geekhack
geekhack Community => Keyboards => Topic started by: QuadGMoto on Wed, 12 March 2014, 13:02:17
-
In another thread there is someone who argued that a keyboard with short throw switches is superior to full mechanical keyboards, and that of course, geekhack members are biased against that position because we're here. The subject is off topic for that thread, so I'm starting this one to discuss it specifically, both to answer his claim, and because there are things I don't know on the subject that interest me.
So…
First of all, it seems obvious to me that there are two kinds of people who use keyboards: those who don't think about how good or bad the keyboard they're using is, and those who do. The former group seems to me to be those people that just use whatever keyboard their computer came with, and if they think about it all, just think "stupid keyboard" and stop there.
It's the second group that's more interesting for this discussion. I've been around long enough to see that there are a lot of people in this group that wind up in the full throw (3.5-4.0 mm) mechanical switch camp, because that's what tends to wind up on keyboards. The key question is "Why?"
Is it that there is a real advantage to full throw switches? Is it because that's all that's available for enthusiasts/thinkers to migrate to? Is it because we're all too dumb to know better? Is it just simpler to engineer? Something else?
I happen to think it's because there are inherent advantages to full throw switches. They just work better with how humans use our hands. But if there is not any inherent advantages to such switches, then I would think there should be other boards on the internet for enthusiasts of short throw or other kinds of keyboard switches where members think their switches are better than full throw. As far as I know, there is not such a site, which suggests that full throw switches are generally superior for most people, and that short throw switches are a necessary compromise for portability. So that leads to the question, are there such sites for users who prefer keyboards using something other than full throw mechanical switches?
Have any reliable studies been done on the subject?
-
Well, the historical reason is that typewriters needed a certain amount of throw to move the levers, and typewriter keyboards were inspired by pianos and harpsichords, etc., which used similar amounts of travel.
Through all that history (of musical instruments, and typewriters, and computer keyboards) I’m sure there were various attempts to make keys with different amounts of key travel. There was a bunch of research put into the topic in the 60s and 70s, I believe. But the studies I’ve seen weren’t especially conclusive or convincing and allowed a pretty wide range of travel among what they considered acceptable. (Maybe someone can track down some better studies?)
Unfortunately the relevant page in this book http://books.google.com/books?id=WuQbERgXR10C&pg=PA1297 isn’t part of the preview that google books will show to me.
Personally, I prefer at least about 2-3mm of key travel, with at least 1mm of travel after the tactile/actuation point. If I were to design my ideal switch, it would have maybe 4mm of travel, with a medium-stiffness tactile point about 1-1.5mm from the top, a very sharp drop in force at that point and some kind of crisp sound (not too loud, but sharp; could be produced by a moving part, or by a speaker or something), and in the last 1mm of travel the force would increase steadily so that no reasonable keypress would fully depress the switch. There would be no other sound from the keypress, and the key action would be frictionless and stable, no matter where the finger struck the keycap. [This would be easier to describe by just drawing a picture, probably :)]
* * *
There are definitely folks who prefer shorter-throw switches. I think part of the issue is that these haven’t been, in other aspects (e.g. tactile and audio feedback, smoothness, nice force curve), very good. For instance, there are the buttons on calculators, computer mice, video game controllers, telephones, the shutter buttons on cameras, etc. But most of these are quite awful, judged by the standards of nice full-throw keyboard switches, and their primary design criterion has been low production cost.
But for instance, look at this guy: http://mykeyboard.co.uk/microswitch/ (As he mods them, his switches are relatively short travel [like 3mm with actuation a bit after 1mm? he says in his video that he would prefer even less travel] and like 10-15 grams-force.)
Or look at the DataHand: very short throw.
* * *
I also think the optimal travel distance depends a lot on how the switch is intended to interact with the hand, i.e. which muscles/joints are used to press the switch, and what position the hand is in. For instance, for a squeezing motion using mainly the proximal interphalangeal joint (the second joint in the fingers), I expect the ideal travel distance is shorter than for a motion relying on whole-finger movement using the metacarpophalangeal joint (the one between the finger and the palm) which has a stronger and more flexible muscle/tendon attached. So in other words, I would expect the ideal travel distance is longer for a typewriter-key-press type motion than for a trigger-squeeze type motion.
There might also be differences in ideal travel distance between different fingers, or between the fingers and the thumb.
If the same finger is going to be used repeatedly to press different keys, such as is typically the case for a calculator or telephone, the ideal travel distance may also be less.
But I’m just speculating here. It would be nice to see some solid research.
-
Unfortunately the relevant page in this book http://books.google.com/books?id=WuQbERgXR10C&pg=PA1297 isn’t part of the preview that google books will show to me.
Actually that link was very helpful. You tried to link to page 1297, but the concluding summary is shown on pg 1299, which is available:
The literature on actuation force and travel indicates minimal effect on performance within a wide range of these parameters. Recommended values range form about 1 to 5 ounces (about 28 to 142 grams) of force and about 0.05 to 0.25 inches (about 1.3 to 6.4 mm) of travel. The increased error rates for Akagi's (1992) light touch keyboards combined with Loricchio's (1992) results suggest that about 55 to 60 grams is a good design point for key force, but 35 grams is too light. These data and conclusions are consistent with the ANSI/HFS 100-1998 standard's recommendation to provide a key travel between 1.5 and 6.0 mm (preferred 2.0 to 4.0 mm) and key force between 25 and 153 grams (preferred 50 to 60 grams) (Human Factors Society, 1988), particularly with respect to the preferred key force.
More important than the amount of force and travel is the tactile feedback caused by a gradual increase in force followed by a sharp decrease in force required to actuate the key (the breakaway force) and a subsequent increase in force beyond this point for cushioning. The result is a curve shaped like a roller coaster. From the data available, keyboards should provide tactile feedback because it improves keying performance and typists prefer it. Capacitive and membrane keys that require only a minimal touch and little or no travel are inferior to conventional keys in terms of typing performance.
Gee, that description of the recommended force curve sounds suspiciously familiar… Hmmmmm… ;D
I would say that's pretty conclusive. And not surprisingly, it lines up with most geekhackers' thinking on the subject.
