My ergo journey started with similar requirements to yours - specifically including the Y and B keys. Along the way, I learned how important layers are for comfort, ditched QWERTY entirely for Colemak DH, bought a 3D printer, and ended up at 40%. Several years ago, there was a term “1KFH” (“one key from home”) people used to describe the amazing amount of comfort they found when they never had to move their fingers more than one key away from home position, nor to move their hands.
I’m not saying you have to change your requirements, now or ever, but I think people who start to make their own ergo keyboards may be subject to this sort of requirements drift, such that if they ever make it to the product phase, their products aren’t what they initially expected to be building. And maybe this sort of dynamic is what makes it less likely for the product you are looking for to have been built already.
https://contentauthenticity.org/how-it-works
The page is very light on technical detail, but I think this is a system like trusted platform modules (TPMs), where there is a hardware root of trust in the camera holding the private key of an attestation certificate signed by the manufacturer at the time of manufacture, and it signs the pictures it takes. The consortium is eager for people to take this up (“open-source software!”) and support showing and appending to provenance data in their software. The more people do so, the more valuable the special content-authenticating cameras become.
But TPMs on PCs have not been without vulnerabilities. I seem to recall that some manufacturers used a default or example private key for their CA certificates, or something. Vulnerabilities in the firmware of a content-authenticating camera could be used to jailbreak it and make it sign arbitrary pictures. And, unless the CAI is so completely successful that every cell phone authenticates its pictures (which means we all pay rent to the C2PA), some of the most important images will always be unauthenticated under this scheme.
And the entire scheme of trusted computing relies on wresting ultimate control of a computing device from its owner. That’s how other parties can trust the device without trusting the user. It can be guaranteed that there are things the device will not do, even if the user wants it to. This extends the dominance of existing power structures down into the every-day use of the device. What is not permitted, the device will make impossible. And governments may compel the manufacturer to do one thing or another. See “The coming war on general computation,” Cory Doctorow, 28c3.
What if your camera refused to take any pictures as long as it’s located in Gaza? Or what if spies inserted code into a compulsory firmware update that would cause a camera with a certain serial number to recognize certain faces and edit those people out of pictures that it takes, before it signs them as being super-authentic?