5 ms·

No diodes, no matrix all you need is two microprocessors (in addition to your computer) communicating with each other over custom serial protocol. Definitely th

• jsheard 3y ago
  Every modern keyboard uses a general purpose MCU anyway (formerly AVR, now usually ARM) so it's not like they're adding any complexity by using MCUs, and regardless of how the key scanning is implemented you would still want a programmable processor to support all of the layers and macros required to make such a small keyboard practical. Some early iterations of split keyboards did use a parallel bus between the halves instead, which allowed them to have a single matrix spanning both sides which was read by a single MCU, but that went out of style since the cables were unwieldy and MCUs are cheap. Now they all use two MCUs linked over serial, or wireless.
  • kps 3y ago
    Or an MCU and a GPIO expander like a 23017 over I²C.
    • crote 3y ago
      GPIO expanders are surprisingly slow and quite expensive. A two-MCU solution is almost always the better option.
• mananaysiempre 3y ago
  Cost is definitely a part of the definition of simplicity in board design; so is ease of development. So yes, it does feel perverse but just sticking a microcontroller in it is often the simplest solution to a low-speed digital problem. Somebody had to design that microcontroller and it probably has a bunch of errata that basically say a quarter of it doesn’t work, but that’s already done and they are not that much more expensive (if at all) than a 555 timer. It probably isn’t even losing on power consumption. Simplicity is weird.