It seems that book would be very helpful for anyone designing any part of the human/computer interface. But that price… :eek:
-
Actually that link was very helpful. You tried to link to page 1297, but the concluding summary is shown on pg 1299, which is available:
The literature on actuation force and travel indicates minimal effect on performance within a wide range of these parameters. Recommended values range form about 1 to 5 ounces (about 28 to 142 grams) of force and about 0.05 to 0.25 inches (about 1.3 to 6.4 mm) of travel. The increased error rates for Akagi's (1992) light touch keyboards combined with Loricchio's (1992) results suggest that about 55 to 60 grams is a good design point for key force, but 35 grams is too light. These data and conclusions are consistent with the ANSI/HFS 100-1998 standard's recommendation to provide a key travel between 1.5 and 6.0 mm (preferred 2.0 to 4.0 mm) and key force between 25 and 153 grams (preferred 50 to 60 grams) (Human Factors Society, 1988), particularly with respect to the preferred key force.
More important than the amount of force and travel is the tactile feedback caused by a gradual increase in force followed by a sharp decrease in force required to actuate the key (the breakaway force) and a subsequent increase in force beyond this point for cushioning. The result is a curve shaped like a roller coaster. From the data available, keyboards should provide tactile feedback because it improves keying performance and typists prefer it. Capacitive and membrane keys that require only a minimal touch and little or no travel are inferior to conventional keys in terms of typing performance.
Gee, that description of the recommended force curve sounds suspiciously familiar… Hmmmmm… ;D
I would say that's pretty conclusive. And not surprisingly, it lines up with most geekhackers' thinking on the subject.
It seems that book would be very helpful for anyone designing any part of the human/computer interface. But that price… :eek:
That actually sounds more like a Topre switch than anything.
-
Gee, that description of the recommended force curve sounds suspiciously familiar… Hmmmmm… ;D
I would say that's pretty conclusive.
I don’t think it’s very conclusive at all. All the research I’ve seen (though I’m not an expert and haven’t done any kind of thorough literature review) was pretty limited in experimental design, with small sample sizes, flawed experiments, overblown conclusions. Often these kinds of “recommendations” are just based on what the authors have seen/tried already, not on any kind of exhaustive search of the design space.
-
If a key switch is properly tactile then the more travel, the better.
-
Not really relevant to the discussion, but I recently used a mechanical keyboard with a 2mm throw distance (Acorn Electron), and it's quite nice. I didn't try the thing with the power on, but I presume the activation point is the bottom out point, so it still actuates at the same distance as a Cherry, it's just the bottoming out is the "tactile" point. ;)
It's also one of the nicest thunks I've heard in a keyboard. It is linear, but I don't think linear/tactile is very relevant on a keyboard with such a short travel.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Acorn_Electron_4x3.jpg)
-
It's really weird for me, I like OEM profile because it feels more "full travel" while Cherry profile feels like it cut short and it's awkward even though most people on geekhack like Cherry profile.
BUT I also really like Cherry ML switch which is a short travel switch. And I also like typing on scissor switch keyboards, so I don't know the justification to this.
I wish they make a proper size Cherry ML keyboard though, at the moment Cherry ML is designed to be compact so the key spacing is a bit smaller than conventional spacing and it feels cramped to type on.
:(
-
If a key switch is properly tactile then the more travel, the better.
Even if it isn't tactile... who doesn't like a cloud of boobs?
-
Not really relevant to the discussion, but I recently used a mechanical keyboard with a 2mm throw distance (Acorn Electron), and it's quite nice. I didn't try the thing with the power on, but I presume the activation point is the bottom out point, so it still actuates at the same distance as a Cherry, it's just the bottoming out is the "tactile" point. ;)
On the wiki, I've got those switches down as ca. 2.7 mm travel, but a test with my callipers suggests closer to 3.0 mm.
http://deskthority.net/wiki/Futaba_low-profile_linear
I've tested actuation distance with a meter — it's in the region of half travel.
It's still comparatively short travel (compared to 3.5 mm for Alps, 4 mm for Cherry MX) but it's not what I would call short travel.
-
On the wiki, I've got those switches down as ca. 2.7 mm travel, but a test with my callipers suggests closer to 3.0 mm.
Nice. I measured the travel with a tape measure but that isn't a very accurate way of measuring. I definitely noticed how much less travel they had to Cherry switches, so I'm surprised it's as much as 3mm.
Anyway, I stand corrected.
-
Actually that link was very helpful. You tried to link to page 1297, but the concluding summary is shown on pg 1299, which is available:
The literature on actuation force and travel indicates minimal effect on performance within a wide range of these parameters. Recommended values range form about 1 to 5 ounces (about 28 to 142 grams) of force and about 0.05 to 0.25 inches (about 1.3 to 6.4 mm) of travel. The increased error rates for Akagi's (1992) light touch keyboards combined with Loricchio's (1992) results suggest that about 55 to 60 grams is a good design point for key force, but 35 grams is too light. These data and conclusions are consistent with the ANSI/HFS 100-1998 standard's recommendation to provide a key travel between 1.5 and 6.0 mm (preferred 2.0 to 4.0 mm) and key force between 25 and 153 grams (preferred 50 to 60 grams) (Human Factors Society, 1988), particularly with respect to the preferred key force.
More important than the amount of force and travel is the tactile feedback caused by a gradual increase in force followed by a sharp decrease in force required to actuate the key (the breakaway force) and a subsequent increase in force beyond this point for cushioning. The result is a curve shaped like a roller coaster. From the data available, keyboards should provide tactile feedback because it improves keying performance and typists prefer it. Capacitive and membrane keys that require only a minimal touch and little or no travel are inferior to conventional keys in terms of typing performance.
Gee, that description of the recommended force curve sounds suspiciously familiar… Hmmmmm… ;D
I would say that's pretty conclusive. And not surprisingly, it lines up with most geekhackers' thinking on the subject.
It seems that book would be very helpful for anyone designing any part of the human/computer interface. But that price… :eek:
That actually sounds more like a Topre switch than anything.
Key term being 'sharp decrease in force'. Topre does not fit that description at all. This would describe beam and buckling spring, primarily, unless anyone knows of other switches that perform in similar manner.
-
Key term being 'sharp decrease in force'. Topre does not fit that description at all. This would describe beam and buckling spring, primarily, unless anyone knows of other switches that perform in similar manner.
Orange omrons, good condition clicky Alps switches, and SMK alps mount switches are all pretty sharply tactile. (Matias quiet switches are also pretty good. Not *quite* as sharp, I think.) It’ll be nice to get some real measurements.
