What is important for you in an ergonomic keyboard?

[Findecanor]

I have a few ideas for an ergonomic keyboard, and I would like to do some "market research" before I finalize the design.
Please select all options that correspond to your preferences. If you don't select an option, then I interpret that as if you are not interested in that feature.

I assume that you already want: programmable firmware (ATmeta32u4), n-key rollover, on-the-fly remapping, on-the-fly macro recording, support for both Cherry MX and Alps, mod'able switches, keyboard split for each hand and with adjustable inclination and tenting etc.

Thanks!

[Hypersphere]

For me, "ergonomics" is more a function of my remembering good keyboard posture (e.g., keeping hands and wrists in a straight line; keeping hands and wrists elevated while typing rather than resting on any surface) than a function of keyboard design.

However, efficiency of design is important to me in my work. Nevertheless, I am already so accustomed to the standard QWERTY layout that I would not be interested in changing to something that is arguably more efficient, such as Colemak or Dvorak, but having a fully programmable board would enable layout changes for those who want them.

What I have found to be important to me is the ability to change the layout (and swap keycaps to match) to that of the HHKB Pro 2. In particular, I like to have Control to the left of A and Backspace directly above Return. Here again, a programmable board would take care of the layout, but not all boards have keys or keycaps that can be swapped accordingly.

Existing keyboards that work well for me include the IBM Model M-101, IBM Model M-SSK, IBM Model F-XT, IBM Model F-AT, and the HHKB Pro 2. Currently, I change the layout on the IBM boards using software, but soon I would like to make use of Soarer's Converter. The HHKB Pro 2 is of course good to go out of the box.

A new keyboard that can be switched to an acceptable layout via DIP switches and keycap swapping is the Kul ES-87, but this board is not yet available. In any event, I doubt I would adopt it because it uses Cherry mx switches, which I do not particularly like. However, it is available with Cherry mx Clears, which I have not yet tried.

[Muirium]

I'd actually like to both tick and untick all of the above. The tradeoffs really depend on the exact design. Got any hints to what you're thinking, Fin?

[kzhk]

What is important for me :
1) capability to change key location
2) key rows verticaly aligned
3) capability to tent (split design or tented keyboard)

[Findecanor]

The tradeoffs really depend on the exact design.

Well, the poll was supposed to help me choose between tradeoffs...

[Muirium]

Well, I voted for thumb keys, and that was it. Everything else has good arguments for and against. We'd know better if we saw it!

[Vierax]

Thumb keys is really an improved feature, others are irrelevant to me.

I voted Function key row too because TUI like ncurse programms use them a lot. Moreover it's important to have them in direct access for switching tty easily (Linux user here) But this row can be removed if there is a sticky Fn key (a modifier acting like a dead key) to type those special combinations without pressing three modifiers in the same time.

[Hypersphere]

I have a few ideas for an ergonomic keyboard, and I would like to do some "market research" before I finalize the design.
Please select all options that correspond to your preferences. If you don't select an option, then I interpret that as if you are not interested in that feature.

I assume that you already want: programmable firmware (ATmeta32u4), n-key rollover, on-the-fly remapping, on-the-fly macro recording, support for both Cherry MX and Alps, mod'able switches, keyboard split for each hand and with adjustable inclination and tenting etc.

Thanks!

This is a good idea. You might get more useful information if you could redesign the poll using a Likert scale; i.e., a scale of 1 to 5 for each statement, with 1 = strongly disagree; 3 = neutral; and 5 = strongly agree.

[Muirium]

Don't think the forum poll system offers such a feature. And I'm just the kind of daft bugger to find those things impossible. "It depends on the circumstances, for goodness sake! The art is in the balance! Is nothing sacred!"

[Icarium]

I think where the symbols are and where enter is and such don't really have anything to do with ergonomics. You can just remap them as you please anyway.

[Findecanor]

I think where the symbols are and where enter is and such don't really have anything to do with ergonomics. You can just remap them as you please anyway.

