deskthority

I have a Topre 30cN board (silenced). There's tactility - it's very faint but it's definitely there.
That said, however, I still think the Topre 30cN belongs on the Cloud of Boobs page. It's an overall "airy" experience typing on it and not one that I'm particularly fond of but each to their own I guess.

Also: Thumbnails (sorry 7bit)

I'm for thumbs though they should link directly to max size!
"thumbnail… keyboard pictures don't need to be large to catch attention" but they should be able to be seen/compared from thumbs only, so not too small (esp when seeing switch mechanics)

And 002, wasn't doubting the boobtopres, just that they don't get a classification of tactile/linear while the reds do (on that page)..
Ouch though, topre and not digging that much; though that's the way it works I guess.

off wrote:...
Re return key wiki, "m-shape = ANSI" how does that work
And I'd think it's better if the images presented there are named differently, at least having the corresponding correct designation added (iso/ansi/biiiiigass); and just a pic of the naked bottom of the BigAss?
...

There are J-shape (1.5u/1.25u), L-shape(1.5u/2.25u), I-shape(2u vertical), m-shape(1.75-2.25u) and n-shape(1-1.25u) Return/Enter/Datenfreigabe keys.
Don't see any problem here.

But I aggree with your 2nd point and will upload some more pictures.

xbb wrote:thumbnail… keyboard pictures don't need to be large to catch attention.
I can compare thumbnails easily if needed and I'm free to click on the one that interest me to see it zoomed, without being forced to scroll them all in big.

Traitor!

To be serious:

You want to have all on one page, this is because you all use full-screen mode. You fear scrollling so much that you accept the disadvantage of having to click to enlarge them!

Solution: get a rollermouse, all your you, so scrolling is a pleasure an I can have my big pictures!


edit:
team webwit vs. team 7bit: 4.5:1.5

i meant how does an enter key even approximate an 'n' or 'm' shape, enlighten me
and rollermouse... *shakes fist* was gonna comment on how some dutchies really don't get decent appealing marketing, like graphics that are easy on the eyes etc; then I continued watching.
it does seem *quite* nice
some really don't get marketing though, I mean, having an apple trackpad right there and the keyboard itself about 10cm away from your roller, seems perfect. cough.
hu, just noticed, alt-scroll scrolls babysteps in firefox!
*edited syntaxfails. again.

7bit wrote:

xbb wrote:thumbnail… keyboard pictures don't need to be large to catch attention.
I can compare thumbnails easily if needed and I'm free to click on the one that interest me to see it zoomed, without being forced to scroll them all in big.

Traitor!

To be serious:

You want to have all on one page, this is because you all use full-screen mode. You fear scrollling so much that you accept the disadvantage of having to click to enlarge them!

Solution: get a rollermouse, all your you, so scrolling is a pleasure an I can have my big pictures!


edit:
team webwit vs. team 7bit: 4.5:1.5

I would tend to support 7bit on one point: get a Rollermouse!
My screen is in portrait mode, by the way, so scrolling would be no big problem even with a traditional mouse.
But I use the wiki for easy reference and for information and I find a wiki page should show at a glance what (and what pictures) it contains. For me, it's the the text that matters, and pictures are just an additional quick reference. If I want details, it's no problem to click on a not-so-big picture to see it enlarged (but please in another tab!)

kbdfr wrote:But I use the wiki for easy reference and for information and I find a wiki page should show at a glance what (and what pictures) it contains. For me, it's the the text that matters, and pictures are just an additional quick reference. If I want details, it's no problem to click on a not-so-big picture to see it enlarged (but please in another tab!)

Another tab is just a middlemousebuttonclick away, never had issues with that (unless we'd force scripts to 'zoom pic' without direct link); do love tabs though.
Besides text I feel pics do matter in a lot of cases, it's very nice to see at a glance with no clicks the difference between two+ things; so very small thumbs I wouldn't prefer in most cases. *OH, might be swell to just crop the thumbs to the relevant portion, instead of solely scaling!

I want pics to provide enough information as an illustration of the text without being obliged to click on them. Thumbs are definitely no solution to that.
But I want pics not to occupy too much space on my screen as long as I have not myself decided to see them enlarged.

Between very small thumbs giving just an idea of what the actual pic could look like and almost screen-filling pics, I feel there must be an acceptable size.

7bit wrote:Well, first you complain my images are too large and then you show me a browser window which is so large, I could change them from 640 to 1280 pixel!

I don't get the point with the scroll-wheel, but I see you like them side by side at your 480x16386, pamorama-vision monitor.

I didn't take pictures of my browser just to show the uber-resolution...