-
It's really weird for me, I like OEM profile because it feels more "full travel" while Cherry profile feels like it cut short and it's awkward even though most people on geekhack like Cherry profile.
I really don’t understand this. The movement is identical in both cases, it's just starting from a slightly different point. I guess having your finger at a higher point above the switch might slightly increase the amount of wobble you’d experience, having a marginally heavier keycap might very slightly decrease the amount of force required, and the different keycap shape might have an effect on the sound. The tactile differences are probably going to be pretty marginal though.
-
Key term being 'sharp decrease in force'. Topre does not fit that description at all. This would describe beam and buckling spring, primarily, unless anyone knows of other switches that perform in similar manner.
Orange omrons, good condition clicky Alps switches, and SMK alps mount switches are all pretty sharply tactile. (Matias quiet switches are also pretty good. Not *quite* as sharp, I think.) It’ll be nice to get some real measurements.
Manufacturer provided force curves for topre and beam/buckling spring can be directly compared... not so much for the various alps-ish variants and flavors. Sadly, end user experiences are not comparable due to their inherent subjectivity, so as you've said real measurements would be required :(
-
Manufacturer provided force curves for topre and beam/buckling spring can be directly compared... not so much for the various alps-ish variants and flavors. Sadly, end user experiences are not comparable due to their inherent subjectivity, so as you've said real measurements would be required :(
These manufacturer-provided force curves aren’t very accurate though, unfortunately. HaaTa’s force measurement rig has a few kinks that still need to be worked out, but hopefully we can make some better graphs in the near future, including all of these switch types.
-
It's really weird for me, I like OEM profile because it feels more "full travel" while Cherry profile feels like it cut short and it's awkward even though most people on geekhack like Cherry profile.
I really don’t understand this. The movement is identical in both cases, it's just starting from a slightly different point. I guess having your finger at a higher point above the switch might slightly increase the amount of wobble you’d experience, having a marginally heavier keycap might very slightly decrease the amount of force required, and the different keycap shape might have an effect on the sound. The tactile differences are probably going to be pretty marginal though.
it's hand tension.
very minor amount, but it's still there.
typing on a 3in tall key is different than typing on a chiclet simply due to how high your fingers are arched back (not everyone lifts their wrists when they type).
-
It's really weird for me, I like OEM profile because it feels more "full travel" while Cherry profile feels like it cut short and it's awkward even though most people on geekhack like Cherry profile.
I really don’t understand this. The movement is identical in both cases, it's just starting from a slightly different point. I guess having your finger at a higher point above the switch might slightly increase the amount of wobble you’d experience, having a marginally heavier keycap might very slightly decrease the amount of force required, and the different keycap shape might have an effect on the sound. The tactile differences are probably going to be pretty marginal though.
it's hand tension.
very minor amount, but it's still there.
typing on a 3in tall key is different than typing on a chiclet simply due to how high your fingers are arched back (not everyone lifts their wrists when they type).
I don’t follow here. You should always have your wrists appropriately floating above the keyboard, and you should adjust your chair/desk as necessary to put the tops of the keycaps in a reasonable position relative to your body. If you need a wrist-rest or whatever, just get a taller one for taller keycaps / shorter one for shorter keycaps.
But even assuming you have your wrist resting on the table, and a higher keycap forces you into an even more uncomfortable wrist position – or even if you are double-jointed at your metacarpophalangeal joints and can bend your fingers upward – I don’t see how that has any relation to the travel distance of the switch.
-
you SHOULD. but most people don't. people rest their wrists/bottom of palms on their desk/wrist rest.
people don't 'feel' the switch. they feel how their hands respond to the switch. such as: they receive 'concussive' force through their fingers when the switch bottoms out.
cause: the switch bottoms out
effect: the user feels a sudden force(stopping)
with taller keycaps, there is additional tension in their hand even in the resting position. we are not measuring how the switch feels, we are measuring how the user and their hands feel.
if you want more evidence, just punch a concrete wall. the wall will not have been affected, I guarantee you your hand will be in more pain than it was before.
-
I just don’t buy that, if you line two keyboards up on the table, and try typing on each one back-to-back, you’ll have an impression that the travel distance of the switch is different, based on the keycap.
-
if you want more evidence, just punch a concrete wall. the wall will not have been affected, I guarantee you your hand will be in more pain than it was before.
Imagine I punch a concrete wall. Then I move a concrete wall a foot closer and punch it again.
In both cases, the travel distance of the concrete is going to be approximately zero.
-
yes. that's my point.
we KNOW that the travel distance of an SA- vs DSA-capped switched is the same.
yet, users say it is not.
so what are the differences between an SA-capped switch and a DSA one?:
-SA is higher, adding tension to the user's hand
-different keycap weights (i think this is the case here, but I remember someone saying that imsto is the same weight as oem)
-angle of keycap
those are the only differences between keycaps that i'm aware of (pretty sure double-shot doesn't affect feel...). So it's the combination of those factors that causes someone to 'feel' more key travel
EDIT:
obviously each of these factors would offer a VERY minute difference, but there's not very much key travel in the first place, so the percentages are relatively high
-
those are the only differences between keycaps that i'm aware of (pretty sure double-shot doesn't affect feel...). So it's the combination of those factors that causes someone to 'feel' more key travel
Yeah, and what I’m saying is that I don’t think people actually feel more travel, and any such impression is either (a) just based on faulty memory rather than comparing the two side-by-side, or (b) not really an impression of changed travel distance, but rather some other factor, that isn’t being adequately described.
* * *
Edit: I’m not trying to be a jerk here. I just find it hard to believe that keycap profile would have any substantive impact on perception of travel distance.
Anyway, back to discussing the effects of switch changes ...
-
In another thread there is someone who argued that a keyboard with short throw switches is superior to full mechanical keyboards, and that of course, geekhack members are biased against that position because we're here.
In the other thread, jacobulus made certain claims. I asked him to support them with citations but it appeared he was unable to do so.
-
In another thread there is someone who argued that a keyboard with short throw switches is superior to full mechanical keyboards, and that of course, geekhack members are biased against that position because we're here.
In the other thread, jacobulus made certain claims. I asked him to support them with citations but it appeared he was unable to do so.
He did back them up. You just waved them off with fallacious excuses like the one I mentioned.
-
I think that the travel distance, as with switch choice, is all about preference and usage. There's also some ways to reduce travel if needed for some switches (like o-rings).