It is not whether it is more ergonomic or not, but about people's preferences. Many people would avoid a keyboard that is too unusual.
The question I need an answer to is really whether or not I could trim away keys from the right hand side, and that would also affect the left hand side because both hands should be the same height when the keyboard is tented.

[jacobolus]

I want lots of thumb keys, and I’m indifferent about keycap compatibility (as long as there are some keycaps which fit... it’s hard to type on bare switches). All the rest of those items on your list are negatives, which I’d prefer to get rid of if possible.

I think you’d get a better response if you sketched out 10 example designs, and asked people to pick their favorite. It’s really hard to analyze “features”, in the abstract.

[Findecanor]

Indeed. I am going to do that when this poll has closed. Thanks for answering the poll.

[Icarium]

I think the ErgoDox is pretty good but could use one or two extra rows or columns.

[alinh]

I think the ErgoDox is pretty good but could use one or two extra rows or columns.

I could do without the bottom row - except for the innermost keys.
What I'd like more is for the pinkie keys to be 3mm lower...

Still I don't like to use normal keyboards now; as soon as I use one I miss the thumb keys from ED.

[Findecanor]

OK then... Poll over, and the only thing that stood out from the poll was to have thumb keys.
The most important thing we got out of it is that it is much easier to reason about a real proposal ... so here it is:

The idea is to create a split symmetric stagger keyboard, like a western answer to the µTron but with Cherry MX switches and regular key spacing.

westron.jpg (35.48 KiB) Viewed 3939 times

The µTron has non-standard diagonally slanted thumb keys. To make up for that, I instead rotated the keys, and I picture that they would be mounted upside down so that they would slant towards the thumb instead of away.
The only unusually-sized keys in this layout would be the 2u Tab and the 1.25u home-row keys.

However... if you instead value function keys higher than thumb keys, you could rotate the keyboard 180° and mount a more traditional layout:

trad.jpg (35.7 KiB) Viewed 3939 times

I picture the internals as being much like the ErgoDox. A double-sided 8×6 key PCB for both left and right with support for both PCB-mounted and plate-mounted switches, through-hole or SMD diodes. You practically get support for Alps automatically with a double-sided PCB - only the rotated keys and a possible ISO Return key option would be tricky.
A Teensy in one side, mounted under the next-to innermost column, but with the port sticking out. An I/O expander in the other side, but not at the opposite position of the Teensy but at the opposite position of an EEPROM chip for storing macros.
That is the idea anyway. I anticipate that there will be a few tweaks here and there to make it work.

[Muirium]

Smart. I like the look of this better than the ErgoDox, which is too big for my taste. In fact, I'd lose the number row and put that on a function layer instead, but I am one of the more aggressive minimalists around.

A separate EEPROM chip to increase the Teensy's storage, eh? Interesting idea, but seems a challenge. I'm no engineer, but it sounds like a big increase in complexity.

Have you tried Soarer's controller? There's a fair bit of space left over on the Teensy's stock EEPROM for macros, which I have not come close to using up on my 60%. The numbers sound crazy small, but the community firmwares are quite efficient at using it with care.

[davkol]

derp

[Findecanor]

A separate EEPROM chip to increase the Teensy's storage, eh? Interesting idea, but seems a challenge. I'm no engineer, but it sounds like a big increase in complexity.

There is firmware for the ErgoDox that already supports it. You put the EEPROM on the same I²C bus as the I/O expander and the µC accesses it with a different address.

There's a fair bit of space left over on the Teensy's stock EEPROM for macros, which I have not come close to using up on my 60%.

There is only one kilobyte of internal EEPROM. There is more in the program Flash, but you want to keep that for program code that is separate from user-defined macros.

[Muirium]

True. Soarer's using it very efficiently though, so I've not had any problems. Different story when I try to make my Teensy powered keyboard converter box store several whole classes of layouts at once.