3 ms·
I would love to be able to get a FM 13, but the non-inverted-t layout of the arrow keys make it a non-starter. It was the one thing I loathed the most about the
by wpm 3y ago
I would love to be able to get a FM 13, but the non-inverted-t layout of the arrow keys make it a non-starter. It was the one thing I loathed the most about the butterfly keyboards on those MacBook Pros that came with them, and I find it a baffling choice to make on purpose today considering it was a major complaint on those Macs. I cannot move my hand to those keys by feel alone if the side arrows are twice the height of the up and down arrows.
I can wait and pay extra for a FM 16, but I don't need the extra size or weight for what for me is going to be a secondary machine. And sadly, the topcase and keyboard seem to be an area where the "hackability" and "openness" of the hardware platform don't exist, so I can't even homebrew my own solution.
- zerocrates 3y agoI really prefer the half-height "T" layout in those size constraints but some people really hate it. It's an oddity to me: as you say, I'd be happier being able to easily feel out the layout and having all directions be the same size targets. Other than just not having the "look" of empty space I don't feel that there's really anything to recommend the "full height left/right, half-height up/down" layout. I wonder if you'll have more ability to play around in that space with the 16, as its top case is more modular. Part of the problem with the Framework 13 input cover is that the cover including the key gaps is all one piece of aluminum, so things have to work within those sized holes, or else involve a completely different input cover. (Edit: the 16 does I think have more theoretical room for alternate keyboard layouts, but of course that's assuming anyone makes them. More importantly, it just has the inverted T layout on the regular keyboard already.)