Personally, when I type, I prefer the full travel and a good amount of tactility and I start liking the click of my F a lot.
When I game, I find it more efficient with a little less travel, but not much. And I recently switched to my XT at home where I mostly game and I like it even if I think that my Filco with browns is maybe better that gaming itself, but by a not significant amount. I think that the layout is the only real issue but it's hard for me to test.
One thing for sure, is that the travel and behavior of the switch is all about the feeling and feedback. And that's preference. But I am pretty sure that if a real study was conducted, there would be some general preferences for sure, and I am pretty sure that most people would prefer switches with at least the travel you get from a cherry switch with a small o-ring. After that it would be personal preference and usage (typing versus gaming mostly).
If you always used a keyboard with domes or scissors and so a very small travel, getting used to a mech keyboard with much more travel needs some time to get used to, but once you use both, I am pretty sure that a vast majority would prefer the travel since it's a part of the feedback from the key.
If you push the reflection to the limit, you could say that a no travel keyboard would be optimal (these laser keyboards), but I am sure they are quite the worst to use in real life because of the lack of feedback other than your fingers crushing the desk.
-
In another thread there is someone who argued that a keyboard with short throw switches is superior to full mechanical keyboards, and that of course, geekhack members are biased against that position because we're here.
In the other thread, jacobulus made certain claims. I asked him to support them with citations but it appeared he was unable to do so.
He did back them up. You just waved them off with fallacious excuses like the one I mentioned.
In another thread there is someone who argued that a keyboard with short throw switches is superior to full mechanical keyboards, and that of course, geekhack members are biased against that position because we're here.
In the other thread, jacobulus made certain claims. I asked him to support them with citations but it appeared he was unable to do so.
He did back them up. You just waved them off with fallacious excuses like the one I mentioned.
Which citations were provided by him? I couldn't find them.
-
Rather than spend time on what you can read for yourself, I'll just focus on your excuse (which was in response to the evidence you just claimed he didn't give).
Show me a keyboard enthusiast board where the denizens think that short and ultra-short notebook style keyswitches are superior to full throw mechanical switches. That would be evidence that it's entirely personal preference, and that full throw switches are not the result of figuring out what works best for normal humans.
-
Rather than spend time on what you can read for yourself, I'll just focus on your excuse (which was in response to the evidence you just claimed he didn't give).
Stop your evasion and answer a simple question: Which citations were provided by him that support his claims?
-
Rather than spend time on what you can read for yourself, I'll just focus on your excuse (which was in response to the evidence you just claimed he didn't give).
Stop your evasion and answer a simple question: Which citations were provided by him that support his claims?
The ones you responded to by claiming that geekhackers are just biased because this is mechanical keyboard forum. If he did not give such evidence, then such a response is a response to nothing.
You've been given evidence, including a link he posted on the other thread, and a second link he posted here (which I quoted). But you have just refused to offer any counter-evidence. That means you are the one being evasive. And dare I say it…?
-
Rather than spend time on what you can read for yourself, I'll just focus on your excuse (which was in response to the evidence you just claimed he didn't give).
Stop your evasion and answer a simple question: Which citations were provided by him that support his claims?
The ones you responded to by claiming that geekhackers are just biased because this is mechanical keyboard forum.
Where did I say this? Quote me.
You've been given evidence, including a link he posted on the other thread, and a second link he posted here (which I quoted).
You mean the reference that he himself admits is far from conclusive?
-
Where did I say this? Quote me.
Here:
Yeah, because this enthusiasts' forum is of course representative of most people.
You mean the reference that he himself admits is far from conclusive?
Where's your counter-evidence?
:: sniff :: sniff ::
Hmmm… Smells like…
-
Where did I say this? Quote me.
Here:
Yeah, because this enthusiasts' forum is of course representative of most people.
Out of context quote. This was not in response to anything Jacobulus said.
You mean the reference that he himself admits is far from conclusive?
Where's your counter-evidence?[/quote]
Lack of evidence for one side is not proof of the other.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
-
Out of context quote. This was not in response to anything Jacobulus said.
It was in response to me summarizing what he and several other people had already said to you. Anyone can go back and check the thread for themselves.
Lack of evidence for one side is not proof of the other.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
From that link:
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.[citation needed] See also Occam's razor (prefer the explanation with the least assumptions).
There is evidence already given. (Argument from Ignorance is arguing from no evidence at all, or wildly insufficient evidence. Decades of of practical experience certainly does not seem to qualify as insufficient evidence.) Given Occam's razor, the simplest explanation that fits the available evidence is the most likely explanation. There are good reasons to conclude, given the absence of evidence to the contrary, that full-throw mechanical switches are likely to be the optimal switch style for most people. But like all theories, it can be changed if something falsifies that theory—as in something more than your unsupported assertions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof))
-
Jesus christ. Can we stop this now?
Instead of spending our breath on arguing whether or not I properly backed up my assertion (that full-throw switches are more comfortable, reduce errors, and prevent injuries), or examining the philosophical implications of various rhetorical strategies, let’s try to stick to the topic, ’mkay?
If anyone can reference some solid studies about this, I’d love to hear it. As I explained back there, I’m not a full-time human factors researcher, and I have not done a thorough literature review, nor have a saved any notes file with links to the studies I’ve skimmed because I really don’t care enough for it. In general, I have been unsatisfied with studies about aspects of keyboard design, and I have not seen any studies comparing scissor switches to common full-travel mechanical switches.
I’m sure there are studies comparing scissor switches to full-travel rubber domes, but I haven’t looked for them or read any. I have seen studies which purported to show that 2 or 3 types of full-travel mechanical switches were superior (in error rate, typing speed, user preference, and injury reduction) to rubber dome switches. I have also seen studies which purported to show that clear tactile and audio feedback improved speed and accuracy and were preferred by users. I have also seen studies which measured impact force on the fingers and found that it was reduced when using a mechanical keyswitch with a couple millimeters of post-actuation travel, compared to a rubber dome with actuation at bottom-out. I don’t have links to these studies and I’m not going to spend 5 hours right now reading through research papers and picking out the most useful ones for you.
You’re right, this evidence is not satisfying. Much more satisfying is my personal experience and anecdotal evidence from friends and colleagues who have found full-travel mechanical keyswitches to improve their comfort, speed, and accuracy. (It’s of course possible those effects were partially placebo or similar.)
