Feedback wanted on Ergodox/EM.7/Maltron inspired board

[yinzer]

I'm refocusing my efforts on a much simpler project. Will possibly revisit this in the future. 


Hi all! 

The Ergodox is the standard ergonomic keyboard, however many of its users feel it's not quite what they want. Two of the more frequent complaints about the dox seem to be the thumb cluster and lack of keycap compatibility. There have been entire threads dedicated to discussing how to solve these problems (the thumb thread has been around for years, and I took a stab at the keycap problem, unsuccessfully, last May). After tossing around ideas in my head for a year or so, I'm thinking I'd like to prototype an ergodox-inspired keyboard as opposed to screaming into the wind waiting for someone else to do it. 

Here's what I have in mind:







This keyboard would be completely supported by 'normal' key kits (minus maybe the short shift, but that is becoming increasingly more common). I'm particularly thinking about keys that often appear in GMK sets. Because of the mismatching profiles, I think it might be advisable to occasionally hold GBs for the thumb keys like GMK Terminal is doing now.. but it would be completely compatible with most kits without an extra GB.

I have addressed the thumb cluster problem in a way that I think will be easy to adapt from the standard Ergodox design. All of the keys that would require extension/retropulsion of your thumb have been removed. The two 2u keys will remain in their current position. One of the bottom row 1u keys has been removed in favor of another thumb key. This one will measure 1.5u for spatial reasons. While I came up with this design while playing around on layout editor site, there are similar mockups in the thumb thread. I expect this change to be a point of either praise or contention. You hit the key by flexing your thumb. Some users may not like this, which is valid. It's not exactly a proper technique. However, I find it natural enough to hit the 1u key under 'M' on a standard ergodox by flexing my thumb. This is less of a flex than that.

Last (sort of), after three ergodoxes, my largest complaint is the interconnect system. It's a point of failure/frustration that is worth the benefits to many ergonomic enthusiasts.. or maybe they haven't experienced issues with the system. For those of you obsessed with a s t h e t i c, the cable that connects to the halves can be a source of annoyance. Regardless of reason, I'd like to do away with that system. Adding a number/macropad in the center allows for a little more ergonomic support for the shoulders by spacing the hands while . It's not nearly as good as the dox, but it'll beat out something like Planck.


Any feedback is welcome! I might do just do this for me, but I'd like to see if there's any interest in the design.

[yinzer]

reserved for change-log and updates

[Niomosy]

How's the remapping capabilities?  The first thing I see as problematic as a UNIX admin is the relocation of both the -_ and `~ keys.  I'd honestly leave them in their typical ANSI spots and move the Esc key to the center area or possibly down by the left Win key.

[yinzer]

How's the remapping capabilities?  The first thing I see as problematic as a UNIX admin is the relocation of both the -_ and `~ keys.  I'd honestly leave them in their typical ANSI spots and move the Esc key to the center area or possibly down by the left Win key.

How's the remapping capabilities?  The first thing I see as problematic as a UNIX admin is the relocation of both the -_ and `~ keys.  I'd honestly leave them in their typical ANSI spots and move the Esc key to the center area or possibly down by the left Win key.

That's some good input. I'll keep that in mind for future mock-ups.

As far as remapping capabilities, that's a bit down the road. If I go into prototyping, it'll likely be a simple firmware that supports a single layer. It could get more complex with more interest, but I'm starting with the basics. Right now, I'm trying to gauge interest/disinterest in the layout — having the ANSI modifiers as they are, the changes to thumb cluster, addition of center keys. This is super early yet.

[vvp]

You do not need to develop firmware which supports on-the-fly remap and macros. I guess most open firmwares have these features. And I'm sure at least chris' and suka's firmware support remap/macros:
https://github.com/chrisandreae/keyboard-firmware
https://github.com/frobiac/adnw

[tp4tissue]

Tenting... this is all for naught.. without tenting..

[mamcx]

Whoa!, look like I have something similar:

https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=87201.0

[yinzer]

Tenting... this is all for naught.. without tenting..

It's not necessarily outside of the realm of possibility. Though, it wasn't really something I planned on. Do you think the angle would need to be adjustable or could there be a fixed position?

[Findecanor]

The problem with keycap compatibility is not that sets are not supporting it but that the 1.5 wide keys are not manufactured for all rows. If there is an option for 1×1 keys in the outer columns then users could just use blank keys for those columns.

I think also that people do like the extra keys that the ErgoDox has on inner columns and thumb clusters. Those could be more important than having the function keys in the middle of the keyboard.

Edit:
That said, I once did a survey about what people did want in an ergo keyboard, and function keys was one of the options that got some of the most votes.

BTW. If you plan to offer PCB, there are a few other things you can do to improve on the ErgoDox design:
* Make the thumb cluster in its own small little area on the PCB that can be broken away and reattached with a ribbon cable. That way custom cases for the keyboard could support it at a different angle. Look at how the Transformers DD and Red Scarf series work.
* Not too small offsets between columns.
* Options for 1×1 keys in outer columns and on thumb keys (bugs in some revisions of the ErgoDox)
* PCB-mount support throughout on PCB. (not in every revision of the ErgoDox)

[tp4tissue]

Tenting... this is all for naught.. without tenting..

It's not necessarily outside of the realm of possibility. Though, it wasn't really something I planned on. Do you think the angle would need to be adjustable or could there be a fixed position?

adjustable.

it must be adjustable..


