I think this article (as well as quite possibly the study it is based on) is flawed in that it makes sweeping generalizations based on what appears to be a minimal understanding of how to prevent repetitive strain injuries.
Ergonomic keyboards are a part of a much wider puzzle and in isolation that may not be doing much good.
On the typical office desk with a typical keyboard it is impossible to apply proper typing technique because:
– the work surface is too high
– the monitors are typically much too low
– AND the keyboards force an awkward posture
Many people also have terrible typing habits such as banging the keys with maximum force and very few people can touch type.
An ergonomic keyboard can only really help touch typists who are aware of proper posture, hand placements and typing technique. Just giving them a new keyboard will probably change nothing.
On top of that many people recovering from RSI are full of anti-inflammatories so they will most likely not feel any of the damage that they are doing to themselves.
My last criticism would be to equate a decade old Microsoft keyboard with only very minimal (quite possibly mistaken) ergonomic features with the sum total of all ergonomic keyboards.
The Microsoft keyboard is simply a normal keyboard with a static separation between both halves an a l litle vertical and horizontal tilt. Microsoft would also recommend using the “negative tilt” feature but this makes it hard to see the keys and will thus probably be ignored by hunt-and-peck typists which makes up 99% of all typists.
It’s no surprise they do not see any statistically relevant improvement.
A proper ergonomic setup together with good typing technique most definitely do make an immediately noticeable difference.
“Proper” ergonomic keyboards such as the Kinesis Ergo Advantage or the Maltron keyboard do take a lot of getting used to, but at least for touch typists willing to put up with the learning curve, they do provide real advantages.
As preventative measures they are not popular because they are both expensive and require retraining.
The study title should probably read “just getting a new keyboard won’t make much difference”.
The burden of proof is on those making the claim. These companies need to do well designed controlled studies to determine if they really do what they say they will before putting them out onto the marketplace at prices 5x a regular keyboard. Criticize this study all you want, but the fact remains that the claims for ergonomic keyboards have not been properly tested and until they are, I remain skeptical and will stick with my regular keyboard and my 30+ years of being injury free.
While I agree with the above, particularly the alternative title “just getting a new keyboard won’t make much difference,” I think it illustrates the fact that there have been no peer-reviewed medical studies that have shown that keyboarding is an efficient cause of CTS. Back when I was litigating these cases I had amassed 203 peer-reviewed article which failed to show a connection. 1 arguably called it into question, but ultimately punted on the issue. So if keyboarding is not the cause, an alternative ergonimic keyboard isn’t going to fix it. But folks with a dog in that fight (e.g., plaintiff lawyers) won’t look at it that way.
That’s surprising, and a bit doubtful. But even if true, so what? If you find an ‘ergo keyboard more comfortable then it’s by definition healthier [less stress!].
This article is a little misleading with its generalizations. I saw Professor Baker interviewed by a news station about her study, and she had a much more neutral tone than I think is portrayed in this article. She didn’t say that ergonomic keyboards aren’t healthier. In fact she said that it was indeterminate why when the study participants’ pain improved when they switched to the ergonomic keyboard and didn’t return when they switched back to the traditional keyboard.
I truly wouldn’t be surprised if practicing better typing habits is the simple solution to hand/wrist/arm problems caused by improper typing postures. I happen to have De Quervain’s right now from typing at work, and I haven’t bought an ergonomic keyboard yet because I don’t see how the shapes and styles of the keyboards out there would improve my typing position at all. However, I wouldn’t rule out that ergonomic keyboards do help people, even if it’s purely mental, from a study where the conclusions seem to be indeterminate.
No surprise here. A 2009 study looked at 5 different KB’s and stacked them against traditional. None improved speed and efficiency over a traditional. Some really favor them and the don’t fix what’s not broke adage applies. Observational–the split KB’s seem to align best with the markedly over weight and the abducted arm placement that can accompany great girth.
When it comes to ergonomics, the devil’s in the details. Just because the keyboard is shaped one way, it doesn’t guarantee you’ll be free from pain all of a sudden. Your typing angle, desk height, and overall posture should all be included in the study to get a more accurate result.
By telling someone you are giving them a better keyboard you are already biasing them by saying this. They will subconsciously believe that the keyboard is better because they were told that it was. This was by no means a blind study.
What you describe has a name: the placebo effect.
Other medicines have this too: if you believe it works, it will work, because you believed that it would work, even though it was just a sugar pill.
It doesn’t just happen, when you are told, that it will work.
It happens when you “subconsciously believe”, that it will work.
So how do you know the difference between an actual drug and a sugar pill?
You tell everyone that they got the drug, but only the test group actually got it.
Everyone believes they are testing the real thing.
Everyone gets the placebo effect.
Everyone might see results.
But actually, only the test group got the drug.
And the control group got “a placebo” — a useless, harmless fake.
The question is: “Is the drug any *better* than a placebo that does nothing.”
If the study is “blind”, no one knows what group they are in.
If the study is “double-blind”, even the researchers don’t know what groups anyone is in.
If you knew, that could mess with your beliefs. And so people are kept in the dark.
At best they might know, that studies often have these test groups and control groups.
So this is actually a common practice in these studies.
Maybe you ask: could we do without bias?
I ask you: could you invent a setup?
