if ED says he'll look at it, then there might be a reason to update it...
Doubt ED gave it a second glance.
But I still want to look at it soon.
Keymat hardware design is almost finished, so it's time for the layout, whether I like that or not.
The crux here is that hardware design cant be done before considering implementation. Ideally it just works out, but practically its a bit back and forth.
I understand nailing down the matrix of
where the keys are on the PCB (printed circuit board) to work out what the thumb/keymat can do while maximising buttons in the limited space, that much is the frame-set of things, but the insight gained with consideration is that joining two of them, to get dual space on the side isn't good. For the button itself, for the rest of the layout, for the visuals.
This is why there is a huge loss to be made from going about the process of making choices sequentially, with only limited research you are banking on foresight. What we learnt from the Jolla
TOHKBD is that not only in design stage did the dualwide buttons on the side have no specific extra functionality because of the width, but also in practice. This was however a known, deliberate design-choice, which is respectable considering the amount of buttons the TOHKBD has.
No such luxury on the pyra, so making it a narrow consideration, cuts out a lot of potential, and in turn a lot of people as a result.
TOHKBD also follows convention of a 10-finger keyboard, with the benefit that brings in terms of recognition, but it is not as effective for two-thumbs.
What is on the TOHKBD a fair tradeoff, and a reasonable set of choices, on the pyra amounts to ruining efficiency and adaptability in the process of only gaining to little to be what TOHKBD is, making it a master of none. With all the details worked out, and a 5 row design out of the question, the pieces fall together.
Edit: Full disclosure and insight into many many months of work, with none of the usual 'keyboard-thread' drag to it,
here.