Content uploaded by Danielle Paige Smith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Danielle Paige Smith
Content may be subject to copyright.
KEYBOARD SHORTCUT USAGE:
THE ROLES OF SOCIAL FACTORS AND COMPUTER EXPERIENCE
S. Camille Peres, Franklin P. Tamborello II, Michael D. Fleetwood,
Phillip Chung, and Danielle L. Paige-Smith.
Department of Psychology, Rice University
Houston, TX
Previous research (Lane, Napier, Peres, & Sandor, in press) has shown
that despite the fact that it typically takes half as much time to issue a
command to a computer application using that command’s keyboard
shortcut, most people issue a particular command by clicking an icon on a
toolbar or by selecting the command from a pull-down menu. This study
examined reasons why that might be the case with a structured interview
survey and web survey that focused on demographic characteristics of
people who do and do not use keyboard shortcuts, as well as social factors
of computer use that might influence use of keyboard shortcuts.
Participants’ shortcut usage was influenced by social factors, such as
working in an environment with other shortcut users and experiential
factors, primarily the hours spent using a computer per week.
INTRODUCTION
There is a significant body of work to
support the benefits of keyboard shortcuts (KBS)
from a timesaving perspective. Formal Human-
Computer Interaction methods such as GOMS (John
& Kieras, 1996) use keystroke operator times to
compare competitive interfaces. A study by Lane,
Napier, Peres, and Sándor (in press)presented an in-
depth look at the timesaving of KBSs in Microsoft
Word. While they were the most efficient method of
interaction in terms of time, experienced users
frequently did not use them. Rosson (1984) also
found that utilization of more advanced keyboard
commands in a text editing software (XEDIT) did
not increase with experience. Neither did many self-
labeled computer experts use the most advanced
and efficient methods in software such as Word and
CAD (Bhavnani & John, 1997; Rosson, 1984),
suggesting the barrier to KBS usage may persist
over time.
Galitz (1996) reported that graphical
interfaces were easier to use because they made the
set of possible commands visible during the use of
software, eliminating the need to memorize specific
commands. Indeed, it is now widely accepted in the
usability community (Zhang & Norman, 1994) that
interfaces presenting information “on the device”
are easier to use than those that require knowledge
“in the head,” due to the decreased demands on
memory. This also corresponds with evidence of
hill-climbing in instances of interaction with a
computer (Gray, 2000; Polson & Lewis, 1990).
Essentially, users were found to use perceptual
similarity and cues on the interface alone to guide
their actions, in keeping with our general tendencies
as “cognitive misers.”
The influence of social factors on computer
usage pertaining to such phenomena as online trust,
organizational culture, group collaboration, etc. has
been widely reported in the literature (Bailey,
Gurak, & Konstan, 2003; Dourish & Bly, 1992).
There is a dearth of information, however, on
whether or not social factors affect computer micro-
strategies. Previous studies have compared the
efficiency of various computer input devices and
strategies (Card, Moran, & Newell, 1983) as well as
their adoption by various categories of users
(Bhavnani & John, 1997; Lane et al., in press).
However, the specifics of how and why users adopt
different micro-strategies has not been deeply
explored from a social perspective.
Structured Interviews
As an exploratory procedure to begin to
investigate why people do and do not use keyboard
shortcuts, structured interviews were conducted
with nine individuals. We asked questions about
usage of KBS, general computer usage and
demographic information. The results suggested
that a primary method by which people learned to
use KBS was through social interaction, such as
working with and watching other people who used
KBS. The results of these interviews were
incorporated into an online questionnaire designed
to further explore the relationship between KBS
usage and social environments.
METHOD
A questionnaire was administered via a
website (http://psych.rice.edu/HFES/) to 82
individuals - 49 women and 31 men (with one
respondent not providing their gender). There were
21 respondents who classified themselves as not
using KBS and 61 who used KBS to some degree.
Users were asked a variety of questions about their
computer usage, certain personality characteristics,
how they came to their level of computer usage, and
the computer usage of coworkers and
acquaintances.
RESULTS
Differences were found between those who
use KBS and those who do not use KBS on all of
the questions regarding the environment where they
use the computer. As seen in Figure 1, those who
did not use KBS had lower ratings of agreement on
all seven items than those who did use KBS and all
differences were significant at p = .02 or less. The
most notable difference between these two groups
was found on the item asking if the respondent
worked with people who use KBS.
Subjects who did not use KBS were asked
what it would take for them to start using keyboard
shortcuts. The results are provided in Table 1 and
show that the most endorsed statement was “I
would start using keyboard shortcuts if I had
someone to train me to use them.” While the least
endorsed statement was “I would start using KBS if
I thought they would save me time.”