How would you do it?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I think this article (as well as quite possibly the study it is based on) is flawed in that it makes sweeping generalizations based on what appears to be a minimal understanding of how to prevent repetitive strain injuries.
Ergonomic keyboards are a part of a much wider puzzle and in isolation that may not be doing much good.
On the typical office desk with a typical keyboard it is impossible to apply proper typing technique because:
– the work surface is too high
– the monitors are typically much too low
– AND the keyboards force an awkward posture
Many people also have terrible typing habits such as banging the keys with maximum force and very few people can touch type.
An ergonomic keyboard can only really help touch typists who are aware of proper posture, hand placements and typing technique. Just giving them a new keyboard will probably change nothing.
On top of that many people recovering from RSI are full of anti-inflammatories so they will most likely not feel any of the damage that they are doing to themselves.
My last criticism would be to equate a decade old Microsoft keyboard with only very minimal (quite possibly mistaken) ergonomic features with the sum total of all ergonomic keyboards.
The Microsoft keyboard is simply a normal keyboard with a static separation between both halves an a l litle vertical and horizontal tilt. Microsoft would also recommend using the “negative tilt” feature but this makes it hard to see the keys and will thus probably be ignored by hunt-and-peck typists which makes up 99% of all typists.
It’s no surprise they do not see any statistically relevant improvement.
A proper ergonomic setup together with good typing technique most definitely do make an immediately noticeable difference.
“Proper” ergonomic keyboards such as the Kinesis Ergo Advantage or the Maltron keyboard do take a lot of getting used to, but at least for touch typists willing to put up with the learning curve, they do provide real advantages.
As preventative measures they are not popular because they are both expensive and require retraining.
The study title should probably read “just getting a new keyboard won’t make much difference”.
The burden of proof is on those making the claim. These companies need to do well designed controlled studies to determine if they really do what they say they will before putting them out onto the marketplace at prices 5x a regular keyboard. Criticize this study all you want, but the fact remains that the claims for ergonomic keyboards have not been properly tested and until they are, I remain skeptical and will stick with my regular keyboard and my 30+ years of being injury free.
While I agree with the above, particularly the alternative title “just getting a new keyboard won’t make much difference,” I think it illustrates the fact that there have been no peer-reviewed medical studies that have shown that keyboarding is an efficient cause of CTS. Back when I was litigating these cases I had amassed 203 peer-reviewed article which failed to show a connection. 1 arguably called it into question, but ultimately punted on the issue. So if keyboarding is not the cause, an alternative ergonimic keyboard isn’t going to fix it. But folks with a dog in that fight (e.g., plaintiff lawyers) won’t look at it that way.
That’s surprising, and a bit doubtful. But even if true, so what? If you find an ‘ergo keyboard more comfortable then it’s by definition healthier [less stress!].
This article is a little misleading with its generalizations. I saw Professor Baker interviewed by a news station about her study, and she had a much more neutral tone than I think is portrayed in this article. She didn’t say that ergonomic keyboards aren’t healthier. In fact she said that it was indeterminate why when the study participants’ pain improved when they switched to the ergonomic keyboard and didn’t return when they switched back to the traditional keyboard.
I truly wouldn’t be surprised if practicing better typing habits is the simple solution to hand/wrist/arm problems caused by improper typing postures. I happen to have De Quervain’s right now from typing at work, and I haven’t bought an ergonomic keyboard yet because I don’t see how the shapes and styles of the keyboards out there would improve my typing position at all. However, I wouldn’t rule out that ergonomic keyboards do help people, even if it’s purely mental, from a study where the conclusions seem to be indeterminate.
No surprise here. A 2009 study looked at 5 different KB’s and stacked them against traditional. None improved speed and efficiency over a traditional. Some really favor them and the don’t fix what’s not broke adage applies. Observational–the split KB’s seem to align best with the markedly over weight and the abducted arm placement that can accompany great girth.
When it comes to ergonomics, the devil’s in the details. Just because the keyboard is shaped one way, it doesn’t guarantee you’ll be free from pain all of a sudden. Your typing angle, desk height, and overall posture should all be included in the study to get a more accurate result.
By telling someone you are giving them a better keyboard you are already biasing them by saying this. They will subconsciously believe that the keyboard is better because they were told that it was. This was by no means a blind study.
What you describe has a name: the placebo effect.
Other medicines have this too: if you believe it works, it will work, because you believed that it would work, even though it was just a sugar pill.
It doesn’t just happen, when you are told, that it will work.
It happens when you “subconsciously believe”, that it will work.
So how do you know the difference between an actual drug and a sugar pill?
You tell everyone that they got the drug, but only the test group actually got it.
Everyone believes they are testing the real thing.
Everyone gets the placebo effect.
Everyone might see results.
But actually, only the test group got the drug.
And the control group got “a placebo” — a useless, harmless fake.
The question is: “Is the drug any *better* than a placebo that does nothing.”
If the study is “blind”, no one knows what group they are in.
If the study is “double-blind”, even the researchers don’t know what groups anyone is in.
If you knew, that could mess with your beliefs. And so people are kept in the dark.
At best they might know, that studies often have these test groups and control groups.
So this is actually a common practice in these studies.
Maybe you ask: could we do without bias?
I ask you: could you invent a setup?
How would you do it?
It sounds like the answer is in the article: take breaks.