I’d suggest that anyone who prefers scissor switches to good-condition full-travel mechanical keyswitches is either overawed by the shiny appearance, or suffering from Stockholm syndrome, but that would be mean. I actually know a couple folks who like them, and they don’t seem too psychologically abnormal.
shaaniqbal: however good your intentions, your discussion style is argumentative and unproductive, which is quite unpleasant.
QuadGMoto: please stop flaming (i.e. rising to flame-bait, “feeding the troll”)
-
learn to embrace difference you must
without learn, know you will not. ignorant you will be.
too quickly down the path of ignorance you will go; to fear, to hate, to suffering, to SpAm.
from this path you must stray, else you may become ray.
-
It seems like this entire argument is not why you should use full throw switches but why mechanical is better than scissor.
There are short throw mechanicals out there you know? I've been using them along side full throw switches for 3 years, each has their own benefits.
I encourage anyone who wants to really know if full throw is better for them to try one out. Your not getting anywhere trying to extrapolate from studies that are comparing different types of switches.
-
There are short throw mechanicals out there you know? I've been using them along side full throw switches for 3 years, each has their own benefits.
Which short-throw mechanical switches do you use? Do you like them as well as full-travel switches? Does using one type or another have any substantial impact on your typing speed, accuracy, or enjoyment?
For example, I am not a fan of these switches, or the ~2 other types of lowish-travel switches I’ve tried.
http://deskthority.net/wiki/Alps_low_profile
http://deskthority.net/wiki/Cherry_ML
-
You know, I've seen a number of studies that proved Santa Claus was real. I can't find them right now so you'll just have to find them yourself. Many children agree with me though so I must be right. Any so called "rational" person who disagrees or asks for citations for the studies is a troll. There are plenty of children who've seen him with Rudolph and gotten gifts. There's even a forum on the Internet where people agree. That is irrefutable evidence you can't argue with.
-
You know, I've seen a number of studies that proved Santa Claus was real. I can't find them right now so you'll just have to find them yourself. Many children agree with me though so I must be right. Any so called "rational" person who disagrees or asks for citations for the studies is a troll. There are plenty of children who've seen him with Rudolph and gotten gifts. There's even a forum on the Internet where people agree. That is irrefutable evidence you can't argue with.
Yep, I'm calling it…
[attachimg=1]
-
"Calling someone a troll merely because they passionately disagree with you is just a way to discredit their opinion so you don’t have to actually debate them on it. It’s easier that way. It’s your very own “get out of jail free” card that you get to whip out whenever someone else challenges you too strongly.
It allows you to be right without having to actually defend your position.
And just because someone does not agree with you doesn’t make their opinion any less valid than the crowd of followers that glorify your every word. In fact, they are often more valuable. They challenge you to think differently. Write differently. And see the world differently."
http://www.marcensign.com/pussification-internet/
-
Much more satisfying is my personal experience and anecdotal evidence from friends and colleagues who have found full-travel mechanical keyswitches to improve their comfort, speed, and accuracy. (It’s of course possible those effects were partially placebo or similar.)
Much more satisfying is my personal experience and anecdotal evidence from friends and colleagues who have found short-travel scissor keyswitches to improve their comfort, speed, and accuracy. (It’s of course possible those effects were partially placebo or similar.)
-
The bottom line is this: nobody wants to have any kind of discussion with a ****. So stop with inflammatory responses and maybe we can have an enlightened discussion where everybody learns something.
Or, trolls can keep on trolling, and some admin will come along and lock this thread, and any potential for a civilized discussion goes out the window.
-
"Inflammatory reponses", rofl. Get a grip.
-
If anyone can reference some solid studies about this, I’d love to hear it. As I explained back there, I’m not a full-time human factors researcher, and I have not done a thorough literature review, nor have a saved any notes file with links to the studies I’ve skimmed because I really don’t care enough for it. In general, I have been unsatisfied with studies about aspects of keyboard design, and I have not seen any studies comparing scissor switches to common full-travel mechanical switches.
Wasn't that book you linked to supposed to be a summary of the research done up to that point? Even with problems, I find it hard to imagine that all the studies could come to the same general conclusions about length of travel, appropriate levels of force, etc. without major fundamental problems with every single one. (I've seen plenty junk science studies, but there always seem to be honest studies to contradict them.)
One possibility is simply that no one has engineered a good short throw switch. But what defines "good"? Here's what I think.
Last night I managed to find a study done by Microsoft that checked a typists accuracy in blind typing with and without their index finger numbed. (http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/34740890 (http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/34740890)) What they found was when the typist could not feel the keys, their accuracy dropped. In thinking through that study and pondering on the typing motion, I had a couple of thoughts.
The most obvious is that we humans tend to employ error correcting as we type. I'm not talking about noticing a typo and hitting backspace to correct it. What I mean is that we can feel when our fingers are off center, or that we've reached too far and gotten the edge of the next key, or whatever else we feel when we inaccurately reach for a key. That's why it's well known by most engineers that key tops need to be cupped in some fashion, and that there needs to be gaps between keys to reduce the chances of hitting more than one key at once.
This got me to pondering what we do when we do feel something wrong. If we notice something feels wrong, we can back off right away. During the typing motion, that means we've almost certainly started the keypress motion by the time we notice something is wrong due to the simple fact that there is always some delay in human reaction time.
That suggests to me that if the activation point is too high, the key can be activated during that reaction time between contacting the key and reacting to the incorrect touch. In that case, the error rate would go up because the keys are "too sensitive".
I've seen several people on GH say that bottoming out on a key leads to more RSI injury than the typist ending their keystroke before the key hits bottom. Since tactile feedback is important for typing, that suggests that a tactile indication of key activation lets a typist know that they can start releasing the key to move on to the next key. Again, given that there is a built in delay between the event and reacting to it, there needs to be a "buffer zone" in the key travel to allow for that reaction time without bottoming out.
That's my hypothesis anyway. :)
That's not to say that someone might come up with a key switch design that manages to allow for reaction times in a shorter space, or come up with a game changing idea for typing that somehow solves the reaction time conundrum. I'm also not saying that there aren't people with better reaction times that can successfully type with shorter switches. But I tend to think that those people are more towards the edges of the bell curve rather than representative of the majority of the population.
-
The bottom line is this: nobody wants to have any kind of discussion with a ****. So stop with inflammatory responses and maybe we can have an enlightened discussion where everybody learns something.
