This hardware is absolutely great;
This hardware is absolutely great; thank you. It engages with my fingers beautifully.
But you have serious cognitive engineering issues; it's clear you prioritize image over effective engagement with my mind.
I am not your core existing audience, but represent an entirely different and potentially huge additional market segment.
Three fatal examples (there are more):
1) The typeface you use makes parentheses look like square brackets, the @ and # signs difficult to distinguish, and many more. Many people still read the keyboard--if not to hunt and peck, then to verify before pressing a critical key. The squaring of the parens, e.g., gives one pause even if one's finger is already reaching--an "oh no!" reaction stops me even after months of acclimation. (I am not uneducated: a professor at Columbia, graphics coder since 1973, Phi Beta Kappa Econ. degree from Berkley, work shown in MoMA and the Whitney. So if a defensive designer says "he's an outlier--smart people will get used to it" they are incorrect. A cognitive scientist would tell you that even when behaviors are automatized they impose a cognitive load.)
2) Putting the shifted-key glyphs below the primary glyphs similarly causes mismatches with the deep training people have internalized. I'm not referring to the ancient mechanical upward shift in a mechanical keyboard, but the configuration of their minds when they come to your product. In my own work I try to fit the mind "as is" as closely as possible--not introduce the burden of re-learning just for my own fashion calls. You, of course, need to attract customers with fashion--but ultimately a good toolmaker makes tools that fit the workflow and hand/mind--not tools that impose an unnecessary (and here: exactly opposing!) burden.
3) The low-contrast gray for the non-illuminated shifted glyphs is not readable in low light. This forces me to turn on a desk lamp as the sun goes down--counter the very reason I purchased an illuminated keyboard. I'm not insensitive to design issues and think higher-contrast readable white glyphs would be ugly/distracting. I'd suggest losing the semibold typeface for a light/thin one and making them illuminated, perhaps at 1/2 or 1/4 of the illumination of the primary glyphs. This could be done with a filter, even as a premium keycap set, so your single-light-source engineering of the main hardware need not be changed.
These issues are *not* a matter of taste. Whether they allow your product to work effectively is an empirical issue: they can be tested. Just give them to your in-house perceptual scientist--and if you don't have one (which I suspect based on this project) you will benefit by hiring one.
Though I appreciate the feel & solidity I will not be recommending this to my clients or peers. Even after months of acclimation I make mistakes and have intellectual flow-breaking pauses in my workflow as a result of the admittedly clever, hip visual design decisions.
I'm looking into custom keycaps to alleviate these fatal flaws and if I find a good manufacturer I may be able to recommend them to clients. I see huge potential value in changing key colors/intensities based on program functionality in my domain of optimal information/decision support. Bloomberg keyboards did this passively with paint/plastic and proved the point decades ago; we are working to bring that visual/intellectual mapping back to sense-making knowledge work.
You may contact me if you want details on my reflections--or suggestions on how to test/fix this kind of product failure factor. I appreciate your many strong points, and these flaws are easily solved with proper attention and prioritization. I'd be happy to help steer you as I did in the mid-90s communicating with your research division--the people whom released your 3D mouse.
brad@didi.co