I immediately switched to skeptic mode when I saw no actuation points or normalization for travel distance. All this is showing is that to move further it takes longer. Duh. Why even bother pointing out the polling rate? That's like setting up runners at random places on the racetrack to measure who's faster. The guy/gal that starts closest to the finish line isn't necessarily faster.

I'm using Cherry MX Speed switches, which have a 1.2 mm actuation point and 45 g actuation force. There are no published numbers for the Apple keyboards and the closest I could find was ~0.75 mm distance and ~60 g force. Cherry MX Reds, the most common mechanical switches, have a 2 mm distance and 45 g force. (I mention the actuation force because there is probably a slightly longer delay for higher actuation forces due to deforming the fingertip and motor unit recruitment, both of which are probably minimal.)

On top of it, the author seems to be making a statement about speed being the deciding factor for gaming keyboards. If that was the case, they'd all be using ultra-low actuation switches, which they aren't. In most cases, a 'gaming keyboard' is just a mechanical keyboard with aggressive styling, higher quality components (less plastic, braided cable), macro keys, multi-key rollover, USB or audio passthrough, and backlighting.

Then he uses 1 membrane gaming keyboard and 1 no name import that I can't even find the manufacturer for as his only gaming keyboards. There are no sample sizes reported, he just does his best to hit two keys at once, and uses a camera for determining when the key press starts.

Every step of the process has huge flaws and he doesn't even use a reasonable set of devices. Sorry to sound harsh, but I trust zero of the conclusions/interpretations of the data.

> I immediately switched to skeptic mode when I saw no actuation points or normalization for travel distance. All this is showing is that to move further it takes longer.

I thought his explanation (that delay from the start of the motion) was a good one. Unless someone is starting with a key partially depressed/near the actuation point (which you certainly could do), the key travel time is going to be a part of the perceived delay. Seems fair to me, given that delay and perception are the point of the post.

Now, if you think that gamers are starting with partially-depressed keys and therefore will actually experience less of a keystroke delay, that would be a valid counterargument.

> Every step of the process has huge flaws and he doesn't even use a reasonable set of devices.

I don't think this is being portrayed as an especially accurate study; the author includes plenty of caveats.

But that's not how people game. When I play FPS on my MX Blue keyboard I don't make my fingers sit above the keys, but into the keys, depressing them almost until they're in the activation point. I'd guess people on linear switches don't do this, but they also probably slam their keys faster.

The "gaming" keyboards he used were also pretty shoddy. Now, I'm not necessarily saying gaming keyboards offer better latency, because that's not why I got mine, but his methods seem weird.

That's rather anecdotal. Counter anecdote: I do not hover my fingers, mostly because I have Cherry Clears, I hammer the key.

Most people don't partially depress keys to my experience.

Your criticism is harsh by pointing out a (debatable) point, key travel, using a certain amount of rationale and suddenly concluding ‘every step’ has flaws. Point out those flaws!

Furthermore, the OP is the first one doing real measurements on keyboard latency, so perhaps you should trust the article to hint towards a previous unnoticed problem.

Anyways, your comment is totally missing the point and makes generalizations based on one debatable measurement error.

TFA would have been more convincing if the author used consistent capitalization of products.

Also his table lacks whether the keyboard is mechanical and the type of switch used.

This subject needs more research.

Do they spec the force in newtons? Without mass, g’s don’t really say much except as maybe a relative measure between things of the same mass.

'g' is gram-force. It's the weight required to "click" the switch over it's actuation point. 1 Gram is equivalent to 0.980665 centinewton, so for most measurements of keyboard switches, g's and cN's are used interchangeably.

Wow, ok. Never heard of g in that sense. I work in aerospace, so that is probably why.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Apple keyboard is the fastest just because it has very shallow keys.

That's fine though. It's about the experience end-to-end. I love the apple keyboards. I still type faster on them than other keyboards, including high-end mechanical keyboards. The short keys and actuation feel responsive, yet I've never felt like I've accidentally triggered a key.

