Talk:Chiclet keyboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was originally based on material from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, which is licensed under the GFDL.

Contents

[edit] "In Norway..."

  In Norway, the term eraser keyboard was commonly used

It was not. They speak norweigan in Norway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.140.239 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-13T07:08:57

Obviously, it means the equivalent of eraser keyboard in Norwegian. 203.27.231.250 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atari 400

Anyone know if the Atari 400 had a chiclet or a membrane keyboard? If it had chiclet, it needs to be linked to the article, of course.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.34.98.154 (talk • contribs).

The Atari 400 had a flat membrane keyboard. Fourohfour 14:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The picture, and explanation, is WRONG!

These kind of rubber keys do NOT bend through in the middle to make contact! Instead the rubber sides of the key collapse outward so the whole (undistorted) rubber top can move downward. Because the collaps occurs suddenly when pressure on the key is increased steadily there is a kind of "snap" to the key, which improves the tactile feedback to the user in a way that would not be present when the key would simply bend through. Somebody should modify the picture to make this clear. perhaps the original maker of the picture can modify it. Mahjongg 15:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay; you have a point. As the original creator, when (and if) I have the time and inclination, I will look at fixing this. However, please keep things in perspective; it was only meant to be a stylised representation illustrating the broad principles behind such keyboards. Fourohfour 22:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not take my criticism of the diagram as criticism toward you. I really like the diagram, and the obvious effort that has gone into making it. In reflection, it would have been better to try to place a message on your user page, Also I did not now about the use of the "disputeabout" tag. I apologise for coming over a bit strong. Mahjongg 23:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem; I'm considering how to redraw this, as the diagram is more misleading than I initially thought; most of the distortion takes place at the base, not at the sides, at least on the two keypads I looked at. Fourohfour 13:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay; I've replaced the image with a version that more accurately describes the action found in some keyboards. I don't know if this was the action you were describing when you said that the walls collapse, but it's an accurate description of the two cases I looked at.
(If you really need proof, I can take a photograph of a calculator key using this design that has been cut in half and demonstrates- within the bounds of stylisation- the design/distortion shown in the diagram).
Clearly, there are many different designs, and we can't (and shouldn't) provide one for every variation. So long as the principle is accurately portrayed, I feel that one basic case is enough.
I've also removed the tag, but please put it back if there is a problem with the diagram and/or text. Fourohfour 19:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The current picture is now OK. One minor point is that it does not completely explain why the rubber key bounces back when the pressure on the top of the key is released, (because of the spring factor of the thin rubber walls that are pressed outwards, as in the letter omega, like this Ω, and want to return to their original form ), but I know that it is extremely difficult to draw that in a way thats easy to understand. The current drawing is almost completely correct, so it will do fine. Mahjongg 00:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your politeness; however I wasn't attempting to illustrate what you described in the first place. At least, not unless I misunderstood you... from what you said, it sounds like you were describing a different style of deformation (I noted this difference in the article). Here are photographs of the version that is meant to be shown in the diagram:-
Not pushed down, and
pushed down.
And with respect, even if it isn't exactly right, IMHO it's close enough, given that it's a stylised diagram illustrating the broad principles.
Fourohfour 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologise if I frustrate you, maybe I could not express myself clearly enough without drawing a picture (which by the way would have been exactly like the "pushed down" photograph, _and_ your picture, only your picture shows the bends as a 'Z' with sharp angles instead of an 'S', that is all), as I said _I agree_ with you that the picture is close enough to the truth as it is, lets just keep it at that. Mahjongg 12:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I see, no problem. One thing though; are you saying that in some versions, the walls (i.e. vertical sides of the keys, like in the old version of the diagram) bend outwards? If not, we should rewrite that part of the text to clarify it. Fourohfour 16:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it depends on the size of the keys what happens, in smaller keys you often see exactly what you have drawn, in keyboard with a larger rubber domes you sometimes see the sides "bulge out" more, but the top part of the rubber dome also always collapses, otherwise you would not get the sudden downward movement that gives the "click" feeling. However, (especially in PC keyboards) you often see a spring being used to help the key return to its initial position, so it's not only the springiness of the rubber that helps the key return. But in those systems we are not really talking about a "chicklet" keyboard anymore, also because these keys always have a hard plastic key top stuck on top of the rubber dome. Mahjongg 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Pronunciation

Could someone clarify how this is pronounced? Is it "CHICK-let" (as in English), "shee-clay" (French), or something else? Could find it in this article or the one on the sweets. Leevclarke (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)