Not on my watch.
But I can't control what people do with the fundamental technology. Such a key would work on a UKM base frame and QWERTY module. I can also see a lot of people replacing the three spacebars with a single one. I like the idea of three. It gives more options for developers.
I've been trying to figure out how to integrate a large sketch-mouse pad. I am thinking that might be desirable if I could make a left-hand arrows + numpad, and then have an integrated large pad to put in that space. It would have the stability of the entire keyboard to help prevent it from moving, and it would be handy and integrated.
You should only need to make a module with a sketch-mouse pad; the user could then simply plug the four modules (from left to right: numpad(*), nav, alphanum+F-Row, sketch-mouse) and be done with it. Or numpad-alpha-nav-mouse. Or mouse-15%left-alpha-nav-numpad for a left-handed user.RickCHodgin wrote: I've been trying to figure out how to integrate a large sketch-mouse pad. I am thinking that might be desirable if I could make a left-hand arrows + numpad, and then have an integrated large pad to put in that space. It would have the stability of the entire keyboard to help prevent it from moving, and it would be handy and integrated.
If you can figure out how to make that generic left/right modular hookup work, and with a finite number of pins, I'm game. Right now, there is connectivity, but it is expected to be oriented in the component design I have in the Model D3 Illuminator. Variations from that are not typically allowed, meaning you have one side that's an input, and the other side that's an input for the next thing, but the two can't invert.depletedvespene wrote: You should only need to make a module with a sketch-mouse pad; the user could then simply plug the four modules (from left to right: numpad(*), nav, alphanum+F-Row, sketch-mouse) and be done with it. Or numpad-alpha-nav-mouse. Or mouse-15%left-alpha-nav-numpad for a left-handed user.
This is what I'm trying to do. I'm doing it internally for my own manufacturing, but also externally for those things people want to buy and build into their own form.
Whenever there is a keypress, what is being sent from whatever module to the central controller? Regular keyboards simply send scan codes of 1|2|3 bytes with fixed values. This could be easily extended, by sending a scan code that is designed to be unique (say, an unique id for the module, plus a few extra bits to identify the actual key press/release); afterwards, the central controller could simply use a programmed-in lookup table to translate it into the wanted scancode/macro/etc. to be sent on to the computer.
Will the mouse be faster when you have both hands closer to the trackpoint?
Everything about the keyboard design will be extensible and configurable. I will have a PCB etching business and software interface to the keyboard driver that will allow custom UKM Glide designs to be created and correctly wired easily. I actually intend to use this same design for my own application.
It won't work on a capacitance-based circuit design. It requires a particular electrical quality of connector, and I'm needing to incorporate inexpensive general purpose expansion features for generic expansion within that framework.
Are you talking about things like a Model G1 and a Model E1 coming together to form a larger keyboard held in place magnetically? Or the QWERTY keypad mating to the arrow-key-numpad keypad, for example, being held in place so it could be moved to the left of the QWERTY keypad if desired?
The keyboards I am manufacturing have mounting points in a hard shell case, meal base, plastic top. They are not mobile as individual components, and that is by design. The design itself allows for individual components to be taken off, replaced with others, but then they will mount within the case as well. They are not designed to be taken off without partial disassembly of the case.
That would work. I've actually had the idea of creating versions of Models D1 thru D3 (the widest keyboards) which have detachable right-and-left sides and a hinge point at the front of the keyboard (side closest to the user), so those two sides can rotate around at an angle making them more conducive to a standard reach and more in line with finger positioning.
There is a diagnostic mode to the keyboard which allows a user to go in and press a key repeatedly to establish the "true reading" for each key when they are pressed, allowing for variances in manufacturing. The values will typically be around 1000 when pressed down, but can range from something like 700 to 1300 or so in reality. This is done at UKM before the keyboard is shipped, and each key has its custom setting established in this way for a full keypress.Wingklip wrote: any chance of making an analogue mechanism within the buckling spring design? I need it for games and flight sims, so I need kind of an analogue mechanism before the tactile buckle of the spring, able to sense movement of the cap downwards. I assume this might be possible through the use of a photocell in the cheapest form, but hall effect and capacitive register are also options.
