Evaluating the input of characters using software keyboards in a mobile learning environment: A comparison between software touchpanel devices and hardware keyboards Akira Hasegawa
Tomiya Yamazumi
Graduate School of Information Science Nagoya University Nagoya, Japan
[email protected]
Department of Information and Media Studies Nagoya Bunri University Inazawa, Japan
[email protected]
Satoshi Hasegawa
Masaru Miyao
Department of Information and Media Studies Nagoya Bunri University Inazawa, Japan
[email protected]
Graduate School of Information Science Nagoya University Nagoya, Japan
[email protected]
Abstract—This study was conducted to compare the typing performance of subjects inputting random alphabet characters using software keyboards on touchpanel mobile devices and hardware keyboards (subjects: n=67, 31.0 ± 11.1 years of age) Hardware keyboards showed significantly better performance for input speeds, error rates, and the subjective evaluation of usability. As a result, even those who showed slow input spends using hardware keyboards, did not show much slower speeds in using software. Keywords-component; Ubiquitous Learning; Input speed; Virtual keyborad; QWERTY style; iPad
I.
INTRODUCTION
Due to the increase progress in information technology and expanded use of mobile devices, there has been a marked progress in e-learning [1-2]. The ubiquitous learning environment has grown with the increase use of mobile devices such iPad. In this context, there exist a recognizable difference in the characteristics of the PC and the tablet type mobile devices for e-learning. We conducted a preliminary questionnaire survey on the comparison of the usability of the PC and iPad. The subjects were freshman students from the Department of Information and Media Studies at Nagoya Bunri University. The research used WebClass (Fig.1) which is a Web-based e-learning system for the survey. Items covered in the survey consisted of two points: one, an understanding of the contents; and two, easy recognition of the display design. A survey was taken two times after the subjects used the PC learning and the iPad e-learning systems. Results of the preliminary survey are shown in Figure 2. The results were similar for both the PC and iPad in terms of understanding of the contents and ease of recognition of the display design. In addition, subjects commented as follows:
Figure 1. e-learning system using iPad (WebClass)
Merits · The idling time for iPad was shorter than the PC · The iPad could be used with more confidence than the PC · Character size on iPads were easier to read because of magnification Demerits · It was more difficult to input characters for iPad · More mistakes were made in typing for the iPad than PC As a result, the present study focused on the demerits stated by the subjects which include the difficulty of character input and mistakes in typing. As typical keyboards appeared easier to use in the input of characters, a quantifiable comparative experiment on character input was used for touch-panel keyboards and hardware keyboards. In this comparative experiment, measurements were taken of character input speed and the subjective rates of usability in order to evaluate the difficulty of character input along with measuring error rates in the typing.
(a) Hardware keyboard (a) An understanding of the contents
(b) Software keyboard Figure 3. The terminal used for the experiment. (b) Easy recognition of the display design Figure 2. Results of the survey.
II.
METHODS
There were 67 male and female subjects. The average age of the subjects was 31.0 (±11.1). Subjects who needed glasses or contact lenses for reading newspapers wore them for the experiment. Subjects used an iPad. For the software keyboards, they typed on a QWERTY style keyboard for the iPad display (Fig. 3b) and they used an Apple Wireless keyboard for the hardware keyboards (Fig. 3a). The key pitch for Apple Wireless keyboard was about 19mm which is considered a full size keyboard [3]. This size is thought to be easier to input characters. The pitch of the software keyboard was 17mm using the long landscape mode. This pitch is rather long because the iPad is classified as the maximize size among the tablet type display devices. The order of the input methods of hardware or software was changed for each subject. The subjects sat down in a chair and inputted prerandomized characters by two kinds of input methods, a software keyboard and a hardware keyboard. These various characters consisted of 10 small capped alphabet letters. The target characters were shown on the left side of the display. Each subject was shown different randomized characters. We asked the subjects to type the characters as fast and as correctly as possible. Immediately after typing the characters, the subjects evaluated the use of the iPad and PC in terms of completing the inputs on a scale from 0(hard to input) to 6(easy to input).
Figure 4. The character which the subject was shown.
III.
RESULT
Figure 5 shows the typing speed of the subjects with the average speed for the software input being 1.14 seconds and for hardware 1.37 seconds. The Results of the paired t-test showed that the use of software was significantly (p
