deskthority

The ISO-inspired Return would enable people to claim that the Backspace is HHKB-like, directly above the Return!

davkol wrote: ↑I don't think it has anything to do with ANSI/ISO, because ISO/IEC 9995 allows shuffling symbols. US QWERTY can be used on an ISO-compliant keyboard without interefering with the standard.

I like my big enter key though

Hypersphere wrote: ↑The ISO-inspired Return would enable people to claim that the Backspace is HHKB-like, directly above the Return!

That's possibly why HHKB-ANSI feels to natural to me. I grew up with ISO, where backspace really is right above return. As it should be! Just a little less far away…

Come to think of it: my one niggle with the HHKB's right hand side: who uses Delete right there above Return instead of Backspace, anyway? Backspace is the essential existential undo key!

davkol wrote: ↑

Uncleleech wrote: ↑I love ISO because of the placement of the keys. I really don't like my @ to be on 2 because it means that when I come to use quotes I have to move my hands out of the way.

I don't think it has anything to do with ANSI/ISO, because ISO/IEC 9995 allows shuffling symbols. US QWERTY can be used on an ISO-compliant keyboard without interefering with the standard.

...aside from missing a key (nothing to do with the Enter, but thanks to the longer left-shift) and having to have a key at the awkward top-right of the keyboard beneath backspace instead of to the right of the central bank. So it essentially boils down to two issues: whether you prefer having to stretch for one of your symbol keys or for Enter, and whether you prefer to have the extra symbol key or to have the left shift key riding right into the letters.

Wiper wrote: ↑

davkol wrote: ↑

Uncleleech wrote: ↑I love ISO because of the placement of the keys. I really don't like my @ to be on 2 because it means that when I come to use quotes I have to move my hands out of the way.

I don't think it has anything to do with ANSI/ISO, because ISO/IEC 9995 allows shuffling symbols. US QWERTY can be used on an ISO-compliant keyboard without interefering with the standard.

...aside from missing a key (nothing to do with the Enter, but thanks to the longer left-shift) and having to have a key at the awkward top-right of the keyboard beneath backspace instead of to the right of the central bank.

US QWERTY on an ISO-compliant keyboard, not the other way around.

Besides, a keyboard with an ANSI Enter can still be ISO-compliant, although it doesn't have a "harmonized" alphanumeric section.

I like ANSI more as process-off-elimination.
ISO layouts tend to have a tiny left shift. G80-8133 or 8200 are a notable exception, but that's really only one choice.
Big-ass layouts frequently have tiny backspace keys.

Some boards (many Focus models, for example) will give you a big-ass enter and a big backspace, but usually it turns into a game of "hunt the backslash", especially if you're using a board with a marginally different layout elsewhere.

What do you mean with process-off-elimination? process-of-elimination?

davkol wrote: ↑

Wiper wrote: ↑

davkol wrote: ↑ I don't think it has anything to do with ANSI/ISO, because ISO/IEC 9995 allows shuffling symbols. US QWERTY can be used on an ISO-compliant keyboard without interefering with the standard.

...aside from missing a key (nothing to do with the Enter, but thanks to the longer left-shift) and having to have a key at the awkward top-right of the keyboard beneath backspace instead of to the right of the central bank.

US QWERTY on an ISO-compliant keyboard, not the other way around.

Yep, apparently I can't read!

Besides, a keyboard with an ANSI Enter can still be ISO-compliant, although it doesn't have a "harmonized" alphanumeric section.

And yes, I said as much - it's the shift that's crucial to key numbers, not the enter.

Personally, I like slamming down on that big ISO Enter and relegating the pipe/backslash key to a 1 unit key, where it should be. Even if it takes a little more for me to reach the Enter key.

Being american and growing up on ANSI......


I really thought that I would hate ISO and even big L when I tried them, but I really can manage on either. I honestly do like ISO and can type on it happily but I obviously do prefer ANSI in the long run. one of my daily drivers is ISO and honestly it doesn't make a huge difference, just had to slightly adjust where I place my left finger for shift and my right finger for enter, no big deal.

Big L is a bit of a tease, because it's close enough to ANSI for me to enjoy it, but then has that weird positioning with the \| and usually has the split backspace which hurtsssss to use for me.
In addition to looking dumb as well...yeah I'm not the biggest fan of the big L but I can use it happily need be

Eszett wrote: ↑What do you mean with process-off-elimination? process-of-elimination?

It's less "I like ANSI best", and more "Everything else is even worse, so I have to settle for the best I can get."

Perfection ((ignoring key legends) ISO return, ANSI-style backslash/pipe; escape next to 1, tilde/grave next to LShift):


I grew up on ANSI, but ISO enter seems way nicer now. Now that I've got used to using RShift, the smaller LShift is helpful with the extra key right next to it which is a great place for tilde/grave (UNIX user), and frees up the key next to 1 for escape (vim user). And, on-topic (nobody asked about shift), many ANSI return keys feel a bit frictiony and unstable when they're hit on the edge, rather than in the centre (the Model F AT's big let-down, along with the stiff spacebar; but even a Leopold with blues does it too), whereas most ISO return keyboards seem to be very smooth (probably because you're more inclined to hit them near the centre).

I am from Holland. Here we often see both kinds of enter keys (there is more than one common layout) so I have used both a lot.