1
2
3
4
5
Work with KBS
users
Work with others
at computer
Watch others
using a computer
Have seen others
use KBS
Know people that
use a lot of KBS
Observe KBS
users on their
computers
Observe KBS
users using KBS
Question
Not Use KBS
Use KBS
Doesn't apply
to me
Strong applies
to me
Figure 1 Mean responses for questions regarding participants’ environments as a
function of whether or not they used KBS.
Table 1 Mean response from non-KBS users on
what it would take for them to use keyboard
shortcuts. 1 – Strongly Agree to 5 – Strongly
disagree
I would use keyboard shortcuts, if…
Mean
I had someone train me to use them
3.2
they were easier to remember
3.4
they were easier to learn
3.6
I could use them more frequently
3.6
they were easier to execute
3.8
I thought they would save me more
time
4.1
Participant’s ratings on all statements
regarding observing the use of KBS in social
situations were correlated with their report of the
percentage of time they use KBS for issuing
commands (0% was used for those that did not use
shortcuts). There was a correlation between the
percentage of time that participants used shortcuts
and the degree to which participants (1) are in a
working environment with people who use KBS, r =
0.43, p < 0.001, (2) watch other people use a
computer, r = 0.34 p < 0.001, (3) know people that
use a lot of keyboard shortcuts, r = 0.33, p < 0.001,
(4) work at a single computer with a group of
people, r = 0.29, p < 0.01, (5) observe people using
keyboard shortcuts when they issue commands, r =
0.27, p < 0.01, (6) have seen other people using
keyboard shortcuts, r = 0.26, p < 0.001, and (7) are
able to watch KBS users at their computers, r =
0.21, p = 0.03.
Table 2 Mean responses for level of expertise (10 =
expert), hours p/week using a personal computer,
and years using a personal computer.
Group
Not Use KBS
Use KBS
Expertise
3.2
6.7
Hours p/week on PC
16.7
36.0
Years using a PC
12.2
12.5
Table 2 shows participants’ responses to
demographic questions as a function of whether or
not they used KBS. These results show that the
participants who did not use KBS rated their degree
of expertise with computers as lower than those
who do use KBS, t(85) = -8.108, p < 0.001. KBS
users also reported spending more time on a
computer each week, t(70.9) = -5.629, p <0.01, and
spend more time using the internet each week,
t(79.8) = -4.512, p < 0.001. Interestingly, there was
not a reliable difference in the reported number of
years since they started using computers between
the two usage groups, t(29.1) = 0.260, p < 0.797.
The relationships between the percent of
time participants reported using KBS and reported
computer use was examined. Reliable correlations
were found between the percentage of time that
participants used shortcuts and (1) their ranking of
their level of computer expertise, r = 0.66, p <
0.001, (2) the number of hours that they use a
personal computer per week, r = 0.50, p < 0.001,
(3) the number of hours that they use the internet
per week, r = 0.35, p < 0.001. There was not a
correlation between the percentage of time that
participants used shortcuts, and the number of years
that they had been using a personal computer, r =
0.23, p < 0.08. There was a negative correlation
between the percentage of time that participants
used shortcuts and their age, r = -0.32, p < 0.01.
DISCUSSION
Bhavnani and John (1997)suggested that
experience alone may not determine use of efficient
strategies and that there seems to be an influence of
the environment in which the computer is used.
Responses to the current survey certainly support
the role of social factors in the adoption of efficient
computer usage strategies. In the current study,
being around and watching others use shortcuts
corresponded to self-reports of keyboard shortcut
use. Additionally, the results suggest that people
who do not use KBS would not be motivated to
learn keyboard shortcuts because of possible
timesavings but instead want someone around to
train them on how to use the shortcuts. The finding
that those who use KBS are more likely to have
people around them who also use KBS suggest that
the micro-strategy of using keyboard shortcuts
increases when users have co-workers to teach them
how and when to use this efficient strategy.
Although the prevalence of social influence
is well known in other arenas, it is interesting that
such factors come to bear in the use of keyboard
shortcuts, a seemingly automatic micro-strategy
adopted by a subset of computer users.
While it would seem intuitive that more
experienced computer users would be more efficient
computer users, past research has not found any
support for a link between experience with a
personal computer, or a particular program, and its
efficient use (Bhavnani & John, 1997; Lane et al., in
press). The current research also found no
relationship between years of experience with a
computer and the use of KBS, however, we did find
a relationship between use of keyboard shortcuts
and hours spent using a computer per week. These
findings suggest that the amount of time someone
currently spends on the computer may be a more
predictive a factor for the efficient use of a
computer program than the number of years or level
of expertise a person has with a particular program.