No single angle is going to accomodate all typing surface heights, because they change relative to person / habit / technique / chair / desk / slouching angle /

[hoggy]

I like the layout -reminds me heavily of the Maltron 2D

[yinzer]

I like the layout -reminds me heavily of the Maltron 2D

Not sure how I missed the Maltron. I'm not as well versed in less common keyboards, but I'm 100% going to need to study up on that one.

I guess this is essentially a Maltron on a diet.

[yinzer]

The problem with keycap compatibility is not that sets are not supporting it but that the 1.5 wide keys are not manufactured for all rows. If there is an option for 1×1 keys in the outer columns then users could just use blank keys for those columns.

I think also that people do like the extra keys that the ErgoDox has on inner columns and thumb clusters. Those could be more important than having the function keys in the middle of the keyboard.

Edit:
That said, I once did a survey about what people did want in an ergo keyboard, and function keys was one of the options that got some of the most votes.

BTW. If you plan to offer PCB, there are a few other things you can do to improve on the ErgoDox design:
* Make the thumb cluster in its own small little area on the PCB that can be broken away and reattached with a ribbon cable. That way custom cases for the keyboard could support it at a different angle. Look at how the Transformers DD and Red Scarf series work.
* Not too small offsets between columns.
* Options for 1×1 keys in outer columns and on thumb keys (bugs in some revisions of the ErgoDox)
* PCB-mount support throughout on PCB. (not in every revision of the ErgoDox)

This is all very solid info. Any PCB design is way down the road, but with the suggestion of adding tenting, I was thinking that something like that would have to come into play.

As far as keyset compatibility, you're absolutely right.. it's not really not hard to fill in empty spots with blanks. That's how I do it with my dox

I'm excited for the GMK Terminal child buy because it means that there will finally be some cherry profile 1.5 R3 caps out there ... AFAIK, those did not exist previously, but I wouldn't swear by it.

I think the motivation for using standard(ish) modifiers is more about keycap aesthetics than anything else. I know that matters to a lot of folks, myself included. When I was running my 'standard ergodox keyset' IC, the feedback I got from a few keyset designers was that larger universal kits are the most cost effective way and to run a GB and there's no way they are jacking up prices to accommodate ergodoxes. So, this is a different approach at that problem.

[tp4tissue]

The problem with keycap compatibility is not that sets are not supporting it but that the 1.5 wide keys are not manufactured for all rows. If there is an option for 1×1 keys in the outer columns then users could just use blank keys for those columns.

I think also that people do like the extra keys that the ErgoDox has on inner columns and thumb clusters. Those could be more important than having the function keys in the middle of the keyboard.

Edit:
That said, I once did a survey about what people did want in an ergo keyboard, and function keys was one of the options that got some of the most votes.

BTW. If you plan to offer PCB, there are a few other things you can do to improve on the ErgoDox design:
* Make the thumb cluster in its own small little area on the PCB that can be broken away and reattached with a ribbon cable. That way custom cases for the keyboard could support it at a different angle. Look at how the Transformers DD and Red Scarf series work.
* Not too small offsets between columns.
* Options for 1×1 keys in outer columns and on thumb keys (bugs in some revisions of the ErgoDox)
* PCB-mount support throughout on PCB. (not in every revision of the ErgoDox)

This is all very solid info. Any PCB design is way down the road, but with the suggestion of adding tenting, I was thinking that something like that would have to come into play.

As far as keyset compatibility, you're absolutely right.. it's not really not hard to fill in empty spots with blanks. That's how I do it with my dox

Show Image

I'm excited for the GMK Terminal child buy because it means that there will finally be some cherry profile 1.5 R3 caps out there ... AFAIK, those did not exist previously, but I wouldn't swear by it.

I think the motivation for using standard(ish) modifiers is more about keycap aesthetics than anything else. I know that matters to a lot of folks, myself included. When I was running my 'standard ergodox keyset' IC, the feedback I got from a few keyset designers was that larger universal kits are the most cost effective way and to run a GB and there's no way they are jacking up prices to accommodate ergodoxes. So, this is a different approach at that problem.

did they do up the stabilizer holes on the ergodox infinity.. my original ergodox requires some fanangling to get costar stabilizers to seat properly

[buckyballs]

am still reeling from the word 'retropulsion'!

[RominRonin]

Looks very interesting, I like what you did with the outside columns (keycap sizes).

Tenting... this is all for naught.. without tenting..

It's not necessarily outside of the realm of possibility. Though, it wasn't really something I planned on. Do you think the angle would need to be adjustable or could there be a fixed position?

adjustable.

it must be adjustable..


No single angle is going to accomodate all typing surface heights, because they change relative to person / habit / technique / chair / desk / slouching angle /

I'm building (attempting) a board with an adjustable tent. What range of angles would you suggest I should accommodate?

[tp4tissue]

I'm building (attempting) a board with an adjustable tent. What range of angles would you suggest I should accommodate?

Up to 55 degrees is do-able without huge complexity.

for 70 degrees or more, you have to start weighing down the outside edge.  too much torque causing the edge to lift off the surface.

[solarundies]

I'm sorry if this has already been asked, but I couldn't see whether or not you were imagining this as a keyboard in a single case or multiple. Your comment about the link between boards alludes to it, but I don't want to be presumptuous.