? Just curious?
--
willi...@aol.com
>
> No. That would not be reasonable to think. If it takes X square
> inches to have a keyboard, it takes the same X square inches to
> have an onscreen keyboard and still display the other information.
> Look at the most portible systems: cell phones; how many do you
> see that use onscreen keyboards instead of physical keyboards.
>
> It would be a big help if you were to explain what you are trying
> to accomplish. Are you designing a portable system? Writing
> software for a PC? Working on a class project? Just curious?
>
personal project (not a class project), and it occurred to me that
many of the existing OSK are designed with ease of use in mind.
However, none of them look like they would scale down very well to be
practical on portable devices as small as a cell phone. To be able to
be useful on portable devices ranging from tablet PCs to cell phones,
it seems that an OSK design must scale down well, i.e. be space
efficient, likely sacrificing ease of use.
A typical OSK which follows the familiar QWERTY layout is the easies
to use. It works well on tablet PCs or larger portable computing
devices, but doesn't scale down very well, and gets harder to use on
anything smaller than a PDA. Some portable device makers use a
modified layout. Regardless, it is impractical, if not impossible, to
scale down the QWERTY style OSK, to be used on a cell phone.
On the other hand, a 12-key keypad on a cell phone can be easily
scaled up to be used on a PDA or a tablet PC. Although it is
primarily designed to enter numbers, with some difficulty one can use
it to enter text as well, as we do it when text messaging. Looking at
it from the opposite end of the spectrum, it is a space efficient
design that scales down well, however, is harder to use, or in other
words, lacks the ease of use.
It seems to me that, if the size of a device is inversely proportional
to portability, then to be practical on a portable device about the
size of a cell phone, an OSK design, that may or may not be like the
12-key keypad, would need to be space efficient, sacrificing ease of
use.
I agree with you that an OSK takes more or less the same space as a
physical keyboard. However, if you look at it from another
perspective, the advantage of an OSK is that, in general, the same
space used for the keyboard can be used to display other information
when the OSK isn't needed, whereas the space used by a physical
keyboard cannot be used as a screen. Some manufacturers are also
beginning to show interest in cell phones with full touch screens as
can be seen in the following links:
http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/cell-phones/lg-ke850-prada/?n=2
http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/cell-phones/apple-iphone/
http://www.geckoandfly.com/2006/10/08/nokia-aeon-touch-screen-phone-concept/
http://www.strategyanalytics.net/default.aspx?mod=PressReleaseViewer&a0=2970
My apologies for skipping some pieces, though it actually took me a
while to think through all of this.
Guy Macon
willi...@aol.com wrote:
>I am looking through on screen keyboard (OSK) designs, relating to a
>personal project (not a class project), and it occurred to me that
>many of the existing OSK are designed with ease of use in mind.
>However, none of them look like they would scale down very well to be
>practical on portable devices as small as a cell phone. To be able to
>be useful on portable devices ranging from tablet PCs to cell phones,
>it seems that an OSK design must scale down well, i.e. be space
>efficient, likely sacrificing ease of use.
Only if you limit yourself to one layout. Why not have a compact
layout, an intermediate layout, a "101 key" layout, etc., give the
user the choice, and let him make the trade-off between key size
and number of keys?
>A typical OSK which follows the familiar QWERTY layout is the easiest
>to use.
You mean easiest to use for someone who uses a standard qwerty
keyboard. It isn't easiest to use for someone who has no computer
experience -- they find ABCDEF easier. It isn't easiest to use
for someone who uses Dvorak, left hand only Dvorak or right hand
only Dvorak.
>It works well on tablet PCs or larger portable computing
>devices, but doesn't scale down very well, and gets harder to use on
>anything smaller than a PDA. Some portable device makers use a
>modified layout. Regardless, it is impractical, if not impossible, to
>scale down the QWERTY style OSK, to be used on a cell phone.
>
>On the other hand, a 12-key keypad on a cell phone can be easily
>scaled up to be used on a PDA or a tablet PC. Although it is
>primarily designed to enter numbers, with some difficulty one can use
>it to enter text as well, as we do it when text messaging. Looking at
>it from the opposite end of the spectrum, it is a space efficient
>design that scales down well, however, is harder to use, or in other
>words, lacks the ease of use.
It seems to me that your thinking is stuck on the idea of "one
keyboard layout for all purposes", thus throwing away two major
advantages of an OSK; customability and configurability. Why not
offer 20 different layouts that auto-scale as the user changes the
size of the OSC? If someone wants a fill 101-key keyboard on a
postage stamp sized area in the corner of a cellphone screen, let
them make that choice. If someone wants to fill a 30 inch 1600 x
1200 monitor with a telephone keypad, let them make that choice.
Don't decide for the user when you can let the user decide. (You
still have to do the kind of thinking you are doing now in order
to pick default settings that are best for most users.)
>It seems to me that, if the size of a device is inversely proportional
>to portability, then to be practical on a portable device about the
>size of a cell phone, an OSK design, that may or may not be like the
>12-key keypad, would need to be space efficient, sacrificing ease of
>use.
I agree. Small device, large keys, many keys. Pick any two.
>I agree with you that an OSK takes more or less the same space as a
>physical keyboard. However, if you look at it from another
>perspective, the advantage of an OSK is that, in general, the same
>space used for the keyboard can be used to display other information
>when the OSK isn't needed, whereas the space used by a physical
>keyboard cannot be used as a screen.
Some users have situation where they don't need a keyboard, but
others (someone who edits text, for example) need that keyboard
100% of the time. So whatever this other information is, it has
to be something the text-editing user can do without.
>Some manufacturers are also beginning to show interest in cell
>phones with full touch screens
The cell phone is the primary example of a device where the user
usually needs a limited number of keys (0-9, dial, and hang up),
at other times needs to navigate menus (configuring the phone),
at other times needs all characters (text messaging), at other
times needs a point and click GUI (surfing the web) and at other
times needs two or three keys that can't be onscreen (games).
It also is a good example of a wide range of size/functionality
trade-offs.
>My apologies for skipping some pieces, though it actually took me a
>while to think through all of this.
Thinking things through is the soul of new product design. I wish
more products were made with some thought to human interface issues.