Maybe you have the advantage over me, since I've never actually used a trackpoint. However, it looks to me like it would be awkward. It's just a tiny joystick. Moving a pointer with a joystick I've always found awkward because there isn't a linear relationship between the stick movement and the pointer movement. I can't help thinking there's a reason why trackpoints didn't take over the world and most laptops use touchpads now.
Does it need to? I have one here, it's surprisingly nice. Of course it's a semi-disposable item, but there are plenty of more expensive, more robust keypads with mechanical switches on the market. However, this is sort of getting off-point... There's nothing wrong with having a numeric keypad built into the keyboard for those who need it, and many keyboards do. My question was, what fraction of users need it? If, let's say, 20% of users need or want a built-in numeric keypad but 100% of the keyboards you sell have one, that's not optimal. Then it's dead weight for most of them.Will the $8 numpad have buckling springs and last you 40 years?
Haven't browsed around the forums too much, have you?Will even 1% of the users here agree with your layout? Just saying, its the least conventional one I have ever seen
Sounds like it. I believe there are also smaller chasses in production, and not just large control panels right nowZobeid Zuma wrote:Maybe you have the advantage over me, since I've never actually used a trackpoint. However, it looks to me like it would be awkward. It's just a tiny joystick. Moving a pointer with a joystick I've always found awkward because there isn't a linear relationship between the stick movement and the pointer movement. I can't help thinking there's a reason why trackpoints didn't take over the world and most laptops use touchpads now.
However, I must admit to using a CST trackball here right now, so I'm pretty far out-of-fashion myself.
Does it need to? I have one here, it's surprisingly nice. Of course it's a semi-disposable item, but there are plenty of more expensive, more robust keypads with mechanical switches on the market. However, this is sort of getting off-point... There's nothing wrong with having a numeric keypad built into the keyboard for those who need it, and many keyboards do. My question was, what fraction of users need it? If, let's say, 20% of users need or want a built-in numeric keypad but 100% of the keyboards you sell have one, that's not optimal. Then it's dead weight for most of them.Will the $8 numpad have buckling springs and last you 40 years?
Haven't browsed around the forums too much, have you?Will even 1% of the users here agree with your layout? Just saying, its the least conventional one I have ever seen
There's nothing to freak out over. It's basically a Model F77 (much like Kishy is producing) with the addition of a split space bar (a feature that was even touted at one time by Microsoft) and the keypad moved to the left (uncommon, but "left handed" keyboards are on the market). And honestly, moving it to the left side was almost an afterthought to me, because I had The GIMP already fired up, so why not? But it's no Ergodox.
I'm still pondering the larger philosophical question, though. I see there's a lot of enthusiasm here for the big battleship-style keyboards, but I'm wondering how much of that is just, well... enthusiasm, as opposed to practicality. They're not toys, you know? Who are they aimed at? Are they meant to compete with Wey Tec for the world's trading offices and nuclear power plant control rooms?
No joke.
Probably these tasks are simple enough that you can do all of this at the same time, but why aren't you re-using existing and appreciated tools, like xtwhatis controllers, model f pcbs (which can be printed for a very low cost), and you're instead trying to make everything from the ground up???RickCHodgin wrote:No joke.
The entire project is in progress. My progress has been greatly hampered in translating my logic to FPGA code and signals, but I am working through those issues one-by-one. I'm still hoping to have a prototype manufacturing facility built and operational in limited fashion by the end of this year.
I am a Christian and I'm creating a whole suite of tools that will be given to everybody to use. I am using the skills and talents God gave me to create an original offering that is given to Him through my faith. These tools will be robust and complete and serve as a foundation for other people who wish to take a real-world, working example with a complete production manufacturing line (currently applied to creating keyboards, but extensible and modifiable to use for a whole range of applications), so that they won't have to do the hard work of the design and coding aspects, but can use what I'm giving them as a base or tool to wield. They can then build with that tool and make their dreams come true.gianni wrote: Probably these tasks are simple enough that you can do all of this at the same time, but why aren't you re-using existing and appreciated tools, like xtwhatis controllers, model f pcbs (which can be printed for a very low cost), and you're instead trying to make everything from the ground up???
