6 ms·

I would be so happy if there were some sort of color coding to just be rid of the hassle of switching twice ("I'm sure it's this one, nopes, it's the other one"

I would be so happy if there were some sort of color coding to just be rid of the hassle of switching twice ("I'm sure it's this one, nopes, it's the other one").

tomxor 7y ago
There is zero chance that alone would pass as a solution in the EU, not accessible. Colour blindness is extremely common too.
- zrm 7y ago
  True color blindness is very rare. Most "color blind" people are red-green color blind and can still distinguish between e.g. red and blue.
  - tomxor 7y ago
    yes and that is extremely common, that doesn't count as colour blindness? what else would you call it. Either way the "incomplete" forms of colour blindness are one of the most common forms of disability, so using color as the only distinguishing factor in consumer cable types is pretty exclusionary.
    - Filligree 7y ago
      It sure beats having _no_ distinguishing factor.
      - tomxor 7y ago
        It's not better than the more obvious solution, symbols, which all other "universal" things use... that is what the U in USB stands for isn't it.
        Filligree 7y ago
        I'd be happy to have both.
    - zrm 7y ago
      Why is it exclusionary if you use the colors they can still distinguish between?
      - tomxor 7y ago
        What do you do magically change the colour depending on the person?
        zrm 7y ago
        You use colors that the largest number of people can distinguish between. At some point there will always be someone who something doesn't work for. You suggest using symbols, but what about people who are completely blind? So you use something like a combination of color and braille, and then the rare person who is monochromatic can use the same solution as someone who is completely blind.
        tomxor 7y ago
        > At some point there will always be someone who something doesn't work for. So your basically saying screw them all since it's impossible to include everyone? I just outlined for you the most common disability, it's particularly easy to avoid since they can still actually see. > the rare person who is monochromatic can use the same solution as someone who is completely blind. ...how would you like to be told to learn brail in old age just cos your eyesight isn't quite good enough to read some small print? No, that's just awful. Shape first, colour purely as an extra, then brail if the symbol is not relief or discernible enough, this is absolute basics of accessibility. This also helps everyone and functions in very low light since we all have low sensitivity to colour compared to luminescence, more so the older you get
        zrm 7y ago
        > So your basically saying screw them all since it's impossible to include everyone? Your disposition is needlessly antagonistic. Moreover, regardless of what is common to every standard cable, anyone is free to put their own labels on their own cables to suit their needs. Not every solution has to be complex bureaucratic uniformity. > I just outlined for you the most common disability, it's particularly easy to avoid since they can still actually see. Are you even sure that color blindness is more common than blurred vision that makes it hard to discern small symbols?
    - msbarnett 7y ago
      In attempting to defend Color blind people, you go too far in painting them as helpless. The use of color to distinguish thing is not in-and-of-itself exclusionary. Color blind people are still perfectly capable of distinguishing shades. As long as you use fairly different shades of red and green, they can still match the cable to its matching color shaded port. Much UI accessibility is based on this fact.
      - mclehman 7y ago
        Speaking as an only mildly colorblind person, I still tend not to use color to differentiate things. Even when it's two colors I can easily tell the difference between, I don't reach for color as a disambiguating feature unless I consciously try to. Having to go even further than that and use shades of the colors I do have trouble with would be far more onerous.
      - tomxor 7y ago
        Had you used a monochrome filter on software while adding accessibility you probably wouldn't suggest using shade as method of differentiation (it's simple to try, i recommend it). We already use luminescence mainly for discerning shape, when you throw "shades" into the mix it's usually too subtle for the purpose of differentiation. Additionally in the physical world how are you going to determine the shade of something relative to something that is not present? i.e if you only have one cable in front of you. We don't have absolute perception, it tends to be affected by context, additionally the lighting now seriously affects your judgement... The reason this is so different to colour is because luminescence is a single receptor type (rods), with which you are trying to compare intensity of an area of one type of signal filled with other detailed information; whereas with colour you have three signal types (cones), in combination and at a lower detail than rods, so it's effectively separate information with at least 2^3 completely distinct permutations to differentiate in almost any lighting or context. This also explains why the absence of only a single cone receptor type has a significant impact on perception since it drops to 2^2 halfing the completely distinct permutations, of which two are merely black and white, so you actually drop from 6 to 2 non-monochromatic permutations - so you see it is far more challenging using either shade or partial cone types.
- stordoff 7y ago
  If it's additive (as in you can get by without it, but it helps), it may well be OK.
  - tomxor 7y ago
    Yes, it's fine if it's not the primary differentiating feature, i.e if symbols are used.
Causality1 7y ago
Seconding that. Type C is a nightmare. I have a tablet that supports USB 3.1 over its Type C port but has to charge via a MicroUSB port. I have a phone with a Type C port that's limited to USB 2.0 but supports HDMI out via DisplayLink. Wife has a phone with USB 3-supporting Type C but doesn't support HDMI out. I have another tablet with a dedicated charging dock with pogo pins and a Type C port that supports input charging but only does so at 5v/800mA. Five years ago everything had a MicroUSB port that at least supported 5v/1.5A charging and almost everything did video-out via MHL or SlimPort adapters. It's 2019 and I have to buy a specific $900 phone and $200 dock to be able to charge and output video at the same time. I hate it.