It is important to note that Lane et al. did not
find a relationship between hours per week on the
computer and KBS usage. A possible reason that
they did not find a relationship between these two
variables and our study did is the nature of the data
collected. Specifically, the current study collected a
continuous measure of the number of hours per
week spent on the computer while Lane et al used a
forced-choice measure of experience. As shown in
Table 3, 72% of their sample reported more than 15
hours per week on the computers. While we had a
similar sample, with nearly 70% reporting more
than 15 hours per week on the computer, the use of
a continuous scale allowed for a more even
distribution.
Table 3 Comparison of hours p/week of computer use
for current sample and Lane et al.
Hours per Week
Current Sample
Lane et al.
< 1
0
0.4
1 - 5
4.7
6.4
6 - 10
15.3
14.4
11 - 15
10.6
56
16 - 20
9.4
72
21 - 25
5.9
26 - 30
14.1
31 - 35
7.1
36 - 40
10.5
41 - 45
2.4
46 - 50
8.2
> 50
11.8
At the same time, the current study asked
subjects to report the “overall” percentage of time
they used KBS while Lane et al. asked subjects to
report the percentage of time they used KBS for
fourteen commands in Microsoft Word. Thus the
current study may not have as clear a picture of the
participants KBS usage as Lane et al.
While an individual may not save a large
amount of time by issuing commands via the
keyboard (e.g. one would have to issue at least 450
commands to save 15 minutes per day; (Lane et al.,
in press), timesavings to an organization would be
more prominent. Additionally, keyboard shortcuts
are just one way of using a computer program
efficiently and it is conceivable that any principles
discovered regarding increasing keyboard short use
might also be applicable to increasing other
efficient strategies. Finally, computers users report
less musculoskeletal discomfort when using a
keyboard rather than mouse (Jorgensen, Garde,
Laursen, & Jensen, 2002).
These findings have implications for
computer training and suggest that it would be
advantageous to an organization to construct
training courses in such a manner as to facilitate
social interaction – either during the training and/or
after the training. That is, an optimal training
environment for the instruction of the efficient use
of computer applications may be to have a group of
co-workers in an interactive training setting. If the
co-workers are trained together, they may then be
able to act as support for each other when they
return to work and implement what they have
learned.
To further explore the self-report results
described herein, future research will attempt to
experimentally examine the roles of experience and
social factors in the use of efficient software
strategies. Although these factors have been
identified as relevant, the importance of each factor
in the adoption of shortcut strategies remains
unresolved. Further, the nature of the effect of the
social dynamic is also of interest. For instance,
seeing a coworker may alter the schema of
command issuance by presenting an alternate
method prior to the execution of that command
(rather than presenting the shortcut after the menu
item has already been selected). If that is indeed the
case, altering the presentation of shortcut reminders
may be equivalent to the social influence of
coworkers.
References
Bailey, B., Gurak, L., & Konstan, J. (2003). Trust in
Cyberspace. In J. Ratner (Ed.), Human
Factors in Web Development (2nd ed., pp.
311-321). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bhavnani, S. K., & John, B. E. (1997). From
Sufficient to Efficient Usage: An Analysis of
Strategic Knowledge. Paper presented at the
ACM CHI '97, Atlanta, GA.
Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The
Psychology of Human-Computer
Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ.: LEA.
Dourish, P., & Bly, S. (1992). Portholes:
Supporting Awareness in a Distributed
Work Group Systems for Media-Supported
Collaboration. Paper presented at the ACM
CHI'92 Human Factors in Computing
Systems.
Galitz, W. O. (1996). The essential guide to user
interface design: An introduction to GUI
design principles and techniques: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gray, W. D. (2000). The Nature and Processing of
Errors in Interactive Behavior. Cognitive
Science, 24(2), 205-248.
John, B. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1996). Using GOMS
for User Interface Design and Evaluation:
Which Technique? ACM Transactions on
Computer-Human Interaction, 3(4), 287-
319.
Jorgensen, A., Garde, A., Laursen, B., & Jensen, B.
(2002). Using Mouse and Keyboard Under
Time Pressure: Preference, Strategies, and
Learning. Behavior and Information
Technology, 21(317-319).
Lane, D. M., Napier, H. A., Peres, S. C., & Sandor,
A. (in press). The Hidden Costs of Graphical
User Interfaces: The Failure to Make the
Transition from Menus and Icon Tool Bars
to Keyboard Shortcuts. International
Journal of Human Computer Interaction.
Polson, P. G., & Lewis, C. H. (1990). Theory-based
Design for Easily Learned Interfaces.
Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 191-220.
Rosson, M. B. (1984). Patterns of experience in text
editing. Human Factors, 26, 463-475.
Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations
in Distributed Cognitive Tasks. Cognitive
Science, 18, 87-122.