Or, trolls can keep on trolling, and some admin will come along and lock this thread, and any potential for a civilized discussion goes out the window.
Does GH have an "ignore" feature?
-
In another thread there is someone who argued that a keyboard with short throw switches is superior to full mechanical keyboards, and that of course, geekhack members are biased against that position because we're here. The subject is off topic for that thread, so I'm starting this one to discuss it specifically, both to answer his claim, and because there are things I don't know on the subject that interest me.
So…
First of all, it seems obvious to me that there are two kinds of people who use keyboards: those who don't think about how good or bad the keyboard they're using is, and those who do. The former group seems to me to be those people that just use whatever keyboard their computer came with, and if they think about it all, just think "stupid keyboard" and stop there.
It's the second group that's more interesting for this discussion. I've been around long enough to see that there are a lot of people in this group that wind up in the full throw (3.5-4.0 mm) mechanical switch camp, because that's what tends to wind up on keyboards. The key question is "Why?"
Is it that there is a real advantage to full throw switches? Is it because that's all that's available for enthusiasts/thinkers to migrate to? Is it because we're all too dumb to know better? Is it just simpler to engineer? Something else?
I happen to think it's because there are inherent advantages to full throw switches. They just work better with how humans use our hands. But if there is not any inherent advantages to such switches, then I would think there should be other boards on the internet for enthusiasts of short throw or other kinds of keyboard switches where members think their switches are better than full throw. As far as I know, there is not such a site, which suggests that full throw switches are generally superior for most people, and that short throw switches are a necessary compromise for portability. So that leads to the question, are there such sites for users who prefer keyboards using something other than full throw mechanical switches?
Have any reliable studies been done on the subject?
Looking back at the first post - so many fallacies here, don't know where to begin. Strawman, false dichotomy, bandwagon. On and on.
-
The bottom line is this: nobody wants to have any kind of discussion with a ****. So stop with inflammatory responses and maybe we can have an enlightened discussion where everybody learns something.
Or, trolls can keep on trolling, and some admin will come along and lock this thread, and any potential for a civilized discussion goes out the window.
Does GH have an "ignore" feature?
Yes, but it's well hidden. Go to http://geekhack.org/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore;u=XXXX, where XXXX is your ID. Highly recommended.
-
When I type, I sometimes think the same. Among a few mechanical-using typists I know, the consensus seems to be that while physically they may be inferior to short-travel switches for typing and responsiveness due to the greater distance, it has much of what you said about human hands' workings; also, it allows you to slightly press the key to right above the actuation, and perhaps the positive stimulus provided by the travel allows better transition between letters.
This is all theory, though, but something to consider.
-
Here’s a paper showing rubber domes vs. scissor switches:
http://faculty.washington.edu/petej/Hughes,TypingBiomechanics,HFES2011.pdf
To be honest, not a very useful paper. Here’s from the conclusion: “It was difficult to distinguish between the effects of switch mechanism and travel distance since there was no available long travel scissor switch keyboard or short travel dome keyboard available for use in the study.”
They found that the Apple scissor switch was preferred to a generic crappy rubber dome though. (Not surprising: I agree with that too.)
* * *
I don’t have access to read this paper: http://journals.lww.com/joem/Abstract/1999/02000/Effect_of_Keyboard_Keyswitch_Design_on_Hand_Pain.6.aspx
I can’t tell which switches they tried, but their abstract says “Keyboard assignment had no significant effect on change in hand function or median nerve latency. We conclude that use of keyboard A for 12 weeks led to a reduction in hand pain and an improved physical examination finding when compared with keyboard B. There was no corresponding improvement in hand function or median nerve latency.”
* * *
This paper ... http://www.researchgate.net/publication/13315321_Computer_key_switch_force-displacement_characteristics_and_short-term_effects_on_localized_fatigue/file/9c96052542b4f5a037.pdf
... talks about how when the actuation point is near the bottom of key travel, it leads to increased force at the bottom of the keypress, and describes how decreasing the distance to actuation increased typing speed. The main point of the paper seems to be that reducing the overall force required reduced the force exerted by users, and probably leads to less fatigue. Overall, I’m not super satisfied by either their experiments or the way they analyze them. Their switches were not anything in common use, but rather some hacked-together custom things, which allowed them to vary parameters.
* * *
This paper compared buckling springs to rubber domes:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/8475230_Effects_of_keyswitch_design_and_finger_posture_on_finger_joint_kinematics_and_dynamics_during_tapping_on_computer_keyswitches/file/d912f51394dd1c3992.pdf
From my quick skimming of their charts, the buckling springs come out ahead, but it’s not super easy to judge.
* * *
http://ergo.berkeley.edu/docs/1999gerardamindhygassocj.pdf
“Buckling spring keyboards have different feedback characteristics from dome keyboards such that subjects type on a 0.72 N spring keyboard with approximately the same typing force, finger flexor and extensor EMG, and subjective discomfort as they do on a 0.28 N dome keyboard.”
* * *
This paper compared buckling springs to rubber domes and also includes a low-travel rubber dome:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/51394183_Computer_keyswitch_force-displacement_characteristics_affect_muscle_activity_patterns_during_index_finger_tapping/file/d912f51394dd13e4b2.pdf
* * *
Here’s a literature review. http://iospress.metapress.com/content/l856552136tl1g71/
It’s paywalled, so I can’t see their full paper, but from the abstract:
“Results: General conclusions that can be drawn from these studies are: greater make forces result in increased keyboard reaction forces and EMG activity, users strike keys with forces 2–7 times the required make force and that they employ a ballistic finger motion to do so. Furthermore, typists tend to prefer kinesthetic and auditory feedback.
“Conclusions: Due to the ballistic nature of typing, new keyswitch designs should be aimed at reducing impact forces. Future studies should examine the role of breakaway force and over travel as limited research has been done on the role of these parameters.”