I would be so happy if there were some sort of color coding to just be rid of the hassle of switching twice ("I'm sure it's this one, nopes, it's the other one").

tomxor 7y ago

There is zero chance that alone would pass as a solution in the EU, not accessible. Colour blindness is extremely common too.

zrm 7y ago
True color blindness is very rare. Most "color blind" people are red-green color blind and can still distinguish between e.g. red and blue.
- tomxor 7y ago
  yes and that is extremely common, that doesn't count as colour blindness? what else would you call it. Either way the "incomplete" forms of colour blindness are one of the most common forms of disability, so using color as the only distinguishing factor in consumer cable types is pretty exclusionary.
  - Filligree 7y ago
    It sure beats having _no_ distinguishing factor.
    - tomxor 7y ago
      It's not better than the more obvious solution, symbols, which all other "universal" things use... that is what the U in USB stands for isn't it.
      - Filligree 7y ago
        I'd be happy to have both.
  - zrm 7y ago
    Why is it exclusionary if you use the colors they can still distinguish between?
    - tomxor 7y ago
      What do you do magically change the colour depending on the person?
      - zrm 7y ago
        You use colors that the largest number of people can distinguish between. At some point there will always be someone who something doesn't work for. You suggest using symbols, but what about people who are completely blind? So you use something like a combination of color and braille, and then the rare person who is monochromatic can use the same solution as someone who is completely blind.
        tomxor 7y ago
        > At some point there will always be someone who something doesn't work for. So your basically saying screw them all since it's impossible to include everyone? I just outlined for you the most common disability, it's particularly easy to avoid since they can still actually see. > the rare person who is monochromatic can use the same solution as someone who is completely blind. ...how would you like to be told to learn brail in old age just cos your eyesight isn't quite good enough to read some small print? No, that's just awful. Shape first, colour purely as an extra, then brail if the symbol is not relief or discernible enough, this is absolute basics of accessibility. This also helps everyone and functions in very low light since we all have low sensitivity to colour compared to luminescence, more so the older you get
        zrm 7y ago
        > So your basically saying screw them all since it's impossible to include everyone? Your disposition is needlessly antagonistic. Moreover, regardless of what is common to every standard cable, anyone is free to put their own labels on their own cables to suit their needs. Not every solution has to be complex bureaucratic uniformity. > I just outlined for you the most common disability, it's particularly easy to avoid since they can still actually see. Are you even sure that color blindness is more common than blurred vision that makes it hard to discern small symbols?
  - msbarnett 7y ago
    In attempting to defend Color blind people, you go too far in painting them as helpless. The use of color to distinguish thing is not in-and-of-itself exclusionary. Color blind people are still perfectly capable of distinguishing shades. As long as you use fairly different shades of red and green, they can still match the cable to its matching color shaded port. Much UI accessibility is based on this fact.
    - mclehman 7y ago
      Speaking as an only mildly colorblind person, I still tend not to use color to differentiate things. Even when it's two colors I can easily tell the difference between, I don't reach for color as a disambiguating feature unless I consciously try to. Having to go even further than that and use shades of the colors I do have trouble with would be far more onerous.
    - tomxor 7y ago
      Had you used a monochrome filter on software while adding accessibility you probably wouldn't suggest using shade as method of differentiation (it's simple to try, i recommend it). We already use luminescence mainly for discerning shape, when you throw "shades" into the mix it's usually too subtle for the purpose of differentiation. Additionally in the physical world how are you going to determine the shade of something relative to something that is not present? i.e if you only have one cable in front of you. We don't have absolute perception, it tends to be affected by context, additionally the lighting now seriously affects your judgement... The reason this is so different to colour is because luminescence is a single receptor type (rods), with which you are trying to compare intensity of an area of one type of signal filled with other detailed information; whereas with colour you have three signal types (cones), in combination and at a lower detail than rods, so it's effectively separate information with at least 2^3 completely distinct permutations to differentiate in almost any lighting or context. This also explains why the absence of only a single cone receptor type has a significant impact on perception since it drops to 2^2 halfing the completely distinct permutations, of which two are merely black and white, so you actually drop from 6 to 2 non-monochromatic permutations - so you see it is far more challenging using either shade or partial cone types.
stordoff 7y ago
If it's additive (as in you can get by without it, but it helps), it may well be OK.
- tomxor 7y ago
  Yes, it's fine if it's not the primary differentiating feature, i.e if symbols are used.

Causality1 7y ago

Seconding that. Type C is a nightmare. I have a tablet that supports USB 3.1 over its Type C port but has to charge via a MicroUSB port. I have a phone with a Type C port that's limited to USB 2.0 but supports HDMI out via DisplayLink. Wife has a phone with USB 3-supporting Type C but doesn't support HDMI out. I have another tablet with a dedicated charging dock with pogo pins and a Type C port that supports input charging but only does so at 5v/800mA. Five years ago everything had a MicroUSB port that at least supported 5v/1.5A charging and almost everything did video-out via MHL or SlimPort adapters. It's 2019 and I have to buy a specific $900 phone and $200 dock to be able to charge and output video at the same time. I hate it.