4 ms·

I would dare say that 99.99999% of keyboard users expect a similar layout. Sure, it converged out of conformity and familiarity, but so what? This is part of th

by epups 4y ago

I would dare say that 99.99999% of keyboard users expect a similar layout. Sure, it converged out of conformity and familiarity, but so what? This is part of the added value to me, I can learn to type in a particular layout and I'm good to go in any other. This is a crucial part of functionality in fact.

thomastjeffery 4y ago
You are precisely the consumer demand that drives conformity here. You are real! That doesn't change any of the other things I just said: in fact, it exasperates the issue, because it isn't wrong to target your familiarity as a reliable selling point. The problem is that it's also a good thing to try create new designs. I have a keyboard that you would hate to use. That's how I feel about the traditional design you prefer. We can both be served by the market, but only if designers have enough confidence to do so. You wouldn't even care about this if you had originally learned to type on my keyboard. If that was the ubiquitous thing you started with, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Had the progression of keyboard design been free to explore other options, it might have naturally converged on something more ergonomic; which would serve both the need for familiarity and the desire for ergonomics. We are already seeing ergonomic keyboard designs converge to 3 shapes: Dactyl-like extreme ergonomics that place keys as close as possible to the resting fingertip; flat compromises like ergodox that can use a PCB; and grid layouts like planck that optimize the difficulty of conceptual memory layouts when using many layers. All three place keys in columns, so they are pretty easy to switch between. The only real mystery left is the thumb. Most of the discomfort involved in switching from the typewriter layout stems from how obscure and unwieldy it is relative to anything else. Like a Who from Whoville, we look at the elegant hammer - as a replacement for the familiar Whabam - with distaste.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > We can both be served by the market, but only if designers have enough confidence to do so. That's a claim worth making, but it needs more evidence. It just isn't self-evident that this is true.
  - thomastjeffery 4y ago
    I literally have the kind of extreme economic keyboard design I have been taking about. It cost me $330.
- epups 4y ago
  For almost every product out there, a "better" version is available that is not the most common one. This is simple economics: the improvements you describe are not free, which is why they are not mass produced. If people judged that these improvements that you describe are worth it to them, they would pay. The fact you could buy such a keyboard demonstrates that conformity or convergence or whatever you want to call it did not inhibit you from getting what you want. Where I think you get it wrong is to assume that everyone has your level of interest or applies the same logic as you to every item in their lives. Hell, I'm sure you don't. So if you are happy eating from suboptimal mass-produced forks which are just SO much worse than these $500 custom-made ergonomical marvels that the average man just simply doesn't know about... welcome to the peasant club.
  - thomastjeffery 4y ago
    They weren't even minimally produced until recently! If any "better versions" were actually a real part of the market 20 years ago, then you could buy a laptop with one today. You can't. In a $140 billion market, there is not a single laptop manufacturer producing laptops with an ergonomic or ortholinear layout. That can only be the result of conformity. > The fact you could buy such a keyboard demonstrates that conformity or convergence or whatever you want to call it did not inhibit you from getting what you want. Not 4 years ago, but it certainly did 10-20 years ago. They simply didn't exist back then. And it's not a binary, either: just because there is one company mass-producing one does not mean the problem is resolved. We are talking about one of the most commonly produced objects in the world. Practically every single computer (bigger than a hand) that has ever been made has a traditional typewriter-style keyboard! And the fact I (and many others) an willing to pay >$300 for one is clear evidence that the market for ergonomic keyboards is incredibly diluted. If I could buy a poor quality one for $30, I would do it in a heartbeat. The average traditional typewriter-style costs well under $1 to produce. Starting that kind of production scale would take a huge investment. The fact that no one has tried once in the last 30 years to mass produce a cheap non-typewriter keyboard design is proof that conformity, and not convergence is the deciding factor.
eimrine 4y ago
> I would dare say that 99.99999% of keyboard users expect a similar layout. Why don't they expect the best one? Seems like the 99.99999% of users are fooled by monkeys and bananas on ceiling experiment. I can not name that amount of people just idiots but if your upper-home row consist a word "typewriter" I consider your choice as definitely not wise.
- pixl97 4y ago
  >Why don't they expect the best one? Best is multi-dimensional, so please tell me 'best what'. Is 'best' affordable? Is 'best' compatible with what I learned without invested more time in learning something new? Is 'best' something that's going to live far beyond it's usefulness based on it's cost? Is 'best' something you can't hand to someone else and have them use it?
  - eimrine 4y ago
    > Is 'best' affordable? Yes. Exactly as what we are having, no extra keys or extra something, we are talking about different placing of same keys so I surprised to see this question. > Is 'best' compatible with what I learned without invested more time in learning something new? Well, why (in ideal world) the kbd supplier has to consider the needs of not wise people? If you really have learned Qwerty you will not even noticed a different paint on the keys. > Is 'best' something that's going to live far beyond it's usefulness based on it's cost? It is best in the sense that the best side of knife for cutting bread is the sharp one but it is one of the worst ones for holding the knife. > Is 'best' something you can't hand to someone else and have them use it? Any idea may be shared among minds.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  There are multiple qualities to maximize. Most people have spent their entire lives only seeing a few small deviations from the traditional typewriter shape. That's what they had, so they developed themselves alongside it. It was hard work, and they don't want to do it again. Not having to do the work of creating new muscle memory is a quality many people highly value. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the assumption has been that there aren't enough people interested in trying something new to have a viable market. It would be a risky business venture: at the very least, difficult to raise venture capital. That is a self-filling prophecy: circular reasoning that demands conformity.

