Heard the same idiotic and short sighted reasons before the 1/8 jacks were being introduced.
True, but that doesn't mean that connectors will always be in a state of flux.
There comes a point in technological development where human factors become the limiting factors, not technology. I'm not sure we've quite reached it with the 1/8" audio jack, but it is close enough to be debatable. My opinion is that 1/8" is very near that smallest humanly workable size. Not for all humans, but for at least some. The elderly already have difficulty with the 1/8" size.
Flash media provides an analogy. We've reached the point where smaller is not better. We could certainly make a card physically smaller than a micro-SD card, but it would be too difficult to handle. Smaller wouldn't be preferable if intended to be plugged/unplugged regularly by users.
To me the question is, exactly how much smaller is the optimal size for humans when dealing with an audio jack? If it is very close to the 1/8" standard, then we might never switch to another size. Straying from the standard wouldn't be worth it. If the optimal size turns out to be noticeably smaller, it could be worth bucking the standard.
Most of us only read headlines. As a matter of fact headlines are very important. If well written, they make people click on the story. But do they read it? thats the real question.
I finally got it after reading the whole article.
But why would you comment on something without reading the article? I for one think people should read the article at the very least, but preferably check out the source links too. So much meaningless commentary could be avoided if people entered the discussion as a properly informed commentor.
I agree that titles shouldn't be misleading either though.
But why would you comment on something without reading the article? I for one think people should read the article at the very least, but preferably check out the source links too. So much meaningless commentary could be avoided if people entered the discussion as a properly informed commentor.
I agree that titles shouldn't be misleading either though.
Many people here frequent the forums and don't really pay much attention to the articles.
Not that you're wrong. Just pointing out that people aren't necessarily commenting on the article per se. Most posts are likely replies to other posts, and not directed at the article at all.
But yeah, if someone were to comment on the article, they probably should have read the article.
Comments
Heard the same idiotic and short sighted reasons before the 1/8 jacks were being introduced.
True, but that doesn't mean that connectors will always be in a state of flux.
There comes a point in technological development where human factors become the limiting factors, not technology. I'm not sure we've quite reached it with the 1/8" audio jack, but it is close enough to be debatable. My opinion is that 1/8" is very near that smallest humanly workable size. Not for all humans, but for at least some. The elderly already have difficulty with the 1/8" size.
Flash media provides an analogy. We've reached the point where smaller is not better. We could certainly make a card physically smaller than a micro-SD card, but it would be too difficult to handle. Smaller wouldn't be preferable if intended to be plugged/unplugged regularly by users.
To me the question is, exactly how much smaller is the optimal size for humans when dealing with an audio jack? If it is very close to the 1/8" standard, then we might never switch to another size. Straying from the standard wouldn't be worth it. If the optimal size turns out to be noticeably smaller, it could be worth bucking the standard.
Most of us only read headlines. As a matter of fact headlines are very important. If well written, they make people click on the story. But do they read it? thats the real question.
I finally got it after reading the whole article.
But why would you comment on something without reading the article? I for one think people should read the article at the very least, but preferably check out the source links too. So much meaningless commentary could be avoided if people entered the discussion as a properly informed commentor.
I agree that titles shouldn't be misleading either though.
But why would you comment on something without reading the article? I for one think people should read the article at the very least, but preferably check out the source links too. So much meaningless commentary could be avoided if people entered the discussion as a properly informed commentor.
I agree that titles shouldn't be misleading either though.
Many people here frequent the forums and don't really pay much attention to the articles.
Not that you're wrong. Just pointing out that people aren't necessarily commenting on the article per se. Most posts are likely replies to other posts, and not directed at the article at all.
But yeah, if someone were to comment on the article, they probably should have read the article.