That's fine, but then the study should be called Key Size Comparisons rather than Keyboard Latency, since it appears that the length of time the key takes to travel dominates the "latency" measurement.

Key travel time is itself a form of latency, distinct from throughput because it doesn’t count the time you take to move your fingers between keys, because you can start pressing a one key while the previous key is on the way down (as long as it’s not the same key), etc. But even aside from that, if key travel time is the biggest contributor to a keyboard’s overall input latency, then that’s what it is. There’s no real way to avoid it (except maybe pressing the keys harder?), so it doesn’t make sense to exclude it just because it’s mechanical rather than electronic.

I'm currently using a mechanical 60% keyboard with the following layout: http://www.keyboard-layout-editor.com/#/gists/c7f9f0ac904b21...

Truth be told, I also prefer scissor switch keyboards, but there aren't any on the market that support the features I'd like: - configurable keys & layers on a hardware level - 60% layout - NKRO

Apple's magic keyboard would be great if it supported configuration/NKRO and didn't cost so outrageously much.

Custom build at wasd keyboards work? I love that place.

Alas, they don't offer scissor switches.

Agreed, and I don't understand the hate many people (seem to) have for them - the most ergonomic keyboards are those that require the least amount of repetitive motion. Not that there isn't an adjustment period, but some seem to pull out their Jump To Conclusion mats a little early.

"the most ergonomic keyboards are those that require the least amount of repetitive motion"

Not sure I can agree with that. I was using one of the Apple keyboards for quite a long time while running liveops on an online game (which meant rapid response whenever incidents happened, jumping into shells and constantly typing like my life depended on it), and developed fairly severe wrist problems within a couple months. To the point where I almost had to leave the job on disability, per my doctor's orders.

On the recommendation of a friend, before taking that step I tried switching to a Kinesis Advantage for the better wrist alignment and less "hard" keystroke bottom as compared to the chiclets on the Apple keyboard. It was a bit of a learning curve (~2 weeks to get up to full typing speed when using it every day, a couple more to push past it), but at the end of it my wrists got better almost instantly, and I never had problems again. My typing speed went up as well.

I'm not sure how much of that improvement is due to the better alignment of keys (there's almost no hand movement when typing, and your wrists are always neutral) and how much is due to the bigger key action and softer bottom, to be fair.

Edit: it's worth mentioning that I'm also a boxer and a piano player, so my wrists take a lot of abuse on a regular basis. YMMV and if you're not having problems, I definitely found the Apple keyboards to be very easy and fast to use.

About 18 years ago I started typing on a Microsoft Natural Keyboard Elite. That helped a lot with my wrists. Since then I have upgraded a few times but always the Natural range of keyboards from Microsoft. They are a lot cheaper than the Kinesis Advantage and easier to learn I guess. I would love to try a Kinesis though but don't dare for that price :-)

The Advantage is certainly an investment, but I found it worthwhile. They last for eons, they're built like a tank. If you have significant wrist problems you might be able to talk your employer into paying for one, I know a couple people who have done that.

The Natural keyboards are good, but IMO the Kinesis is a worthwhile upgrade for the mechanical switches, programmability and durability.

The Kinesis keyboards are actually heavily inspired by an even more expensive keyboard called the Maltron. http://www.maltron.com/store/p21/Maltron_L89_dual_hand_fully...

Ditto, after a bad strain injury on my wrist I bought a Kinesis. I don't think I could really use a computer without it. For me though it's mostly wrist angle; while I love the tactile mechanical switches I don't think the impact is a huge factor unless you are prone to pressing very hard on a scissor switch or a linear switch.

I seem to recall the old IBM keyboard was designed it way it was to provide tactile and auditory feedback that the input had been registered before the key bottomed out. This to reduce long term strain injuries. After all, the primary use of a computer back then would be writing. Be it codes or reports.

There's essentially no range of motion in a MBP keyboard anymore: there is no difference between not pressing the key, actuating the key, and bottoming out the key. Some people (such as yourself) seem to prefer it, but to me it feels much rougher than comparable keyboards, like typing on a hard plastic surface. There is no give or play in the keystroke. Compared to a Lenovo T460p's keyboard (the other machine I own), the Lenovo is a lot "softer" to type on. (And quieter, too.) Mostly, I dislike the feel.

Now, my wrists also hurt. Now, when I'm not travelling, I was using an external Apple keyboard, not the MBP's primarily, so I'm hesitant to blame the MBP's keyboard directly. The external Apple keyboard has a greater keystroke distance from start to bottoming out, but still has like zero distance between actuation and bottoming out. (For some keystrokes, particularly ^+Tab and ^+Shift+Tab, I find it hard to keep control actuated, despite it being fully depressed; it just seems to require a lot of pressure to keep things in electrical contact). The pain in my wrists didn't start until I started using Apple keyboards, and has mostly stopped since I've replaced them. (I now primarily use an ErgoDox EZ, primarily for the split/ability to independently position my hands. I had tried, and had similar success w/ a Kinesis Freestyle, but I didn't own it.)

(I used a MBP keyboard for ~4yrs, with an ergo keyboard of some kind for when I'm not travelling for ~half of that. I've used Thinkpad's of varying models for ~10 years. Now, I could just be getting old, but replacing the Apple keyboard is what made the difference thus far for me. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, admittedly: my wrists are, I feel, in the same bad position on the Lenovo as they are on the MBP/Apple keyboard.)

Because they're talking about USB keyboards they're probably talking about the chicklet Apple "Pro" USB keyboard, not the new MBP's built in keyboard. Which, I agree-- I've only typed on the actual laptop itself a handful of times, but man, those key movements are SHORT and I'm not sure I really like it. Time will tell, though -- I originally felt the same way about the chicklet keyboards i love now.

Not all repetitive motions are equal. It's far more complex than that. The relative angles your joints are held at during the motion, rotations, etc, are far more important than just some simple metric around number of repetitions or distance travelled. Saying less motion is better is like saying lifting less weight is better. You'll sooner fuck up your back lifting 40 pounds incorrectly than 80 pounds correctly.

you don't need to bottom out regular mechanical keyboards, which means you're not constantly slamming your finger against a hard surface. You do need to bottom out scissor switches.

If you can't adjust to an Apple keyboard (and don't have RSI), the problem is you -- not the keyboard. Retrain yourself to type softly.

Why?

Same -- I like doing speed typing on typeracer, and after going through mech keyboards and different switch types for a few years, I'm consistently fastest on a non-mechanical ThinkPad USB chiclet keyboard.

I've recently got rid of several extremely expensive mechanical keyboards to go back to a new ThinkPad chiclet. I am somewhat embarrassed to say it's been fantastic.

Agreed. When I first used them I hated them, now I can't really use anything else.

Quoth the fine article:

> Contrast this to the Apple keyboard measured, where the key travel is so short that it can’t be captured with a 240 fps camera, indicating that the key travel time is < 4ms.

They mentioned it being a likely culprit in the article :)

Oops, yeah I just got to that part. My fault for not reading past the conclusion before posting.

Still, I guess in a way, timing it from the start of a key press is the most real measure of actual latency when you want to press a key. It's just got nothing to do with the processor etc.

Sounds like a good argument for the superiority of shallow keys. I've always liked Apple keyboards - actually used their wired USB keyboard for a long time specifically because it felt like typing on a Powerbook.

Superior is a strong word, if your preference is to bottom out flat keys then thats all well and good. I personally type like I am playing an instrument, pressing just enough to activate and then letting the key push my finger up. I find no enjoyment on typing on an apple keyboard, which I am now and it also causes me joint pain from all the constant bottoming out.