by epups 4y ago

thomastjeffery 4y ago

You are precisely the consumer demand that drives conformity here. You are real! That doesn't change any of the other things I just said: in fact, it exasperates the issue, because it isn't wrong to target your familiarity as a reliable selling point. The problem is that it's also a good thing to try create new designs. I have a keyboard that you would hate to use. That's how I feel about the traditional design you prefer. We can both be served by the market, but only if designers have enough confidence to do so. You wouldn't even care about this if you had originally learned to type on my keyboard. If that was the ubiquitous thing you started with, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Had the progression of keyboard design been free to explore other options, it might have naturally converged on something more ergonomic; which would serve both the need for familiarity and the desire for ergonomics. We are already seeing ergonomic keyboard designs converge to 3 shapes: Dactyl-like extreme ergonomics that place keys as close as possible to the resting fingertip; flat compromises like ergodox that can use a PCB; and grid layouts like planck that optimize the difficulty of conceptual memory layouts when using many layers. All three place keys in columns, so they are pretty easy to switch between. The only real mystery left is the thumb. Most of the discomfort involved in switching from the typewriter layout stems from how obscure and unwieldy it is relative to anything else. Like a Who from Whoville, we look at the elegant hammer - as a replacement for the familiar Whabam - with distaste.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> We can both be served by the market, but only if designers have enough confidence to do so. That's a claim worth making, but it needs more evidence. It just isn't self-evident that this is true.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  I literally have the kind of extreme economic keyboard design I have been taking about. It cost me $330.
epups 4y ago
For almost every product out there, a "better" version is available that is not the most common one. This is simple economics: the improvements you describe are not free, which is why they are not mass produced. If people judged that these improvements that you describe are worth it to them, they would pay. The fact you could buy such a keyboard demonstrates that conformity or convergence or whatever you want to call it did not inhibit you from getting what you want. Where I think you get it wrong is to assume that everyone has your level of interest or applies the same logic as you to every item in their lives. Hell, I'm sure you don't. So if you are happy eating from suboptimal mass-produced forks which are just SO much worse than these $500 custom-made ergonomical marvels that the average man just simply doesn't know about... welcome to the peasant club.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  They weren't even minimally produced until recently! If any "better versions" were actually a real part of the market 20 years ago, then you could buy a laptop with one today. You can't. In a $140 billion market, there is not a single laptop manufacturer producing laptops with an ergonomic or ortholinear layout. That can only be the result of conformity. > The fact you could buy such a keyboard demonstrates that conformity or convergence or whatever you want to call it did not inhibit you from getting what you want. Not 4 years ago, but it certainly did 10-20 years ago. They simply didn't exist back then. And it's not a binary, either: just because there is one company mass-producing one does not mean the problem is resolved. We are talking about one of the most commonly produced objects in the world. Practically every single computer (bigger than a hand) that has ever been made has a traditional typewriter-style keyboard! And the fact I (and many others) an willing to pay >$300 for one is clear evidence that the market for ergonomic keyboards is incredibly diluted. If I could buy a poor quality one for $30, I would do it in a heartbeat. The average traditional typewriter-style costs well under $1 to produce. Starting that kind of production scale would take a huge investment. The fact that no one has tried once in the last 30 years to mass produce a cheap non-typewriter keyboard design is proof that conformity, and not convergence is the deciding factor.

eimrine 4y ago

> I would dare say that 99.99999% of keyboard users expect a similar layout. Why don't they expect the best one? Seems like the 99.99999% of users are fooled by monkeys and bananas on ceiling experiment. I can not name that amount of people just idiots but if your upper-home row consist a word "typewriter" I consider your choice as definitely not wise.

pixl97 4y ago
>Why don't they expect the best one? Best is multi-dimensional, so please tell me 'best what'. Is 'best' affordable? Is 'best' compatible with what I learned without invested more time in learning something new? Is 'best' something that's going to live far beyond it's usefulness based on it's cost? Is 'best' something you can't hand to someone else and have them use it?
- eimrine 4y ago
  > Is 'best' affordable? Yes. Exactly as what we are having, no extra keys or extra something, we are talking about different placing of same keys so I surprised to see this question. > Is 'best' compatible with what I learned without invested more time in learning something new? Well, why (in ideal world) the kbd supplier has to consider the needs of not wise people? If you really have learned Qwerty you will not even noticed a different paint on the keys. > Is 'best' something that's going to live far beyond it's usefulness based on it's cost? It is best in the sense that the best side of knife for cutting bread is the sharp one but it is one of the worst ones for holding the knife. > Is 'best' something you can't hand to someone else and have them use it? Any idea may be shared among minds.
thomastjeffery 4y ago
There are multiple qualities to maximize. Most people have spent their entire lives only seeing a few small deviations from the traditional typewriter shape. That's what they had, so they developed themselves alongside it. It was hard work, and they don't want to do it again. Not having to do the work of creating new muscle memory is a quality many people highly value. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the assumption has been that there aren't enough people interested in trying something new to have a viable market. It would be a risky business venture: at the very least, difficult to raise venture capital. That is a self-filling prophecy: circular reasoning that demands conformity.