I care most about the text and links in the article, but the pictures are constantly in the way. So what I tried to prove is how much space is wasted when you do not use a gallery + thumbnails and show the page on a large monitor.
And note that showing the page on a small monitor shouldn't be a problem (no scrollbars or anything) since the pictures will just move beneath each other like they appear now.

So: making the pictures smaller (maybe some decent size like 400px) saves space, and placing them in a gallery means we can get it over with efficiently. No separate pages, users just need to click an image if they really want to see the dust-bunnies in an image.




Or I could just do like ripster and try to come up with a meme:

nice pic
Thing with a gallery portion on a page is that then the pics are slightly out of context; I like them being around where they are relevant. Game of balance, like kbdfr said.

While we are fighting against each other over images sizes, HaaTa and Daedalus are in a head to head race for the first price in the wiki contest!

Found something interesting out today, turns out my Burroughs Opto-Electric keyboard isn't linear at all...

http://www.google.com/patents/US4301345 <- not the exact patent, but uses the same spring mechanism, and is referenced by the actual patent -> http://www.google.com/patents/US4479111

Thus in addition to Linear, Tactile, and Clicky. I am adding a new term -> "Parabolic" Switch.
Updating the Switch Terminology Wiki to reflect this (and will be adding the initial Burroughs Opto-Electric page soon).
And yes, the force does actually decrease to the reported levels in the curve on my keyboard (has both the really heavy and medium weights).

That makes the datahand switch an optical/magnetic parabolic switch. Because pressing/pushing a key means separating two magnets (decreasing force), making a gap for an optical signal to pass.

Neat!
Any known force curves for the Datahand switches webwit?

I only found actuation forces, 18-22g, if I remember correctly. Maybe there's something in the Datahand patents, there are a bunch of them. They hired some magnetics guru to develop the switch, whatshisname... apparently the first designs with micro switches didn't do it for them.

http://deskthority.net/wiki/Category:Keyboard_Switches

"Clicky Switches" should be "Clicky switches"
"Cherry Switches" should be "Cherry switches"
"Linear Switches" should be "Linear switches"
"Tactile Switches" should be "Tactile switches"

I don't have the permission to move/delete the category pages...

Changed your user rights.

I want to be able to create pages. I want to make a page about HHKB as we only have a light section. How can I create a page? I don't see an option.

Search for the page, if it's not there, you'll see a link to create it.

Thanks, I will start one tonight. Would it be better for me to make a single page including all types of HHKB, Or just do one on the topre models? I think I want to do one on all the HHKB's not sure as there is already a hhkb lite page.

Just a stupid question:

I see a lot of product images which do not look like from any user. Is that OK?

Would it not be better only to upload our own images?

It's OK for me, just wonder if it could be a problem.

fossala wrote:Thanks, I will start one tonight. Would it be better for me to make a single page including all types of HHKB, Or just do one on the topre models? I think I want to do one on all the HHKB's not sure as there is already a hhkb lite page.

Make sure you add them to the proper categories.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categori ... egory_page

It depends on how much content there is about a keyboard.

For keyboard lines where there's only a few models, and much of the content is shared between them, I prefer to create one page. For keyboard lines where there's many models, or they're very different, I might use a category, and a page for each.

I will look at the lite section and try and incorporate things from it. What will happen to the lite section if I do one on HHKBs in general?

I think you're referring to something which is slowly materializing here:
http://deskthority.net/wiki/IBM_Model_M
I.e. you point to the "Main article".

webwit wrote:I think you're referring to something which is slowly materializing here:
http://deskthority.net/wiki/IBM_Model_M
I.e. you point to the "Main article".

Yes, nice , but:

Just a stupid question:

I see a lot of product images which do not look like from any user. Is that OK?

Would it not be better only to upload our own images?

It's OK for me, just wonder if it could be a problem.

7bit wrote:Just a stupid question:

I see a lot of product images which do not look like from any user. Is that OK?

Would it not be better only to upload our own images?

It's OK for me, just wonder if it could be a problem.

But I'm just an innocent duck, not the wiki master, nor a lawyer. I think only images published under an open source license (creative commons etc) or available for fair use (like stock art available on the "press" page of a brand) or there might be trouble in the long run, with all the new internet related laws attacking us from all sides.

I'd say, from here on out, put the license in the image description, or put a fair use rationale in, ala Wikipedia.

webwit wrote:But I'm just an innocent duck, not the wiki master, nor a lawyer. I think only images published under an open source license (creative commons etc) or available for fair use (like stock art available on the "press" page of a brand) or there might be trouble in the long run, with all the new internet related laws attacking us from all sides.

This is exactly what I mean.

I only upload my own photos, so there is no problem. I we ake them from wikipedia and add a remark where they are from, OK.

Product photos: yes, if producer says yes.

Just want to bring this up.

Also, even if it is OK to use these, a source would be nice.

Source: http://www.cosgan.de/