Hi, I would like to respond and defend my proposed layout, but I would also like to make it clear that I do so with an intention to try not to criticize your keyboards and how you personally use them. I think the more keyboards on the market with different designs, the better chance we'll have to find the one that suits our particular need.
I would prefer a big numberpad 0 but other than that this is perfect for me.
That is the main reason why my proposed 80% is the size that it is. It makes no compromises on the number pad. I don't use a number pad much anymore, but if I do I want my thumb to rest in the right position. I don't think having a small 0 and especially if it is, having it in the wrong position is acceptable. I think it defeats the purpose of having a number pad, which is entering numbers as efficiently and comfortably as possible.
Your keyboard has ISO layout, not ANSI. Normally keyboards with ISO layout do have more keys, in this case your keyboard has 101 and my proposed design has 100. My layout is also wider by exactly one column of keys, so it definitely doesn't have as many keys per given area, not to mention that a number of keys are also wider because of the different layout. It also has unused empty space around keys. The unused space around keys has a purpose, however, it is very much part of the design of a keyboard that helps it function as well as it does. I also think that comparing these layouts is really not a very good comparison because there are key differences that exist simply because of the different ISO vs ANSI layouts in the main key cluster. The goal of my layout is to maximize functionality of the ANSI layout by placing the additional keys around the main cluster in optimal positions, which would be different on a keyboard with ISO layout.
I agree that the missing sixth row is silly but would argue that on a 60% is easy enough to add F keys and arrows can be one handed on a layer so for me it's either pretty much fullsize or 60% and anything between makes compromises without any benefit (adding keys in different positions on a 65% requires learning what's default and still need a layer as well as extra caps, while TKL has too much wasted space to justify it's width as well as looking weird)
You've said a lot of things in this one sentence, but I would like to respond to your points. Our visual perception of the design is subjective and would inevitably be influenced by what we see as the ultimate function.
Missing sixth row is silly, because removing it doesn't help the ergonomics of the keyboard. Saving the vertical space doesn't serve any purpose, save for carrying a few grams less if you need it to be portable. Would those grams justify the compromise in functionality is for people to decide for themselves, but having the functionality being the primary goal of the design, in my opinion, it doesn't.
Removing the arrow keys saves one column of space horizontally. Does this help the keyboard ergonomically? Absolutely. Every little bit of extra space saved horizontally means more area for the mouse to move, while the arrow keys can be mapped in any position on an Fn layer. However:
1. Arrow keys now require having an Fn key being pressed while using them. While it is possible to use only one hand for the arrow keys by having your right thumb press the Fn key, this is not the same thing as having instant access to those keys.
2. The empty space around the arrow keys, and I think for most people especially the empty space to the right of the arrow keys plays a major role in allowing those keys to be located instantly by the right hand. I don't think it would be possible to have the Fn and arrow keys accessible with the right hand only and have them in a place where they would be as easy to locate.
3. The whole purpose of not having dedicated arrow keys would be to have the keyboard narrower by one column. In my proposed layout design that would also mean having 3 additional keys less. They could even be 4 or 5. Why 3 and not 4 or 5? Because exactly those 3 keys are enough to provide instant access to three of the most used keys (plus 3 more easily accessible with Fn and one hand), while the space around them is there as a guide to help your fingers locate those keys easily.
You mention anything between 60% and full size as a compromise and not having any benefits. The benefit is maximizing functionality while saving horizontal space. That's it. A 60% keyboard is probably as small as most people would want to go before crippling the functionality too much and there is no keyboard that is smaller than a full size keyboard that will have the same functionality as a proper full size keyboard. However, I think there are layout designs in between where a great balance can be found between functionality and usable saved space.
OP: your layout is inferior to the TKL layout in that it makes very hard to press Shift+Ctrl+Left arrow with one hand.
heheh
some people dislike generic 75% keyboard because there is no spacing between the 6th and 5th row, but I guess it's mainly about aesthetic.
I'm not saying your 75% keyboard is bad but it still use layer, a bit away from the "user friendly" TKL (in which layer is not mandatory)
but if you want compact size, layer is required.
I find the missing spacing between the 5th and 6th row to be a huge compromise in the ease of use of the 6th row keys. I totally agree about the use of Fn layer for normal keys taking the design away from the "user friendly" category. I myself find TKL the optimal size for me, but if I could gain some space for my mouse with a small compromise, this is how I would be willing to do it. The standard ANSI layout is pretty much perfect as it is, but since most people don't use regularly all the keys maybe the compromise is quite small and could be justified.