4 ms·

The Moonlander is also missing F-keys? People can swear up and down how intuitive and natural layers are, but I do not care. If there is ever a decision to be

The Moonlander is also missing F-keys? People can swear up and down how intuitive and natural layers are, but I do not care. If there is ever a decision to be made between more and fewer keys, I always want to default to more.

avgcorrection 5y ago
Keyboard people are a bit too enthusiastic about cutting out a few dozen keys only to add them back in layers.
- rgoulter 5y ago
  Surely you don't expect people using keyboards without dedicated function keys (or number rows) are aiming to never need to use those keys? The trade-off from fewer keys is reduced hand movement (& a smaller keyboard, cheaper to buy switches for, etc.), at the cost of additional complexity of use, & it not really being easy for anyone else to use your keyboard. It seems reasonable either way to prefer one or the other. -- I suspect that most of the people enthusiastic about the smaller keyboard layouts are also into keyboard-driven workflows, and are developers who also frequently need to use the symbols accessed using layers.
  - avgcorrection 5y ago
    > Surely you don't expect people using keyboards without dedicated function keys (or number rows) are aiming to never need to use those keys? I could imagine that some people never use the function keys. Or never use the numpad keys. To some people they might be completely useless... Which would make a smaller keyboard understandable. Now, people who do need all those keys and yet still go for a smaller keyboard is harder for me to understand. :) > The trade-off from fewer keys is reduced hand movement (& a smaller keyboard, cheaper to buy switches for, etc.), at the cost of additional complexity of use, & it not really being easy for anyone else to use your keyboard. The trade-offs seem a bit one-sided. Hand movements are not a big deal unless you are going constantly back and forth between the main part and the nav cluster or the numpad. And all of these custom keyboards with their 60%, 67.5%, etc. sizes are already so… boutique and expensive that I don’t think that people are forfeiting a dozen or so keys in order to save some money.
    - rgoulter 5y ago
      > I could imagine that some people never use the function keys. Or never use the numpad keys. To some people they might be completely useless... Which would make a smaller keyboard understandable. > > Now, people who do need all those keys and yet still go for a smaller keyboard is harder for me to understand. :) Right, I don't think anyone goes "I need these keys, I should get a smaller keyboard". But, no one is saying "I don't need those keys, I can use a smaller keyboard". e.g. 40% keyboards like the planck lack a number row, as well as lacking a number pad; of course they'll have to have access to type in numbers somehow. > boutique and expensive that I don’t think that people are forfeiting a dozen or so keys in order to save some money. Right, I don't think it's a persuasive/compelling point; but it is a benefit. Comparing the cost of getting switches for 110-keys vs for 48 keys, you can either afford nicer keys, or don't have to pay as much.
      - fomine3 5y ago
        My conspiracy is that DIY keyboard builder want to solder less parts as possible.
- fomine3 5y ago
  Agreed. It's fair that remapping keys is great to reduce moving hands in some cases, but it not mean dedicated keys aren't needed. I prefer to have both. Remapping feature is confused to reducing keys.
sulam 5y ago
You can solve this without layers on the Moonlander, or any keyboard that allows you to load your own firmware. For instance, you could configure your number keys to have a "press and hold" generate the corresponding F key. The 'hold' doesn't have to be very long to still easily distinguish it from "normal" typing. You could also make it a key combo very easily. Anyone who doesn't like key combos should take up a war against !@#$%^&*()+_?:<>{} and their friends.
- Too 5y ago
  Hold? No thanks. How does that work when you are debugging code and have to repeatedly press the step over button. Both VS and IntellJ use F-keys as default for this. With lots of shift-modifiers already, to toggle step in, over, out.

avgcorrection 5y ago

Keyboard people are a bit too enthusiastic about cutting out a few dozen keys only to add them back in layers.

rgoulter 5y ago
Surely you don't expect people using keyboards without dedicated function keys (or number rows) are aiming to never need to use those keys? The trade-off from fewer keys is reduced hand movement (& a smaller keyboard, cheaper to buy switches for, etc.), at the cost of additional complexity of use, & it not really being easy for anyone else to use your keyboard. It seems reasonable either way to prefer one or the other. -- I suspect that most of the people enthusiastic about the smaller keyboard layouts are also into keyboard-driven workflows, and are developers who also frequently need to use the symbols accessed using layers.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  > Surely you don't expect people using keyboards without dedicated function keys (or number rows) are aiming to never need to use those keys? I could imagine that some people never use the function keys. Or never use the numpad keys. To some people they might be completely useless... Which would make a smaller keyboard understandable. Now, people who do need all those keys and yet still go for a smaller keyboard is harder for me to understand. :) > The trade-off from fewer keys is reduced hand movement (& a smaller keyboard, cheaper to buy switches for, etc.), at the cost of additional complexity of use, & it not really being easy for anyone else to use your keyboard. The trade-offs seem a bit one-sided. Hand movements are not a big deal unless you are going constantly back and forth between the main part and the nav cluster or the numpad. And all of these custom keyboards with their 60%, 67.5%, etc. sizes are already so… boutique and expensive that I don’t think that people are forfeiting a dozen or so keys in order to save some money.
  - rgoulter 5y ago
    > I could imagine that some people never use the function keys. Or never use the numpad keys. To some people they might be completely useless... Which would make a smaller keyboard understandable. > > Now, people who do need all those keys and yet still go for a smaller keyboard is harder for me to understand. :) Right, I don't think anyone goes "I need these keys, I should get a smaller keyboard". But, no one is saying "I don't need those keys, I can use a smaller keyboard". e.g. 40% keyboards like the planck lack a number row, as well as lacking a number pad; of course they'll have to have access to type in numbers somehow. > boutique and expensive that I don’t think that people are forfeiting a dozen or so keys in order to save some money. Right, I don't think it's a persuasive/compelling point; but it is a benefit. Comparing the cost of getting switches for 110-keys vs for 48 keys, you can either afford nicer keys, or don't have to pay as much.
    - fomine3 5y ago
      My conspiracy is that DIY keyboard builder want to solder less parts as possible.
fomine3 5y ago
Agreed. It's fair that remapping keys is great to reduce moving hands in some cases, but it not mean dedicated keys aren't needed. I prefer to have both. Remapping feature is confused to reducing keys.

sulam 5y ago

You can solve this without layers on the Moonlander, or any keyboard that allows you to load your own firmware. For instance, you could configure your number keys to have a "press and hold" generate the corresponding F key. The 'hold' doesn't have to be very long to still easily distinguish it from "normal" typing. You could also make it a key combo very easily. Anyone who doesn't like key combos should take up a war against !@#$%^&*()+_?:<>{} and their friends.

Too 5y ago
Hold? No thanks. How does that work when you are debugging code and have to repeatedly press the step over button. Both VS and IntellJ use F-keys as default for this. With lots of shift-modifiers already, to toggle step in, over, out.