The Ghost of the Typewriter: Part 5 of 6

The Ghost of the Typewriter (Part 5): How Flawed Data Contaminated Science

In Part 4, we witnessed the "Battle of 1994," where Microsoft's commercial success established the "Split Staggered" keyboard as the standard.

This victory had a devastating side effect. It didn't just dominate the sales charts; it contaminated the scientific record. For the next two decades, when researchers asked "Do ergonomic keyboards work?", they reached for the Microsoft Natural. And because they tested a flawed design, they got a flawed answer.

The Filter: The Cochrane Review (2012)

If you ask a scientist today whether ergonomic keyboards prevent Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS), they will likely point to the Cochrane Review, widely considered the "Gold Standard" of evidence-based research.

The 2012 Cochrane Review (O'Connor et al.) performed a rigorous service. They screened 763 records and excluded almost all of them for poor methodology. However, after this filter, only two trials concerning ergonomic keyboards met the criteria.

The Review simply reported that based on these few survivors, there was "insufficient evidence" of benefit. To understand why, we must look at the specific devices they actually tested.

Exhibit A: The 1999 Tittiranonda Study

The Tittiranonda study was a 6-month randomized controlled trial involving 80 participants. It compared a standard keyboard against three "ergonomic" interventions.

The Intervention Devices: The researchers selected the most popular ergonomic keyboards of the era:

The Microsoft Natural Keyboard
The Apple Adjustable Keyboard
The Comfort Keyboard System

The Conclusion: The study found "no statistically significant change from baseline in pain severity" for any of the ergonomic keyboards compared to the standard keyboard. — Tittiranonda et al. (1999)

The Analysis: Why did they fail? Because the Microsoft Natural and Apple Adjustable keyboards retained the Staggered Layout. They curved the plastic to help the shoulders, but they kept the diagonal keys that force Ulnar Deviation in the wrist. The researchers were testing a "Half-Measure" and, predictably, found insufficient evidence.

Exhibit B: The Pattern Repeats (Baker et al. 2015)

One might hope that as technology advanced, the science would correct itself. It didn't. The "Microsoft Standard" continued to blind researchers well into the 21st century.

In 2015, Baker et al. conducted a rigorous randomized cross-over trial. Once again, they needed an "Alternative Keyboard" to test against a standard flat keyboard.

The Intervention Device: The researchers chose the Microsoft Natural Ergonomic 4000 (fixed split-angle).

The Conclusion: "There was no significant keyboard by period effect on any discomfort measure". The study concluded that this alternative keyboard was "unlikely to offer any greater benefit than using a standardly configured keyboard". — Baker et al. (2015)

The Fatal Logical Error

These studies are rigorous, peer-reviewed, and statistically sound. However, they chose the wrong intervention device.

By using the Microsoft Natural as the proxy for "Ergonomics," the scientific community spent 20 years comparing:

Control: A flat keyboard with staggered keys.
Intervention: A curved keyboard with staggered keys.

Testing the Curve, Ignoring the Stagger

The "insufficient evidence" found by Cochrane and Baker is technically correct, but it applies only to the specific devices tested. It proves that simply curving a keyboard while retaining the 19th-century staggered layout does not solve the problem.

Science has failed to test Columnar Layouts. They tested different versions of the "Ghost" (Staggered Layouts) and found that, unsurprisingly, the Ghost still haunts the user.

The Legacy of Contamination

Because the "Microsoft Design" was accepted as the definition of ergonomics, its failure has been projected onto the entire industry. Truly effective designs—those that use Columnar or Radial layouts to align with the fingers—have been guilty by association.

We do not have a failure of engineering; we have a failure of variable selection. The science isn't wrong; the test subjects were.

Next in the Series: In the final chapter, Part 6, we outline the path forward. How do we fix this? We call for a "Second Revolution" and a new era of rigorous science that tests the fundamental physical layout, not just Brands.

References: