Simply tinning the copper with solder would likely be the easiest option although I couldn't say how durable that would be against contact wear over very long periods of time. I'd suspect just as durable as nickel or gold plating would be...
Switches have an advantage over these connectors in that they touch rather than slide. So wear and tear is much less of a problem.
Neither of these satisfy me, because in my eyes if you're using an off-the-shelf sensor of some kind, you're not really making a switch, you're just putting a little mechanism around another type of switch. Making the contacts out of cheaply-available material is important to me, although it's hard to really articulate why.
I'm trying to do this from as close to "first principles" as possible.
I read through the claims of the US patents, and they’re essentially describing “turn the arrow keys into a joystick”. US8717202B1 explicitly limits the mechanism to a light-and-mirror sort of arrangement (thus, optical switches). US8922399B2 is a broadening of the former patent, removing that limitation (which weakens it a lot because it’s not describing a concrete implementation but an abstract idea), and thus I think it would be claiming other forms of analogue switches (e.g. magnetic) too. Either way, there are a number of products on the market that, if would be infringing these patents (unless their manufacturers licensed the patents).
Besides all this, I don’t believe individuals need to worry about patents if they’re doing things for themselves only.
But beyond that, I would be quite happy to ignore the Aimpad patents because the concept was not novel, and prior art exists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEwDImE0DU4 was in 2012 and I haven’t gone searching any further. Taking the broader ’399: the project in that video is, I believe (I haven’t watched much of it, more just read a few comments about it and skimmed it), prior art for claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, and maybe others. For the rest, claim 2 is a supremely obvious extension of claim 1. Claim 4 is obvious and shouldn’t be patentable anyway. Claim 7 is… “what? how else could you possibly do it?”, viz. obvious. Claim 8 is obvious (as in, if such noise is a problem, of course you’re going to do this, it’s been a standard technique on input devices for many, many years). Claim 9 is stupid (“slap the rest of the keyboard on it”). I think there’s a good chance you could get the patents cancelled (that is, without waiting to be sued and getting a court to rule) if you wanted.
(Although I wrote a fair bit of detail here, I’m in no way expert on patents. I’ve just picked up a few things over the years from public news and reading, when related things have interested me. Do not trust my conclusions here to reflect how USPTO, courts, or any other relevant bodies will look on things.)
I played with gold electroplating pens but they are nasty.