Talk:Das Keyboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Innovation[edit]

70.244.126.153; you were correct about the use of the word 'innovation'. The quotes were *meant* to indicate that the claim (of innovation) belonged to someone else (as I've seen at least one other blank keyboard, and this is an innovation in marketing only), but they looked sarcastic. Since it the blank keys probably aren't an innovation, the more neutral word "feature" (without quotes) seems a better compromise.

BTW, I reverted the paragraph structure (w/ some improvements); only 2 of the 3 selling points are related to the blank keytops (the weighted keys aren't).

00:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

POV?[edit]

I have some qualms with parts of this:-

Das Keyboard biggest innovation or re-innovation is to have a completely blank keys. That's right, no letters, no numbers, just the blank keys.

Fair enough, but it's already been mentioned in the intro. The *tone* sounds like sales spiel.

The reasonning behind it is that the user's brain will be forced to memorize the position of the keys and after few weeks the user should increase typing speed and accuracy.

Not bad, assuming that this is a claim made by the producers (citation?); and then it should be made clear that it's *their* claim.

This seems like a counter productive idea but looking at a distant keyboard cousin, namely the piano, the methodology works: pianos have blank keys and players play obviously without the need of reading A, B, C,... or do, ré, mi on the keys.

Is this original research? If not, who made the claim (with respect to the Das Keyboard or another blank computer keyboard)?

Most users really like the feel of the keyboard but not all

Most users? Where is this said or reported? Most people who tried it?

I don't want to revert the whole lot if there's a reasonable case for it, but it currently comes across too much like a mixture of sales spiel and POV.

Fourohfour 00:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM; see my reply to '(almost) original creator of the article'

(almost) Original creator of the article[edit]

Hi everybody,

Just so you know, I basically rewrote this whole article as it stands today from scratch, as the original was in poor English and was quite obviously a sales spiel.

Because most of it was written by me, I can understand if it's POV; and I'm sorry for that. I think if enough users make changes to make it less POV you could make it seem less like a "sales spiel" as you put it. But I do assure you that it's not a sales spiel - saw this page on the recent changes list, and rewrote it because I've heard about the keyboard before - but I have never used, seen or heard of one IRL.

splintax (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Splintax; if you had my comments above in mind, they referred to the new material contributed by the anonymous user "70.244.126.153", not the overall article. My apologies if it came across as if I was talking about your contribution. On the contrary, your article was far closer to what the original should have been.
The problems I had with the anonymous contribution were that it was too POV and sales spiel. I don't know if the contributor's first language was English. Even as a native English speaker, it's sometimes hard to make clear what is sales pitch from real fact, and claimed virtues versus real opinion; if the problem was simply slightly poor English and a subtle lack of differentiation between pitch and proven fact, that could be cleaned up. However, even allowing for that, the tone was too salesy; and most of the new stuff was unsubstantiated fact or original research.
But, as I said, that was the anonymous contribution, not your original article. Even then, I incorporated some of its points into the text (i.e. claimed reason for typing improvement, as I realised the article hadn't explained that clearly).
Fourohfour 17:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fourohfour - the changes made by the anonymous user, for others' information, can be found here. I agree with what you said about the sales spiel appearance of it, but it appears to be much better now. ;) splintax (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its a Cheap keyboard with blanked out keys[edit]

As shown here [1] and here [2]. It is a $20 Keytronic keyboard with blanked out keys. helohe 12:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs updating[edit]

It seems the information in this article is out-of-date, the Das Keyboard no longer uses a membrane but `Mechanical Gold-Plated Key Switches', as well as looking physically different. Perhaps an updated article describing the current and previous models?

Possibly, but this is already noted; perhaps the tense could be changed if the original is no longer being made.
This is wrong.. the Das Keyboard has Cherry switches, not buckling spring switches like the model M. The mechanism is very different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.73.135 (talk • contribs) .
I'm just going by what the product page says (although I actually thought they were the same) :)

On a side-note, did anyone note the similarity between the original Das Keyboard and the Model M? Should this be noted? Biggoggs 07:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the sense that they both have 'normal' keyboard layouts (well, if you consider the single-height return normal; I don't :) ) Fourohfour 17:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed more than the layout- the curve of the keyboard is the biggest similarity (imho, with Model M in front of me), along with the physical dimensions (although the DS is a little shorter at the top). The new DS is more conventional anyway, so I don't think it matters.
Should it be mentioned that this page is out-of-date, until someone feels the urge to update it? Biggoggs 15:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Das Keyboard II is based on the G80-3000 from Cherry: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.181.50 (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

Regarding the comment in the AfD stating that the criticism of v1 is just a shill for v2; nope. I wrote the first paragraph (i.e. criticism of v1) before v2 came out. It was an attempt to provide balance in what was previously a very advert-like or fanboyish article.

Personally, I thought the original Das Keyboard was a vastly overpriced gimmick, but it wasn't appropriate to put that in the article.

Fourohfour 14:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

Das Keyboard is made in the Czech Republic, making it a rarity in a market full of computer keyboards almost entirely made in China.

Which version? I'd assume the newer one, because (apparently) Cherry make the mechanical keys (the older DK was a membrane-based thingy), and my mechanical Cherry keyboard is also made in the Czech Republic. However, I'd like this confirmed. Fourohfour 14:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Das Keyboard resized.jpg[edit]

Image:Das Keyboard resized.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Version as of 9/2/2009[edit]

When it doesn't read like an ad, this article, at least the history section, currently reads like a children's book: "Friends and colleagues asked him many times where they could buy a blank keyboard like his, but this was a one-of-a-kind keyboard" So the criticism section was completely removed because it had "undue weight". Whatever weight it may have had, I'd say the scale is completely unbalanced at the moment. 99.191.117.241 (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the definite article with the word "keyboard" in German[edit]

The article claims that ""keyboard" is mostly used without an article in German". That is incorrect. There is no difference between the words "Keyboard" (capitalized in German) and "Tastatur" when it comes to the use of the definite article. Actually the use of articles in German is quite the same as in English which means that you hardly ever use a noun without an article if the article isn't replaced by another word (a possessive e.g., as in "my keyboard") or the noun is used in the plural where there is no indefinite article (e.g. "I prefer mechanical keyboards."). 93.222.255.108 (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Das Keyboard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Conflict of Interest[edit]

There have been some accused and self-admitted edits on this article by people who work for DasKeyboard.

This edit explicitly discloses the relationship between an editor, 104.0.142.2, with the clause "I work at the company and [...]".

This edit, though not explicitly disclosed, also uses an IP addresses which originate from Austin, Texas, where DasKeyboard's company is located. Both of these edits do. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Das_Keyboard&diff=851607575&oldid=849110500

Both edits seem to be removing information from the article and to add to this, there have been multiple accusations of DasKeyboard blocking users and removing posts on their own forum, pertaining to the same software that they had removed from these articles, which certainly points to a conflict of interest here.

The following Tweet talks about the removal of posts, similar to the paragraphs removed from this article: https://twitter.com/sebirdman/status/1026625633953013761 This comment on Reddit also highlights conflict of interest and pointed me towards this article: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/95f7lw/das_keyboard_banning_users_from_the_5q_forums_for/e3sbfo9/

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Das_Keyboard&oldid=1221565424"