• 0 Posts
  • 6 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 14th, 2023

help-circle

  • I have the ZSA Moonlander and multiple versions of the Keeb.io Iris (v2 up to v6, I believe - they’re on v8). I use both regularly and they’re great keyboards. I took several keys off the Moonlander to make it match the Iris, which incidentally makes it look closer to the Voyager. It’s still a bulkier board than the Iris, though, especially with the wrist rests still attached. However, it’s very easy to travel with and the size difference is rarely relevant.

    I have a low profile Iris and sometimes use it as a travel board, but I’m not a big fan of the low profile keys (I have the “Compact Edition,” I believe, so the spacing might also be part of the problem - they have a new “LM” version I might like more).

    The Voyager is also low profile and has only 4 thumb keys compared to 8 (which I use extensively*) on the Moonlander and Iris, so it isn’t a good option for me. But if you like the idea of a low profile split board and there’s a layout you like that only requires four thumb keys, the Voyager looks great.

    If you want a similar split keyboard that can come pre-assembled, with the option for a low profile version, I highly recommend the Iris. If you want an even more versatile, albeit slightly bulkier, keyboard, the Moonlander is fantastic.

    * - I have my thumb keys set up with two layer shifts, alt, command, control, space, and enter. One of my Irises has a rotary encoder on a thumb keys but I wouldn’t do that again. I could handle three per thumb and overload, but two isn’t feasible without learning a new layout. Our thumbs are our most powerful fingers, so it makes sense to use them extensively.





  • A paid skillful engineer, who doesn’t think it’s important to make that sort of a change and who knows how the system works, will know that, if success is judged solely by “does it work?” then the effort is doomed for failure. Such an engineer will push to have the requirements written clearly and explicitly - “how does it function?” rather than “what are the results?” - which means that unless the person writing the requirements actually understands the solution, said solution will end up having its requirements written such that even if it’s defeated instantly, it will count as a success. It met the specifications, after all.