* * *
Here’s a comparison of mechanical vs. rubber dome switches from the early 1980s:
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol62-1983/articles/bstj62-6-1733.pdf
* * *
This looks pretty interesting, but I can’t access it:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=531936&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D531936
* * *
This paper seems to recommend low travel distance to actuation, but lots of post-actuation travel. I don’t have access to the full thing:
http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/39/1/130.abstract
* * *
In this paper, the abstract (full text is paywalled) seems to suggest that people preferred a buckling spring keyboard to a rubber dome, but when they had to choose between rubber domes, they preferred one that required a medium amount of force:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00028899908984499#.UyPBXNzob-k
* * *
These papers looks interesting. Anyone able to read them?
http://pro.sagepub.com/content/36/5/523.abstract
“Two keyboards had linear spring key action, one with low (key force) resistance (42.5 grams) and one with high resistance (70.9 grams). The other two keyboards had tactile (snap) action, one with low resistance (35.5 grams) and one with high resistance (70.9 grams). All four keyboards were manufactured by the same company, and were visually identical in size, layout, color, etc. There was no difference in typing sound and traveling distance among the four keyboards.”
http://pro.sagepub.com/content/28/3/267
“Both groups of typists indicated about equal preference for keyboards with snap-spring and elastomer key actions and much lower preference ratings for the keyboard with a low-resistance, linear spring key action mechanism. Fewer errors and faster typing throughput were obtained on keyboards with the elastomer key action than on the other two keyboards, equipped with snap- and linear-spring key action mechanisms.”
(Judging from a summary in another paper, what they mean by “elastomer” action is basically a tactile keyswitch with actuation/tactile point a noticeable distance before bottom-out.)
* * *
This is supposed to be a good research review:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169814102001804
But again, I don’t have access.
* * * * *
I’ve definitely skimmed several other papers in the past that I couldn’t find in a quick google scholar search. But as I said in a previous post, those papers, and the ones linked here, are all pretty unsatisfactory.
-
This paper seems to recommend low travel distance to actuation, but lots of post-actuation travel. I don’t have access to the full thing:
Activation Force and Travel effects on Overexertion in Repetitive Key Tapping
I don't want to get too involved with this topic (Don't get me started about logical fallacies), but I will say this mechanical characterisitc is exhibited in vintage "tee mount" alps switches (and likely modern alps as well). I use an IBM Pingmaster keyboard at work, and will say it's odd to use. I end up having to rework my preconceptions about how long to hold keys, I'll end up with the first two characters of a sentence being captalized, for example.
It was easy not to bottom out, and required little force and effort (and made less noise: that's why I used it at work) but I don't know if it's really the best.
Of course, the above is simply my opinion on the matter. I don't use the keyboards I do for the same reasons as other people here, so I have a different take.
edit: I have a bunch of (good for nothing) students as my roommates, I'll see if they can access some of the papers for me.
-
There was a good discussion at Deskthority:
http://deskthority.net/keyboards-f2/4mm-travel-how-did-this-become-standard-t433.html
-
Possibly useful:
http://hf.tc.faa.gov/hfds/hfds_pdfs/hfdsKeyboardsDraft.pdf
http://www.bnl.gov/humanfactors/files/pdf/NUREG-0700_Rev2.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=vzQb4zaWWl4C&pg=PA148
-
This book seems to have a lot of relevant material:
http://faculty.mu.edu.sa/public/uploads/1348476452.2611Biomechanics_of_Upper_Limbs.pdf
-
There are short throw mechanicals out there you know? I've been using them along side full throw switches for 3 years, each has their own benefits.
Which short-throw mechanical switches do you use? Do you like them as well as full-travel switches? Does using one type or another have any substantial impact on your typing speed, accuracy, or enjoyment?
For example, I am not a fan of these switches, or the ~2 other types of lowish-travel switches I’ve tried.
http://deskthority.net/wiki/Alps_low_profile
http://deskthority.net/wiki/Cherry_ML
Topre Short Throw, you will not find a better gaming switch in existence IMO. I've used it from everyone from SC2, to MOBAs (Both Dota 2 and LoL), to FPS, to even fighting game style FPS (the new GunZ for example), to actual fighting games (connect up to PS3), to psuedo fighting games (Gundam Extreme Vs.), to Rhythm games (Stepmania etc...). No full throw switch matches the accuracy speed and comfort of it for anything that's not sustained typing. Cherry ML's would also be better than full throw MX's for this if Cherry fixed the mushiness of the actuation point.
As I've said, none of anything you cited covers this or can be properly extrapolated to give any useful information when considering short throw mechanicals for gaming and control uses (and even for typing it's kind of sketchy because the improved feedback from mechanicals on a shorter travel distance will change many ergonomic considerations).
-
As I've said, none of anything you cited covers this or can be properly extrapolated to give any useful information when considering short throw mechanicals for gaming and control uses (and even for typing it's kind of sketchy because the improved feedback from mechanicals on a shorter travel distance will change many ergonomic considerations).
Well, fair enough. I haven’t seen any attempts to research switch design for use in video games or fast-reaction-time controllers. I personally use a keyboard for writing code, and for writing text, so I also haven’t thought much about such uses. Have you seen any useful papers about game-controller ergonomics in general, either about ergonomics or performance?
From pictures I’ve seen of professional video game players, they generally don’t seem to have much concern for setting up positions that avoid wrist strain (for instance, the desk/keyboard almost invariably seems to high relative to their chairs/arms), and the layout of a full-size keyboard is clearly nowhere near optimal for the keys needed by just the left hand as it presses keyboard shortcuts. I know many of the top players end up suffering serious repetitive stress injuries.
Topre Short Throw, you will not find a better gaming switch in existence IMO.
How many professional game players use short-throw topre switches? If these are self-evidently superior to everything else, you’d expect them to take over.
-
Topre Short Throw, you will not find a better gaming switch in existence IMO.
How many professional game players use short-throw topre switches? If these are self-evidently superior to everything else, you’d expect them to take over.
Not necessarily. They wouldn't sell well to the gaming market, so the big gaming companies won't pick them up. Lots of Pro gamers have sponsorship deals and will use whatever KB their sponsor requires.
The main reason they won't pick up, though, is that they are relatively unknown. They are also hard to find. I've been on the lookout for a while and not seen any.
-
Topre Short Throw, you will not find a better gaming switch in existence IMO.
How many professional game players use short-throw topre switches? If these are self-evidently superior to everything else, you’d expect them to take over.
Not necessarily. They wouldn't sell well to the gaming market, so the big gaming companies won't pick them up. Lots of Pro gamers have sponsorship deals and will use whatever KB their sponsor requires.
The main reason they won't pick up, though, is that they are relatively unknown.
Or, I would think, that most don't care too much about their boards past a certain point.
-
jacobolus,
Thanks for those links. I didn't get to check all of them, but I did find the first one and the book to be interesting.
