[Localization] German and French keyboard layouts

[Yama Ploskonka]

Nicholas Bodley wrote:
> {NB, from previous message}
> 
> I'd love to know what was done for French and German keyboard
> countries; an off-list reply is OK with me, but might be of interest
> to the whole list.


> Something's missing. Surely this decision was not due to marginal 
> competence, ineptness, or misjudgment? Desperation is even more
> unlikely, but, failure to properly plan ahead, maybe?

Yes, to all and some.  Simply put, people making those decisions are
blatantly uninformed on industrial printing technologies

> Following is an off-list reply to Bert Freudenberg; he suggested I
> post to the List.
> 
> I do appreciate your telling me about this. Despite OLPC's basic
> intent, I get the feeling that these decisions were made by
> monolingual Americans with only superficial awareness of other
> cultures and languages, even major ones in Europe. For the record,
> I'm really, truly disappointed.
> 
> [Removing markings] It might be possible to dissolve the markings on
> an XO keyboard, but anything that would do that would (very likely)
> be quite hazardous, and no children should be nearby. (Brake fluid
> might work, though?) Just how deeply the ink penetrates into the
> silicone rubber, I really don't know.

Dissolving, no.  Covering up, easy

> [Blank keyboards:] Printing on such surfaces properly is not for the
> unaware, imho. The inks are very likely to be quite special, and
> might even require an unusual curing scheme.

special inks, somewhat.  Plain old epoxy-based inks is what is used,
sometimes polymer-based.  Nothing extraordinary to the well-stocked
garage :-)  (sorry, exagerating a bit.  I have epoxy-based ink in
Bolivia, not here)

> [Slicing off tops?] I wonder about a metal overlay of a
> carefully-considered thickness, with precision-machined holes (made
> by CAM) that would permit a quite-thin layer to be sliced off the
> tops of the key pads. {Late addition: Think traditional hand-operated
> microtomes, used in microscopy for preparing specimens. Of course, a
> thicker layer would need to be sliced off a keytop.}

Too complicated, the keys are slighly concave, covering is much, much
simpler, very run-of-the-mill industrial silk screen.
> 
> {End quote from private reply}
> 
> Surely, this does not make OLPC appear in Europe to be an
> organization that, as we say in English, really has its act together
> (referring to show business). This sort of thing is what one
> witnesses when an organization is starting to come apart --to fail. I
> don't think that's the case, though.

Not in Europe, not elsewhere.  The Keystone Kops are idiomatic by now,
we might earn such a role among geeks, if we manage to put up a TV show.


> As we say in English, this is (mostly) water over the dam (it seems).
> 
> 
> I'm prepared to be scolded for my comments, if they are really out of
> line and very un-informed.

Not you, at least this time :-)

> ===
> 
> It's possible to design and create a production system that easily 
> accommodates changes without stopping production for any significant
>  amount of time.  Check into Saturn cars; afaik, each car was made to
> the customer's detailed needs.

A bit more complicated, but not unfeasible.  Laser etched high contrast 
layers would be very easy to implement, the machine to do it costs about 
$8.000, and would actually do each keyboard individually.  Additional 
cost of about $5 per unit.  Silk screen cover and re-print would cost 
about $300 per hundred units, $1.200 per thousand, maybe less for shops 
who do this as routine
> 
> Afaik, our keyboards are made by Alps, and that company might well
> not have the mindset required for flexible manufacturing. (On the
> other hand, though, they make some excellent products, and have been
> in business for quite a while.)

The problem, as stated above, is that OLPC decision makers know silch 
about industrial printing technologies and materials, thus are quite 
unable to make informed decisions

> 
> Not too far back, I worked in a modern ISO 9000 production shop that
> made frequent changeovers of its electronic products; I think in some
> cases, as few as five of a kind were made. These changeovers involved
> many internal changes, although the basic plastic housings were the
> same. These devices were sensors used where objects (such as those on
> a conveyor belt) broke a beam of light, or related situations. Each
> was marked with durable ink, and the markings differed for each
> particular product.

Polymer-based inkjet.  UV cured.  No nonsense, standard stuff.

> In the rare cases when markings needed to be re-applied, a special 
> higher-molecular-weight ether (iirc) dissolved the ink. It was not 
> particularly toxic. True, the ink was fresh. The ink on our keyboards
>  might be quite resistant to unusual industrial solvents, however;
> perhaps it's cured by heat?  Surely, our keyboard manufacturer would
> know.

Heat and/or UV.  Yes, they would, but they have probably been gagged by 
a NDA, which is a convenient way to say no one knows.

> It's likely that if the markings are printed with special ink, it's
>  probably offset printing, and when the markings are to be changed,
> only the printing plate needs changing. That should take only a
> minute or two in any competently-designed production line, and a test
> impression another minute or less. The accompanying physical
> documents would probably be more "trouble" to deal with than changing
> a printing plate.

Silk screen, not offset.  Other technologies can be used also, but silk 
screen is SO cheap, nothing compares.  Setting up the screens is the 
main cost, you are correct.  Printing itself is a couple cents at the 
most in ink, a few more in handling.  For epoxy based inks you often 
have to discard a screen after each batch, at a cost of about $20


> Again, mostly water over the dam, but what with the fantastic
> financial irresponsibility of recent months, companies should welcome
> more business, and sensible managers should be willing to accommodate
> reasonable requests.

¿Sensible managers?  you're too funny.

> I do wish you all well.
>