OK Saber, let's look at that first post like bible scholars then.
As promised earlier in my news post, here is the thread about the keyboard layout.
First of all, thanks for all the discussions and threads you already had here at the boards - a few interesting ideas arose, and one came very close to what I had in mind.
Let's start with some facts first:
- The keyboard should be standard enough to be used by every normal user
- It should be balanced between text typing and coding
- It should have most of the keys a normal keyboard has (i.e. Pandora keyboard has issues with DosBox).
- The main languages used where the Pandora sold are English, French and German. It should support these languages as good as possible (with English being the main one)
- We should have a maximum of three characters per key: One with a single keypress, one with Shift and one with AltGr (which replaces the old Fn-Key)
- The most-used keys should get the best positions
The keyboard will have two different colored labels (so basically the same as the Pandora had).
Adding more colors will make things more expensive, and the keymat IS already more expensive because of the backlight.
Okay, of all the keyboard layouts I've seen at the threads you created, this seems to be nigh perfect in my opinion:
pU8hObm.png
What do I like about it?
- Mostly Standard QWERTY-Keyboard, including the Shift-Keys on the numbers
- Tab as a single key
- ä, ö and ü (German) as well as ' and ` (French) included
- Almost all normal characters are existant
- Even has two shift keys (useful for persons who don't use the shoulder buttons when typing, like myself
So ED said: "What do I like about it? [...]
Even has two shift keys (useful for persons who don't use the shoulder buttons when typing, like myself
"
Now, why would he use the word "even" if having two (actually three) shift keys would be a final decision that cannot be modified and is set in stone for now until eternity? Because in that case, it would not have been something optional that can be liked about your proposal, but it would have been a hard requirement that has to be satisfied before a proposal can be even considered at all.
Pretty early on in this thread, I made the following remarks about the extra shift key:
- If we have two shift keys on the keyboard AND a third shift on a shoulder button, things get confusing because no normal keyboard has THREE shift keys.
- We could make keyboard Shift sticky (like Fn on the Pandora) so it would not be particularly hard to type, say, capital W or S while holding it as a handheld and not using shoulder shift.
- I prefer to have one more dedicated key
Those arguments are still valid.
Although, since you've voiced your concerns about it multiple times, would you mind mapping another second "Right Shift" on to one of the Pandora's right corner keys, temporarily, then test that both Right Shifts work as they should for capitals, then further experiment here by pressing both of these Right Shifts together? If you or someone doesn't mind doing this, I'm interested if worlds will collide or nothing will happen.
I am sure that we can find some way to make a three Shift approach work to some extent. Probably some applications will get confused when the two Right Shifts are pressed together (they might get stuck in a Shift Lock or something, but nothing more serious than that). Most likely we will not be able to let software distinguish between the three Shift keys (which is a pity because those keyboard Shift keys would be relatively good extra game keys), or if we do, then one of them will not behave like a Shift key some of the time.
But the technical issues are only a small part of why I don't want three Shifts. It's not just software that can get confused, it's also users. And even without the confusion, we still lose a key, just to solve a 'problem' that only applies to people who don't use the shoulder buttons (which is their loss if you ask me), and which can be solved in another way: keyboard shift can be made sticky just like Fn/AltGr/Meta/whatever.
Let's look at the rest of ED's first post:
What issues are there?
- Hard to type some key combinations like ALT-F4 (as you need to press ALT, ALTGr and 4 at the same time). Only used for old DOS-Games though
- ESC is not a single key. Would be nice to have it, but not mandatory (did work with the Pandora)
- Some keys missing: ', ° and ^.
- +, - and = is a bit too far in the middle (hard to reach for these common keys). Maybe we should move them with less used keys?
What I cannot tell is:
How is the layout for devving (vim, scripts, code, etc.)?
All needed characters there?
Can most used characters be easily reached or do we need to move around a bit?
What do you think?
Please post any issues and suggestions you have here - so we can rearrange everything a bit so it's useful for everyone.
But please do NOT post completely different keyboard layouts... we had a lot of those already.
Instead, post why you like a different one better and link to it on the existing threads.
And be rational - there is NO layout everyone loves. What we need to find is the best compromise for all users and usecases.
Thanks!
Your layout hasn't taken most of those remarks into account. You still don't have a dedicated Esc key. You added acute and circumflex (which is good), but not ° (not that that's a huge problem). Your - and + are still in the same position as always. So I think you have ignored some opportunities to improve your proposal.
ED said:
"The main languages used where the Pandora sold are English, French and German. It should support these languages as good as possible (with English being the main one)"
Note that he says "English, French and German", not "English and German".
In French, the letter
é has a frequency of 1.504%. In German, the letters
ä ö ß together have a frequency of 1.328% (ä: 0.578%, ö: 0.443%, ß:0.307%). If you want to support French better, it would be best to have an easier way to type
é than [dead acute] E. That is the minimum for French. Otherwise it would be like typing German with only a dead umlaut.
I would also add
à (frequency: 0.486%) and perhaps
è (frequency: 0.271%). A dedicated
ç is not really needed for French (frequency: 0.085%), but having a dead cedilla diacritic is nice (faster than Compose sequences). Dedicated
ç is useful though for Portuguese (0.530%) and Turkish (1.156%), but then again Turkish also needs
ş at 1.780%, so a dead cedilla diacritic covers more.
I like these words from ED:
"And be rational - there is NO layout everyone loves. What we need to find is the best compromise for all users and usecases."
and that's exactly what we have been trying to do: in a
rational way, finding the
best possible compromise for
all users [restricted to the Western, Latin-script based part of the world] and
usecases [natural language, coding, command line, gaming, scientific stuff].