I can definitely see the problems with the experiment in the first link. First, I think the sample size of test subjects was probably too small. Second, the variety of switch types seems to me to possibly introduce some uncontrolled variables.
Still, it seems that the study may have produced some useful information. I was both surprised and not surprised at the error rate. I've seen recommendations in the past that switch throw be between 2.0 and 6.0 mm (and the book repeats that), so I guess I should expect the error rate to be reasonably the same. Still, I did not expect there to be no statistically significant differences in error rates.
The force measurements are probably what struck me most. That the 2.5 mm throw measured the lowest amount of exerted force and that the force measured for 2.0 mm throw suggests that there's a sweet spot somewhere between the 2.0 mm and 4.0 mm distances. It also suggests that 2.0 is getting too short. Of course, that's all things being equal, and unfortunately, for this test, that was not the case.
The book mentioned that one of the studies found that 3.0 mm was optimal, but that other studies just suggested a range that includes that length. Out of curiosity, I measured the throw of my favorite switch to date, the Alps on my Apple Extended Keyboard. Using my Mark I eyeball and a ruler to take multiple measurements, I consistently got a throw depth of 3.0 mm. That seems to back up that idea.
But it also seems (based entirely on feel) that the Alps activates at 2.0 mm, just like the Cherry. That makes the total throw length unimportant for Cherry users that don't use the full 4.0 mm of travel.
It got me wondering how to test various throw lengths while avoiding the problems of varying switch types. It seems to me that the throw and activation points of Cherry MXs—especially ones like the clear—could be modified by adding material to the top and bottom of the slider. Of course, I wonder if its even economically feasibly to produce such sliders for that kind of test.
It also seems to me that the jailhouse blues mod is exactly this type of shortening of the throw. It makes the activation point sooner and the total throw shorter. Has anyone done any testing to determine if this kind of shorting is beneficial or just preference? Heck, I wonder if Cherry has done that kind of testing. They would certainly be better equipped to conduct such studies than most. (Make multiple sliders, put them in the same MX bodies, and build test keyboards and measure the results. Just about the most appropriate controlled blind study for measuring distance.)
In short, it does seem like there may be a sweet spot around 2.5 to 3.0 mm. I wonder what that is. I also still wonder what the sweet spot for activation is.
-
The book mentioned that one of the studies found that 3.0 mm was optimal, but that other studies just suggested a range that includes that length. Out of curiosity, I measured the throw of my favorite switch to date, the Alps on my Apple Extended Keyboard. Using my Mark I eyeball and a ruler to take multiple measurements, I consistently got a throw depth of 3.0 mm. That seems to back up that idea.
I think the typical Alps switch has about 3.5mm of travel to bottom out.
But it also seems (based entirely on feel) that the Alps activates at 2.0 mm, just like the Cherry. That makes the total throw length unimportant for Cherry users that don't use the full 4.0 mm of travel.
Alps switches definitely have noticeably less travel to the actuation point then Cherry MX switches. Hopefully I can measure this precisely for a variety of Alps switches in the near future.
It got me wondering how to test various throw lengths while avoiding the problems of varying switch types. It seems to me that the throw and activation points of Cherry MXs—especially ones like the clear—could be modified by adding material to the top and bottom of the slider. Of course, I wonder if its even economically feasibly to produce such sliders for that kind of test.
To increase the post-actuation travel distance, you’d need to take material off the bottom of the slider, and also add material to the top of the keycap mount. To decrease travel-to-tactile-point, you’d need to move the little bump on the slider upwards. Actually changing the actuation point may be a bit tricky. I haven’t thought enough about the inside of MX switches.
I think some other type of switch would likely be better for doing this kind of testing. The one paper which tested a bunch of possibilities built their own single switch with some parts they could tweak. (Obviously that has it’s own problems, as typing is very different from repeatedly pressing a single switch in a single position).
It also seems to me that the jailhouse blues mod is exactly this type of shortening of the throw. It makes the activation point sooner and the total throw shorter. Has anyone done any testing to determine if this kind of shorting is beneficial or just preference?
I personally think it’s beneficial to have the actuation point higher (say 1 or 1.5mm into the keypress), but maintain a substantial amount of post-actuation travel distance.
Alps is a pretty reasonable actuation point I think. I wish Alps switches had a softer bottom landing.
I find that the Model M and Model F have an actuation point which is lower than I’d prefer, and less post-actuation travel than I’d prefer. Other than that the Model F seems very very good, in terms of the way the tactile point feels, the overall weight of the switch, etc.
Cherry MX switches don’t have a very good tactile feeling in my opinion (I don’t like the plastic-on-plastic friction, or the shapes of the force curves). Their actuation points are lower than my preference.
I actually think the important measure may be amount of work required to actuate, rather than force to actuation or distance to actuation, per se. I find that the SMK alps-mount (“monterey”) switches have about the same pre-actuation travel as Cherry MX switches, but because the first part of that is very low force, the actuation point feels subjectively higher. They also have a sharper click than MX switches.
Heck, I wonder if Cherry has done that kind of testing. They would certainly be better equipped to conduct such studies than most.
Probably, but considering their target market has mainly been POS keyboards, and keyboards for office and industrial applications, where reliability and longevity are more important criteria than typist preference or productivity, they could basically coast for the past 15 years, without much substantive innovation (I guess they did introduce Cherry MX red switches ~6 years ago, but those are just a mashup of their existing switches, using the linear slider with a lighter spring). I wonder if Cherry still has any employees working directly on testing new types of keyboard switches or changes to their existing switches. I somehow doubt it’s very many people; their main recent innovation seems to be producing the same switches with transparent-plastic housings.
Unfortunately, there’s not much research going into keyswitches these days, as far as I can tell.. unlike in the 1970s/80s when there were dozens of companies working on it. New mainstream computers seem to have settled down to either rubber domes or scissor switches.
-
You know, I've seen a number of studies that proved Santa Claus was real. I can't find them right now so you'll just have to find them yourself. Many children agree with me though so I must be right. Any so called "rational" person who disagrees or asks for citations for the studies is a troll. There are plenty of children who've seen him with Rudolph and gotten gifts. There's even a forum on the Internet where people agree. That is irrefutable evidence you can't argue with.
Yep, I'm calling it…
(Attachment Link)
So I've read two threads today. Both derailed by this guy. If I was a mod here, I'd have banned him like he had aimbot.