Full-size is objectively superior, everything else is a mitigation for sub-optimal circumstances.
If you have reduced desk space and need to conserve your keyboard size to allow more room for a mouse then absolutely, pick as small a keyboard as you’re comfortable with to get sufficient mousing space.
Anything beyond that is subjective personal preference, which again I have no qualms with, but calling it better without further qualification is going to invite incredulity.
If a full-sized keyboard provides all the keys you reasonably need to do your tasks efficiently, then yes a full-sized keyboard is superior. But that is just not the use case for everyone, hence why it can’t be objectively so. Unless you want to imply that more keys even if you don’t need them is better anyways.
If so, you could argue this monstrosity of a keyboard (or something even bigger) is what everyone should be using if they have the space, since it has way more buttons than a full-sized keyboard, making it even more objectively superior. In reality you would not use more than 30% of the buttons on that keyboard, so the rest might as well not exist. But if you are, I don’t know, some macro-wizard playing 4 instances of WoW at the same time, maybe it is objectively superior for your needs, but for me a normal sized keyboard would do.
But to try and sense where you’re coming from, it should also be said that someone telling you their choice is better and disregarding that your criteria aren’t the same as theirs is being silly as well. And sometimes they can be stubborn and agitated about that as well - exactly the kind of hostility I meant in my initial comment. But someone’s got to step up and swallow their pride and accept it really is just all subjective at the end of the day.
the main advantage of full sized keebs iirc is that some programs have key combos involving F keys or home/end and don’t support changing the mapping (Minecraft shakes fist at sky F3+g)
That’s true, and if that’s the case then that definitely changes the choice. Although, afaik these smaller keyboards often come with software to remap keys or add macro’s at the driver level. (And for this choice specifically, 75% keyboard and higher do seem to mostly have both F keys and home/end). But yeah, some people’s use consist of just writing emails and streaming video, in which case they won’t care about any of that.
My biggest problem with that “monstrosity” is that it’s ortholinear.
You imply that such a thing being “optimal” is absurd, but if you had infinite usable desk space then what, exactly, would be the argument against it? If space is not a consideration then what does it matter if you don’t use every key?
Lots of people like smaller keyboards, and that’s perfectly fine. I get it as an aesthetic choice, and for many people it may not impact their daily use at all. But you will not convince me that removing the option of having additional keys for binding is a non-zero cost, even if they’re not currently being used.
For what it’s worth, I never used anything like that monstrosity, but I was quite happy with my G15 for the time that I had it which had 18 additional keys, plus media control, over a typical full size.
but if you had infinite usable desk space then what, exactly, would be the argument against it?
So I guess we agree then. Circumstances make something more or less optimal, meaning they are not objectively more optimal in every situation. That was my entire point, nothing more.
No one has discussed split keyboards, which offer all the benefits of a full size and addresses ergonomic concerns across the board. Need only half your keyboard today? Done and done.
Full-size is objectively superior, everything else is a mitigation for sub-optimal circumstances.
If you have reduced desk space and need to conserve your keyboard size to allow more room for a mouse then absolutely, pick as small a keyboard as you’re comfortable with to get sufficient mousing space.
Anything beyond that is subjective personal preference, which again I have no qualms with, but calling it better without further qualification is going to invite incredulity.
If a full-sized keyboard provides all the keys you reasonably need to do your tasks efficiently, then yes a full-sized keyboard is superior. But that is just not the use case for everyone, hence why it can’t be objectively so. Unless you want to imply that more keys even if you don’t need them is better anyways.
If so, you could argue this monstrosity of a keyboard (or something even bigger) is what everyone should be using if they have the space, since it has way more buttons than a full-sized keyboard, making it even more objectively superior. In reality you would not use more than 30% of the buttons on that keyboard, so the rest might as well not exist. But if you are, I don’t know, some macro-wizard playing 4 instances of WoW at the same time, maybe it is objectively superior for your needs, but for me a normal sized keyboard would do.
But to try and sense where you’re coming from, it should also be said that someone telling you their choice is better and disregarding that your criteria aren’t the same as theirs is being silly as well. And sometimes they can be stubborn and agitated about that as well - exactly the kind of hostility I meant in my initial comment. But someone’s got to step up and swallow their pride and accept it really is just all subjective at the end of the day.
the main advantage of full sized keebs iirc is that some programs have key combos involving F keys or home/end and don’t support changing the mapping (Minecraft shakes fist at sky F3+g)
That’s true, and if that’s the case then that definitely changes the choice. Although, afaik these smaller keyboards often come with software to remap keys or add macro’s at the driver level. (And for this choice specifically, 75% keyboard and higher do seem to mostly have both F keys and home/end). But yeah, some people’s use consist of just writing emails and streaming video, in which case they won’t care about any of that.
My biggest problem with that “monstrosity” is that it’s ortholinear.
You imply that such a thing being “optimal” is absurd, but if you had infinite usable desk space then what, exactly, would be the argument against it? If space is not a consideration then what does it matter if you don’t use every key?
Lots of people like smaller keyboards, and that’s perfectly fine. I get it as an aesthetic choice, and for many people it may not impact their daily use at all. But you will not convince me that removing the option of having additional keys for binding is a non-zero cost, even if they’re not currently being used.
For what it’s worth, I never used anything like that monstrosity, but I was quite happy with my G15 for the time that I had it which had 18 additional keys, plus media control, over a typical full size.
So I guess we agree then. Circumstances make something more or less optimal, meaning they are not objectively more optimal in every situation. That was my entire point, nothing more.
No one has discussed split keyboards, which offer all the benefits of a full size and addresses ergonomic concerns across the board. Need only half your keyboard today? Done and done.
Need ALL the keyboard, we gotchu.
This is objectively superior, as it saves you from RSI.
I have the IRIS CE and its kinda like that bought the stands for it and it has noticably reduced the strain on my wrists when I play games.