1. Overview of the collection and evaluation criteria

In this first part, I present an evaluation framework that I use to understand each piece of my collection. The focus is not only the aesthetic, but the set of characteristics that define the behavior of each keyboard in daily practice:

• Switch type: linear, touch or clicky; Feeling to the touch, acting and noise.
• Mounting topology: hot mount, welding or plate mounting; Impact on reliability and maintenance.
• Key profile: Material and profile that influence comfort, noise and general aesthetics.
• Case and plate materials: steel, aluminum, PC/PMMA; Effects on weight, stiffness and timbre.
• Personal evaluation criteria: Feeling coherence between keys, layer repeatability and ease of repair.

In my studio, I record each keyboard by the combination of switch type, keyboard profile, stabilizer type, and assembly method. This mapping facilitates comparison between similar devices and facilitates decisions for future acquisitions or modifications.

2. Key components: switches, keys and stabilizers

Basic understanding begins with the pieces that actually define the sensation. The following are quick technical notes on each component:

• Switches:
  • Linear: Smooth action from the beginning to the bottom, without touch feeling; Usually less friction, which favors rapid typing and direct response.
  • Touch: Offers a remarkable point of action; Comfort for long periods of writing, but may require more strength to maintain the desired speed.
  • Clicky: Shows a different audible and touch feedback; Good performance confirmation, but can be louder in shared environments.
• Keys: Common materials are ABS and PBT. PBT tends to be more durable and less polished over time; The abs can knead less with wear, but it tends to be bright with use. Popular profiles include OEM, Cherry, SA, DSA, and XDA, each offering different writing sensations and different images.
• Stabilizers: Help reduce wide key misalignment (Space, Enter, Shift). Common models are mounted on plates and screwed; Proper lubrication and fine adjustment reduce yaws and unwanted noises.

Looking at my collection, I value the cohesion between the switch and the stabilizer, resulting in a more predictable and enjoyable typing experience. Rotating between pieces is also a common practice to validate what works best for each design.

3. Mounting topologies and feeling impacts

The physical assembly of the keyboard directly influences the ringing, weight and touch response. Among the models I have, some relevant variations are:

• Hot-swap vs Welding: Hot-swap makes it easy to test with different weldless switches, accelerating iteration; Welding can offer greater mechanical rigidity and reduce intensive flexures.
• Plate and assembly materials: Steel, aluminum or FR-4 plates (plastic) influence the return of forces by pressing a key; Stiffer plates tend to produce a drier timbre, while materials with more cushion soften the buzzer.
• Box and chassis assembly: Plastic, metal or composite boxes modulate weight and noise perception. Systems with insulation or joints reduce unwanted vibrations and promote listening and tactile comfort.

In practice, my ratings consider the consistency between the keys, the linearity stability, and the feeling when writing in long sessions. Small changes, such as stabilizer lubrication or key exchange, can have a significant impact on the set.

4. Metric and keyboard evaluation methodology

Quantification helps transform perception into objective criteria. Below are the parameters that I observe when comparing elements of the collection:

• Actuation Strength, AF: Typical measurements range from about 45 GF (clearer lines) to 65-70 GF (heavier touch/clicky).
• Displacement Course (Travel): Usually around 4.0 mm, and the action point occurs about 2.0 to 2.2 mm for many modern switches.
• Sensory Feedback: Definition of the point of action, smoothness in the collapse and consistency between keys.
• Tone and noise: influence of the construction, keycap material, lubrication and stabilizer design.

evaluation procedure that I follow:

• Individual tests with each key, approximate AF register, sense of acting and noise impact.
• Comparison between adjacent keys to check the uniformity of the sensation.
• Notes of comfort in typing sessions of 15 to 30 minutes to understand the behavior in actual use.

Relevant code block

Simple example of data structure to compare available switches in the collection:

// Switch sample data to compare
constant switches =[
{ Name: "Gateron Ink Black", Type: "Linear", PerformanceGF: 50, TravelMM: 4.0 },
{ Name: "Cherry MX Brown", Type: "Tactile", PerformanceGF: 45, TravelMM: 4.0 },
{ Name: "Cherry MX Blue", Type: "Clicky", PerformanceGF: 60, TravelMM: 4.0 }
]#ATFP_CLOSE_TRANSLATE_SPAN##ATFP_CLOSE_TRANSLATE_SPAN#;

// Simple function to print summary of each switch
function summary(sw) {
returns `${sw.name} - ${sw.type}, af = ${sw.actuationgf}gf, travel = ${sw.travelmm}mm`;
}

switches.foreach(s => console.log(summary(s));