Meganium97

Sep 23, 2023 02:31 PM By Bugmenot

1

I’m confused. This review says the Ergodox EZ has a measured latency of 6.9 ms. The question-mark popup says “Good value: <4ms”. But then the text immediately below says “The ErgoDox Ez’s latency is excellent”, and it’s scored an 8.5 out of 10. How can it be over 70% worse than the threshold for “good”, yet described as “excellent” and get a top-tier score? It’s compared to the ZSA Moonlander, which has measured latency of 11.2 ms (nearly 3x the threshold for “good”), which is also described as “excellent”, and scores a nearly identical 8.3 out of 10. I haven’t done any human factors research so I don’t know what a good keypress latency is, but if you told me a good 0-60 time for a car was under 8 seconds, and then tried to sell me a car which did 0-60 in 13.8 seconds on the basis of its “excellent” acceleration, I’d think you were either a cheater or an idiot. You literally just told me it was not good to be this slow.

Hey there, This is a confusing problem! Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I’ll do my best to explain what’s going on.

First, one of the biggest issues is that the Ergodox EZ and the ZSA Moonlander are on two different test benches. Unfortunately, what this means is that these two scores aren’t directly comparable since our newest 1.3 Test Bench Update expanded our latency testing methodology. If you’re interested, you can read about these changes in our 1.3 Test Bench Changelog here.

While it doesn’t help fix the situation at this moment, I should mention that the Ergodox EZ is among the keyboards we’ll be updating to our newest testbench, so it will be directly comparable at that time.

I will also point out that the threshold for what we consider ‘good’ also differs between these new test benches due to the difference in methodology. For the ZSA Moonlander, the ‘Single-Key Latency Best Connection’ threshold for ‘good’ is <10 ms. However, there’s still a glaring language inconsistency issue that you’ve identified here as the ZSA Moonalder has a ‘Best Connection’ result of 11.2 ms and scores 8.3— but according to this tooltip, it still doesn’t qualify as ‘good.’ This is certainly an inconsistency that we’ll be discussing internally.

Ultimately, the idea we’re trying to convey in identifying a ‘good value’ is that this should serve as a reference threshold under which we feel comfortable recognizing that keyboard as being particularly well-suited for playing competitive, reaction-based games.

Hopefully, that helps clarify some of the confusion. Once again, this particular issue should at least be partially resolved once the Ergodox EZ gets updated to our newest test bench— but we’ll also work internally to see if we can remedy the other inconsistencies you’ve identified.

We very much appreciate you reaching out to us. Have a great day.

I’m confused.

This review says the Ergodox EZ has a measured latency of 6.9 ms. The question-mark popup says “Good value: <4ms”. But then the text immediately below says “The ErgoDox Ez’s latency is excellent”, and it’s scored an 8.5 out of 10. How can it be over 70% worse than the threshold for “good”, yet described as “excellent” and get a top-tier score?

It’s compared to the ZSA Moonlander, which has measured latency of 11.2 ms (nearly 3x the threshold for “good”), which is also described as “excellent”, and scores a nearly identical 8.3 out of 10.

I haven’t done any human factors research so I don’t know what a good keypress latency is, but if you told me a good 0-60 time for a car was under 8 seconds, and then tried to sell me a car which did 0-60 in 13.8 seconds on the basis of its “excellent” acceleration, I’d think you were either a cheater or an idiot. You literally just told me it was not good to be this slow.