Cortez

Cortez put a full-size keyboard into a form that could be held in both hands or set on a table. WebTV shortcuts, navigation buttons and remote-control functions wrapped around a rectangular key field. The engineering task was to make that mechanism coexist with deep handgrips, a sculpted back and a usable tabletop posture.

Through Mechanistic, I developed the Pro/ENGINEER grip and back surfaces, supported the mechanical layout and worked between industrial design, WebTV and the prototype suppliers. The resulting CAD package was released to prototype in six weeks. The work is most clearly visible in the choices around the key system and the revisions that followed the first hard model.

The opening photograph includes a companion UltimateTV remote. This account covers the Cortez keyboard work; the photograph’s exact relationship to the prototype revisions is unestablished.

A rectangular mechanism inside an organic shell

The key field was only one part of the enclosure. On each side, a recessed grip had to flow into the top surface and the broad, curved underside. The original project statement identifies those rear transitions as more difficult to surface than the front. It also records co-molded Santoprene grips as part of the design intent.

The working layout shows how the keys, navigation cluster and handholds share the available plan area. Underneath that layout, the key mechanism needed room for its rubber element, membrane and supporting case structure. A supplier reference section makes those depth interfaces visible without establishing the final production stack.

The underside surface study and oblique grip view show why the surfacing work extended beyond a keyboard-shaped box. The recessed handholds and their surrounding blends had to remain coherent as the envelope changed. These are undated studies; they are not a labeled before-and-after sequence.

Choosing the keys while the envelope was still moving

In May 2000, WebTV compared Panasonic reference geometry with Silitek’s offered key matrices. Leslie Leland, Product Manager for WebTV Input Devices, wanted a smaller, Airboard-like footprint while retaining standard full-travel keys instead of paying for scissors switches. Silitek’s cost and reliability comparisons were supplier advice at this stage.

One supplier offered a different route to the envelope. On May 12, Panasonic proposed an overall size about 4 mm larger, with shifted battery-cover and rotary-switch positions. Leslie forwarded the drawing as a supplier critique and explicitly told me I did not need to change my CAD at that point. It was an alternative under discussion, not a correction already imposed on the reference surfaces.

The packaging questions were specific. In the May 16 exchange, Leslie described a 19 mm design pitch; Silitek used 19.05 mm. The supplier also questioned the right-side rubber pad’s proximity to the edge, where the PCB and membrane would need space, and requested better battery-cover information. Those messages document an interface still being negotiated. They do not report a key-binding failure or a measured accumulated tolerance collision.

On May 17, Leslie asked to remove what she called the last row in the vendor comparison and move some functions to elastomeric keys. Silitek’s resulting May 18 layout offered a 267.65 by 110.75 mm key-field envelope using standard low-profile keys and two new key tools. The accompanying table specified 19.05 mm pitch and a $30,000 estimate for those tools. It was a proposal, with no documented tooling expenditure or avoided cost.

The work divided at the design envelope. WebTV would supply and confirm the exterior requirements; Silitek described developing the internal structure and consulting electrical engineering about PCB space. Leslie directed me to request exact dimensions or keepouts and suggested a marked cross-section to focus the discussion. That technical liaison connected the surfaces to the supplier’s packaging needs.

A working model to check the design

The first hard model was intended to test what the drawings could not settle. Leslie’s May 18 request called for a primer-finished model made from the Pro/ENGINEER database, with a supplied keymatrix fitted into a machined pocket. People could compare it with the foam model and try the typing and grip areas.

The later model brief added the finish needed for executive and partner demonstrations. Jeff Jones supplied industrial-design drawings, button profiles, locations and sections that were not all represented in the surface model. Buttons could initially be glued on and moved before their positions were frozen. Val Kasvin of Sputnik Models handled the physical model work.

This created a useful review loop: model the envelope, put a working mechanism into it, then inspect the assembled object with the people responsible for the form, functions and fabrication. The model’s purpose was broader than appearance alone.

The first review changed the surfaces

The June 19 review recorded that the first-cut hard model did not sit level on a tabletop. Its underside corners near the feet looked too puffy, and its bottom edge was slightly irregular. Later comments added sharp edges around the grip openings, more curvature over the grips and a revised center outline. Jeff was to review the surface issues with me and update the Pro/ENGINEER database.

Other actions belonged to the model maker: weight, IR lenses, key height and the shape of the remote-control keys. Button positions, legends and colors had separate owners and unresolved choices. Keeping those tasks distinct matters: a successful surface revision would not, by itself, close every functional-model concern.

Even the intended keyboard slope was still being clarified. The June 19 notes asked for level use or a 3-15 degree upward tilt for IR. On June 21, Leslie found no numerical slope in the specification and asked for a reference measurement. The next day she corrected the initial information and offered 5-12 or 0-11 degrees as examples of a broader adjustment range. Those exchanges explain why slope became revision work; they do not establish the final angle or a passed IR-range test.

My June 27 status, preserved in Leslie’s July 5 reply, breaks the surface work into four items:

The June 27 invoice separately bills 51 hours of keyboard surface development. It corroborates the total, while the correspondence supplies the four tasks. This is an account of engineering effort, not a measured performance result. It forms part of the three June invoices totaling 249 hours and $24,900.

Prototype release and the later data exchange

The late-June correspondence records another Jeff/mechanical review, a revised navigation layout, button layout 1 and a request for a new model quote and Pro/ENGINEER delivery. On July 5, Leslie said the model was at WebTV and invited me to see it. The original project statement reports final CAD release to prototype in six weeks after multiple design reviews and surface revisions.

That statement describes the machined surfaces as flawless. It is the historical author’s qualitative assessment; the retained record does not provide a final inspection report for every model requirement. The photographed right-hand controls show the interface area, without identifying which June revision is pictured.

A September 15 message adds a small, separate model-making milestone: Leslie told Val that the Cortez fix looked good and that the invoices would be processed. It credits the physical model work without identifying the changed geometry or closing the later CAD exchange.

October brought a separate interoperability problem. Son Jae Park reported that Panasonic’s data was sparse wireframe information without the navigation keys. Panasonic was using CATIA and IDEAS and converting the results to IGES. I explained that I could not directly rework those native files and offered changes to my original Pro/ENGINEER model as a possible alternative, pending the files and a decision.

The correspondence supports that proposed route but does not establish a completed reconstruction. A January 4, 2001 message from Leslie says she had received Cortez and that it worked, without identifying a revision or test criteria. Final slope, mass, IR qualification, production release and my exact October deliverable remain outside the result claimed here.

Cortez’s documented contribution is the reference geometry and prototype development: translating an organic industrial-design envelope into surfaces, negotiating the key-system interfaces and carrying the model-review changes back into CAD.

People and responsibilities

Color and legend work also had its own contributors: Toddy Fitch and Nancy appear in those review actions. The account does not transfer their work, supplier tooling or production ownership into the mechanical-design role.

Source trail

• The original Cortez project statement establishes the surfacing assignment and six-week prototype release.
• The keycap packet and May 18 supplier drawing/table document the key envelope, pitch and two-tool estimate.
• Dated May-July correspondence records the hard-model purpose, review actions, role boundaries and June 27 revision breakdown.
• Early industrial-design drawings and functional-model photographs show the form and interface areas, with revision limits preserved in the captions.
• Three June invoices document the billed effort. October correspondence and the January 2001 receipt bound the later handoff without proving production closure.