This is anecdotal so YMMV. I have a Macbook Pro 2017 and the shallow key travel makes me feel like its more accurate than the one on my previous Macbook Pro 2015 with longer key travel. Also, I feel like I am typing faster.

We need to request to include a test of on screen keyboard then

I agree.

Presumably he measured it the way he did because it's easier to measure, rather than because he thinks it's the more meaningful way.

(Though maybe his way is more useful if he's interested in whether a keyboard gives an advantage in gaming, rather than whether it's pleasant to type with.)

the article specifically states the reasons for why he messured the whole travel, no guesswork needed

> This is because, as a human, you don’t activate the switch, you press the key. A measurement that starts from switch activiation time misses this large component to latency.

If you game on a mechanical keyboard, you've pretty much worked out exactly where the switch points are and will be working the keys in a fashion different to normal typing. So I'm not quite buying the way the measurements were made vs the purpose of the tests.

Do you really press every possible key down almost to the switch point, and then when you want to actuate the key, press it a tiny bit further?

I would guess (and maybe I'm wrong about this) that you rest your fingers on the keycaps, and press them in as far as needed to actuate, but no further. The key still needs to travel.

I'm using Romer Gs now (G910 at home for a while, and recently the G413 at work), making the switch from MX Browns as I found them too heavy (programming RSI).

Not sure how much I press them down (will try to analyse at next opportunity), but whenever I play a FPS (which is admittedly nowhere as often as I'd like these days) I certainly "preload" the fingers on the WASD keys in such a manner that the press is far quicker than when I touch type.

Precision and responsiveness is far better than using a chiclet type keyboard such as the MS Sculpt, which compares a bit to the Apple Macbook keyboards from memory (although the new Macbook Pro has even shorter travel again). The Sculpt (or MBP) has much shorter overall travel compared to the Romers, but the feel of when you are off/on really doesn't compare; the keys feel dead in comparison for gaming. YMMV.

That's effectively providing a definition of the latency he's discussing, not an explanation of why that's the sort of latency he finds interesting.

But I see he does goes on to say that he cares about game performance, rather than typing experience: « If, for example, you’re playing a game and start dodging when you see something happen, you have pay the cost of the key movement, which is different for different keyboards. »

For me, I don't care about the time after switch activation, rather about time after the tactile feedback (the "click"). Ideally the character would appear on the screen at the same time as the click; not after, and not before. If a keyboard can 'cheat' and activate the switch before that and hide some latency, that's fine by me.

Seasoned gamers preload keys they are anticipating to use. On my keyboard I have less than a millimeter of travel from the preloaded point I use (which is right in front of the tactile bump and is quickly trained) to actuation.

In tacticale switches the bump and the making of the contact are mechanically connected.

Using the moment of finger/key contact quite obviously selects for travel, among other things.

>In tacticale switches the bump and the making of the contact are mechanically connected.

Nope! This is rarely (if ever?) the case. In alps switches, for example, there are two totally separate leafs, one of which handles the tactile feeling and the other of which is responsible for the actual actuation. If you browse through Haata's Plotly[1] you can see that many switches actuate well after the tactile bump. Though they are often pretty closely related in terms of their depth in the keypress, they are wholly unrelated from one another mechanically.

[1] https://plot.ly/~haata

> Nope! This is rarely (if ever?) the case.

Cherry MX.

False. You can bend the leaf of a cherry MX switch into all sorts of wild shapes to move the tactile event up and down the press, but the actuation will stay in largely the same place. If you browse the force curves from the link I posted above, you can see that some switches (cherry MX Brown, for example) actuate well after the tactile event.

The tactile event on a Cherry MX Brown is ~1mm into the travel distance, and the actual actuation is ~2mm in. Kaihua Box Orange switches (still an MX-style switch) is an even better example of that. Kaihua Speed Bronze has the actuation point inside of the tactile bump instead of after the bump. I can't find any examples of switches that actuate _before_ the tactile bump (mostly because why would anyone design that?), but tactility and actuation are not inherently tied together in cherry MX switches, either.

