Re:USB inventor explains why the connector was not designed ...
by npunt on Wednesday October 11, 2023 @05:52PM
(#37850721)
Totally it's a very solvable problem w not many variants.
It's unfortunate the USB group chose these particular labels. They're so ugly that you'd never want one on a cable, and they don't reduce to small sizes well. It's like they were never designed to be put on cables, or they never consulted anyone who ever used or sold a cable as to whether they were going to use it.
I'd have preferred something that could be depressed into the plastic mold of the connector with two icons, a bolt and a dot:
- default (USB2, whatever min watts) is blank cable
- 60w has one bolt, 100w+ has two bolts
- 5gbps has one dot, 20 has two, 40 three, 80 four
That way you avoid the uncleanness of labels and their eventual scratching off, while maintaining at-a-glance (and even physical feel) understanding of cable capability. It also scales to future improvements. Honestly I think this would solve like 90% of people's complaints with USB-C.
It's unfortunate the USB group chose these particular labels. They're so ugly that you'd never want one on a cable, and they don't reduce to small sizes well. It's like they were never designed to be put on cables, or they never consulted anyone who ever used or sold a cable as to whether they were going to use it.
I'd have preferred something that could be depressed into the plastic mold of the connector with two icons, a bolt and a dot:
- default (USB2, whatever min watts) is blank cable
- 60w has one bolt, 100w+ has two bolts
- 5gbps has one dot, 20 has two, 40 three, 80 four
That way you avoid the uncleanness of labels and their eventual scratching off, while maintaining at-a-glance (and even physical feel) understanding of cable capability. It also scales to future improvements. Honestly I think this would solve like 90% of people's complaints with USB-C.