Hacker News Reader

Comment by SavantIdiot | Hacker News Reader

This is an incredibly thorough analysis of all the different kinds of things that can appear on the end of the USB-C. However, I think it puts blame on the hardware spec, when in reality the drivers are at fault. It is up to the driver to sort out the mess of options and provide feedback, however, engineers are not known for UX. All of the tools are there for querying caps, but this information simply doesn't propagate upstream to the GUI, so the user is left scratching their heads when they don't get bandwidth or connectivity. Recently I have started seeing devices alert me when they are plugged into a sub-optimal hub (e.g., Salae's USB-3 logic analyzer), but I think it will take some time for the driver/application space to catch up.

View on HN

Plugging the cable in is the last thing you do with the cable, after buying/searching for/selecting between cables. Maybe you brought the cable with you on a trip or to the office or whatever.

If it takes you until the last step to realize you don't have a cable you can use, that's a huge spec UX failure.

Yes and, in contrast, the connectors for cables inside desktop computers are mostly distinct and difficult to plug into the wrong ports.

Happenend to me. Bought cable, bought car power adapter for usb-c. Bought adapter to Plug USB-C into USB-A of the car adapter. Plugged everything together. Phone is not charging, for whatever reason.

Even if the cables were marketed easier, you still want to see info pop up if you have the wrong one.

I blame the spec because if people commonly use what you designed the wrong way, you did not design it correctly.

That statement seems to lack consistency. You blame the spec, and then blame the designer. Which is it?

EDIT: I worked t intel, the specification is written by the architects and the implementation is created by the designers. Two distinct groups of people.

I took it to mean the spec’s design.

By designers I believe they mean the authors of the spec.

So unclear spec = implementations aren't as consistent as the authors of the spec were hoping for.

Ah, see where I come from the spec is written by the architects and the implementation is created by the designers. Two distinct groups of people.

What's unclear about what spec in particular? I've read PD, Type-C, BC1.2 specs and those are rather thorough and well cross-referenced.

This is still a problem :

> Finally, the USB Battery Charging spec enables a weirdly missing feature: a device plugged into a battery pack had no standard USB command it could issue that simply asked, “How much current can I draw?” Instead, different manufacturers came up with solutions that were not always compatible, limiting charging among certain devices.

It's not a proper power delivery standard until this issue is dealt with.

(Note that this also applies to other unreliable power sources.) Heck, even to the main house power : you can only draw 240W so many times before you trigger the circuit breaker...

>this information simply doesn't propagate upstream to the GUI

Windows has done this since at least XP for various combinations of USB 1.1 vs 2.0.[1][2] I don't know whether the same is true for USB 3 though.

[1]: https://pcauthorities.com/content/images/this-device-can-per...

[2]: https://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/art_upgrade01_04_02/e...

Honestly, it can also be the fault of the spec. There is such a thing as a spec being too broad or too under-constrained and allowing too much rope for implementers to hang themselves with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com