They are both handled by a two-part leaf, which you can sort of see in some of the pictures on Deskthority[1]. There are two legs on the slider that have a surface to them that determines the tactility (or lack thereof in the case of linear switches) that slide linearly up and down the top leaf, which flexes it until it makes contact with the bottom leaf. That contact causes the actuation. All of the tactility is determined bu the shape of the slider legs.

[1] https://deskthority.net/wiki/Cherry_MX#Construction

So you are saying that what makes the tactility (the slider moving on the spring) and that what makes the contact (the slider moving the spring until it touches some other metal) are the same, which is exactly what I said ("mechanically connected").

How the making or breaking of the contact is related in terms of travel to the key press force doesn't have much to do with that.

The point I made was simply that on other kinds of keyboards the two are not related. On a rubber mat keyboard you can keep the dome depressed yet not actuate, for example. The collapse of the dome is also harder to control than the resistance against the spring. That makes preloading harder.

If you want a clear point, then why not use the moment it bottoms out. So when key travel ends, instead of when key travel starts. In most cases, it'll be much closer to the actual activation. If you want to be even more thorough, publish both times (which you can get from a single video).

For long enough key travel times that could actually show a negative latency, which might be super weird.

Probably the easiest way to measure exactly the processing/scan latency would be to swap a key with a low-latency relay.

A weird result with the Das 3 keyboard (25ms) considering it uses a cherry MX switch, same as the Kinesis (55ms).

The OLKB and Ergodox don't state the switches used, but it's almost certainly a cherry MX style switch with non-modified actuation points compared to the original.

Would also like to know more about this since I want the best performance from my Kinesis :)

Your point is addressed in the appendix.

> Note that, unlike the other measurement I was able to find online, this measurement was from the start of the keypress instead of the switch activation. This is because, as a human, you don’t activate the switch, you press the key.

He mentions the fact that some keys activate mid-travel, and that the very short travel is part of what makes the Apple keyboard so fast.

Actual activation might be hard to get, but when the key bottoms out is probably the best way to go. Or even better, why not post both when key travel starts and when it ends. If people are really curious, they can model a linear scale and use the key response plot to guess exactly where the activation happens.

> when the key bottoms out is probably the best way to go

I disagree. One of the greatest benefits of mechanical keyboards is that they actuate before bottoming out. With some practice you can learn to type without bottoming out, which can greatly increase your typing speed, and decrease the amount of stress on your fingers and wrists.

Sure, but the start and end value are the easiest ones to measure. As I alluded to, once you have the two extremes, you can the activation plot [1] to get the exact activation time. For the case of Cherry MX Blue, it would be at 62.5% between the start and end.

[1] https://i.stack.imgur.com/GzswL.png

Further those gaming keyboards have longer than normal key travel.

Why don't we have keys that click immediately and then travel down after the click?

Didn’t watch good enough. There are mechanical keyboards in the review as mentioned below. My bad. Original comment below for future reference.

—�- original comment —�-

True gaming keyboards have mechanical switches which activate on first key press, not on full key down. Bit disappointed no mechanical keyboard was tested as they are perceived to be the ultimate keyboards when speed matters.

I see several mechanical keyboards in the list (das, ergodox, kinesis advantage, olkb planck, possibly others)

Mechanical key switching activate differently based on the switch. Most with feedback activate on the feedback, ie. when you hear/feel the click. So it isn't first press or full key down, but somewhere in the middle.

> which activate on first key press

No, mechanical keys have some travel before actuation as well.

The most common key switch for gaming oriented mechanical keyboards is probably the Cherry MX Red. Its actuation point is around 50% of the way through the key travel.

Buckling spring switches, membrane domes, topre (membrane dome + spring), etc. all have actuation points somewhere in the middle of the key travel, not at the start or end.