I personally prefer ANSI. If you touch type it is just easier to reach with your pinky. The ISO enter key is also just unnecessarily large. Not only is there no point in it being so large, but it also looks kind of ugly.

That said, I can use both fine. A short left shift for example is way more annoying to me.

That's right along my own thoughts, too. People typically prefer either Return shape because they happen to be used to it. But ANSI Return has an objective useability advantage, in addition to symmetrically pleasing looks.

Grim Fandango wrote: ↑[…] The ISO enter key is also just unnecessarily large. Not only is there no point in it being so large, but it also looks kind of ugly. […]

Muirium wrote: ↑[…] symmetrically pleasing looks.

The "symmetrical pleasing looks" argument is particularly funny when one recalls that the trick to it is the key above ANSI Enter being stretched to "unnecessary large", "ugly" 1.5u

But I do agree to the assumption that being used to something is the most common reason for preferring it as long as other options are not clearly superior

ANSI Backspace is the problem. That key right above Return is the perfect place for Backspace. Yet ANSI puts it a row further away from home, despite not needing to. ISO's oversized Return guarantees that same move there. But ANSI's error is unforced!

The right way:


I'll point out again that I grew up with ISO, and still type on it often enough (including now) but ANSI is the one I prefer.

I like ISO more, but I do not have any reason for this. I guess I am just used to it since I am using it for 20 years now
Although I used an ANSI keyboard for some months and I got used to the enter key pretty fast.

I prefer ISO enter, but I'm honestly fine with both. For me, a bigger reason for ISO is the short shift and the extra button next to it. I've only tried one ANSI board and didn't like the long shift (sluggish? mushy? not sure how to describe it), but that's not a very big sample size, so eh.

ISO's extra key is its one true advantage. I miss that one when I'm on my ANSI boards, not much but I do notice it, because of the way I map Command+§ and Command+~ for window management. If ISO just left the right hand side of the keyboard alone, I could even prefer it!

ANSI left Shift is still smaller than ANSI and ISO's right Shift: an egregious 2.75 units! The HHKB approach is so much smarter, shortening that monster by a unit to open up a function layer, and escape a stab.

Definately ANSI.
It's easier to hit on the home row and it fit's better with the other keys, optically. Especially on 60% or TKL, when ISO Enter is the only row spanning key.

Plus all the convenience from easy replacements.
I'm still stuck with ISO-DE on most of my keyboards since it's just much easier to aquire, especially used ones.

/e considering other layout quirks, HHKB is the best. Although I wouldn't mind using the lower Ctrl-corners for keys.

Definitely, the HHKB Pro 2 layout is the best!

Does someone know about the history of ISO-enter, what was the motivation of it’s invention? With the shape of ISO-enter you get (in comparision to ANSI-enter) 1u extra on the home row, but you lose 1u (wrong! correct: 1.5u) on the tab row. So there is no benefit, right? What’s the sense behind this?

You lose 1.5U on the tab row! But still one key.

@scottc Right, you lose _1.5u_ (not 1u, as I wrote) on the tab row. But that doesn’t make it better. I can’t see the benefit.

Lots of old typewriters (and punch card machines for writing code to run on computers…) had L shaped keys. In fact, often two of them, one where tab is too! Googling up IBM Selectric shows they did it differently again.



So the style is old. Although I do also think ISO (and JIS) got it wrong.

Eszett wrote: ↑Does someone know about the history of ISO-enter, what was the motivation of it’s invention? With the shape of ISO-enter you get (in comparision to ANSI-enter) 1u extra on the home row, but you lose 1u (wrong! correct: 1.5u) on the tab row. So there is no benefit, right? What’s the sense behind this?

Of course there is no space gained and no space lost in either design.
The cap allegedly "lost" on the tab row being 1.5u instead of 1u for no reason (other than optical), in both ANSI and ISO the exact same right-hand space "tab row 1.5u + home row 2.25u" is occupied by two keys:
Your argument is fallacious anyway because you postulate ANSI is the original design and ISO has been designed from it for no sensible reason. It would be equally silly to say "there is no benefit" and to ask "What’s the sense behind this?" comparing ANSI with a postulated original ISO design.

So folks, explain why you prefer either ANSI or ISO,
tee or coffee,
winter or summer,
men or women,
green or blue,
but don’t pretend your subjective grounds are objective reasons.

I'm really sloppy with my pinkies when typing unfortunately, so the big enter saves me from making too making too many mistakes. I'm especially sloppy with my right pinky, so much so that I've never touched the RShift on my keyboard... I can safely life without it.

ISO enter is the original design, then big-ass (although truncated due to a narrower keyboard), then ANSI.

Then HHKB. It's called evolution…

@Kbdfr: To be fair, the title of the thread does invite subjective opinion. Both layouts fundamentally work, so the difference between them lies in the hazy grey zone where hard logic is not invited, like so many such battles in life. The only valid annoyance is when people sloppily claim their subjective taste is objective fact. Sadly, popular culture, and a lot of training at school, tells people to do just that. We like to protect ourselves with a shield we think is made of reason, but is actually just a target made of wrong.

Holy shit: someone voted for Big Ass! Now that is just objectively wrong. (Kidding, even though I seriously disagree. So many great keyboards are wrecked by that space grabbing monstrosity, which doesn't even have the decency to stabilise well.)

Muirium wrote: ↑[…] The only valid annoyance is when people sloppily claim their subjective taste is objective fact. […]

Obviously we agree at least on that