Re: Need reality check

On 2007-02-25 18:26:47 -0800, cs_posting@xxxxxxxxxxx said:

On Feb 25, 9:12 pm, David Whetstone <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The rub is I don't really have the skills to do it. A keyboard is not
a complicated device, but complicated enough. So what I really want to
know before jumping head first into this great unknown and landing
unceremoniously on my head is, should I even try?

I think the main issue with building a keyboard is going to be the
need to consistently fabricate a large number of identical mechanical
parts.

The embedded software will be comparably much simpler... a few days
off and on hacking. Building the mechanical part is the challenge.

If you can find a mechanical part your are happy with, or which you
can modify to suit that should make your project a lot more practical/
inexpensive.

There may be discrete key mechanisms that would be acceptable; don't
expect them to be cheap though. Good keyboards used to cost $200+
before the use of throwaway-quality fabrication techniques became the
norm.

There's no problem there, as I have a small collection of old individual keyswitch keyboards from which to scavenge parts. Even brand new switches would only set me back $70-80 for a set of 100.

Putting the keyboard together is a relatively known quantity for me. But when I look at the electronics aspect, I see a lot of black holes. I have questions like: how do I interface with USB and make my device conform to the HID standards? What microconroller do I use? How do I interface with flash memory? Will I have to design my own circuitry, or is there an off the shelf kit I can buy? If so, which one? And so on.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Need reality check
    ... a complicated device, but complicated enough. ... know before jumping head first into this great unknown and landing ... There may be discrete key mechanisms that would be acceptable; ... before the use of throwaway-quality fabrication techniques became the ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: The reasons why apple is better
    ... mechanisms underneath every odd week. ... Longevity certainly was not a design goal here. ... Would be interesting to know what kind of keyboards the developers at ... I still have an IBM keyboard from 1988 which works great after heavy use ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: The reasons why apple is better
    ... It's just the naff mechanical design ... > mechanisms underneath every odd week. ... I've used a lot of keyboards but this is ... > I still have an IBM keyboard from 1988 which works great after heavy use ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)