Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sizing chaos

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 458 posts

Re: Sizing chaos

#161

Post by altairprime »

Rendello wrote: post #103
dehue wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience with womens clothing having pockets does not mean they are very practical for phones. Phones are heavy and they can drag pants or skirt/dress down if they are stretchier or don't have a tight waistband which is most of them. If the pocket goes too far down or is too loose or too big the phone ends up too far down and jiggles around which is quite annoying and uncomfortable. Or in items like jeans whe…

Even as a guy who wears pretty loose straight-cut jeans, having stuff in my pockets can look and feel weird. Especially my AirPods case. In jeans with slightly stretchy denim, the location of my phone is permanently etched into my jeans. I'd be a pickpocket's dream. When I had the unfortunate inclination to wear tight pants, anything in the pockets looked and felt quite bad.

In women's clothes, if you're trying to target Generic Woman, you often have to put deep pockets somewhere other than the front of thigh, because for various compositional reasons that area isn't reliably available across women's various body shapes. This is how we ended up with one of the coolest innovations in pockets since leggings: the side leg pocket. Everyone has a side leg. You can put a pocket there and it's perceptually irrelevant to people. Some of my skirts have pockets designed along these same lines that can hold an entire Nintendo Switch with controllers attached and it's effectively invisible if I'm sitting in a chair, because no one notices when my thighs are a bit thicker on one side. In leggings it's blindingly obvious that there's a phone there, but leggings are typically bodycon-tight to begin with, so I just view it as "yup, that's a phone pocket" when I even remember where I put my phone at all.

Re: Sizing chaos

#162

Post by altairprime »

bubblewand wrote: post #131
Rendello wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even as a guy who wears pretty loose straight-cut jeans, having stuff in my pockets can look and feel weird. Especially my AirPods case. In jeans with slightly stretchy denim, the location of my phone is permanently etched into my jeans. I'd be a pickpocket's dream. When I had the unfortunate inclination to wear tight pants, anything in the pockets looked and felt quite bad.

If you think you can pull it off, I've become a strong proponent of blazers and sport coats. I call them "wearable purses for men". For me, this is basically an evolution and refinement of what I guess I've always been trying to do. As a teen, I'd wear un- or partially-buttoned button-up shirts over my t-shirts. Later, zip hoodies as much of the year as I could get away with. I'd also be sad during this whole period…

You might also appreciate research into the French accesory 'pochette', which is approximately like a women's clutch in the U.S. except without the gender-specifics (as translations 'folder' or 'case' suggest). Might have to site:fr a search in order to get ungendered results, though.

Re: Sizing chaos

#163

Post by bee_rider »

oceanplexian wrote: post #106
munificent wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like a better angle would be educating people that 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks sugar for breakfast is not healthy. An even better angle is educating Starbucks to stop selling unhealthy garbage. The idea that all blame rests on individuals and corporations are blame-free is crazy. They have way more agency over what we consume than individuals do.

> The idea that all blame rests on individuals and corporations are blame-free is crazy. You know they have Starbucks in other countries without an obesity crisis? No one is forcing you or I to order a particular drink at Starbucks; they literally put the number of calories directly next to the menu item. The blame is 100% on the individuals making their own health decisions.

Just eyeballing a map, the countries that pop out as both having Starbucks and not having an obesity problem are China and India. Other than that, it looks like most of the countries that have Starbucks have obesity rates over, like, 20%, which seems pretty bad.

This isn’t to say Starbucks is causing obesity, of course. Most likely they are showing up together as the economy develops.

I do think it is worth noting that obesity is a pretty widespread problem, not uniquely American or anything like that.

Re: Sizing chaos

#164

Post by Slow_Hand »

Rendello wrote: post #103
dehue wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience with womens clothing having pockets does not mean they are very practical for phones. Phones are heavy and they can drag pants or skirt/dress down if they are stretchier or don't have a tight waistband which is most of them. If the pocket goes too far down or is too loose or too big the phone ends up too far down and jiggles around which is quite annoying and uncomfortable. Or in items like jeans whe…

Even as a guy who wears pretty loose straight-cut jeans, having stuff in my pockets can look and feel weird. Especially my AirPods case. In jeans with slightly stretchy denim, the location of my phone is permanently etched into my jeans. I'd be a pickpocket's dream. When I had the unfortunate inclination to wear tight pants, anything in the pockets looked and felt quite bad.

I'm a big fan these days of a small crossbody bag (aka a sling bag). MY problem is that the pockets on my pants are too large and loose and I don't want to worry about things absently falling out when I sit.

Uniqlo makes a solid one for $25. It's light, comfortable, and unobtrusive. Admittedly, it's not ideal for all styles or situations, but I love that it's large enough for items that are definitely too large or uncomfortable for a pocket, like a book, small notebook, or an accessory.

https://www.uniqlo.com/us/en/products/E486766-000/00?colorDi...

Re: Sizing chaos

#165

Post by queenkjuul »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #38
fishtoaster wrote: post #14

This is a great use of data to make a compelling case that sizing sucks for women's clothing! I do wish it attempted to answer the question at the end, though: "Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?" Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing…

>"Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?" I will settle for making them consistent. Multiple times, I have ordered the same clothing in the same size from the same webpage in different colors, and some colors fit, and the others do not. I am surprised that a women's clothing startup prioritizing pockets big enough for smartphones hasn't usurped the incumbents. I would have figured the convenien…

For me the back pockets are usually good enough to hold the phone when I'm walking then i just put it wherever (bag, table, bike mount, etc) the rest of the time. I wouldn't keep it in my front pocket even if it did fit.

Re: Sizing chaos

#166

Post by TacticalCoder »

bubblewand wrote: post #69
fishtoaster wrote: post #14

This is a great use of data to make a compelling case that sizing sucks for women's clothing! I do wish it attempted to answer the question at the end, though: "Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?" Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing…

I'm pretty sure everyone who cares about getting a good fit (and isn't simply trying the clothes on in person) is looking at measurements, which you can usually find for any half-decent vendor (though it may take some poking around their site). The best have it per-garment (or per-cut), less-good but usually still alright is having a guide to the measurements they base their sizing off of. Even guys can't really get…

> Women's clothes are even trickier

Oh that explains why my wife spends so much time obsessing over clothes: trying clothes, buying/returning, buying others, etc. I'm sure a few others can relate.

And she's got a very normal BMI: not underweight, just plain in the middle (5'5" / 124 lbs: something like that) and a very hour-glassy/feminine shape, so many clothes are "made" to her shape/size/weight. I can't imagine what it'd be if she had uncommon "dimensions".

Re: Sizing chaos

#167

Post by altairprime »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #3

Makes me want to learn to sew to make my own clothes. I've wanted to for a while because seams on clothes always bothered me. (Not for taste or fashion, but just because I feel like the technology to make a seamless clothing product must exist.)

You can manage a seamless clothing product if you are willing to have it knit on-demand for you, either by machine or by person. If you start with how [1] socks are made, then consider how to decompose your clothes into sock-shapes, you'll find:

Shirts: one tube sock for the torso, two tube socks for the arms, zero ends closed; Pants: two tube socks for the legs, one tube sock for the torso, zero ends closed; Gloves: five tube socks for the appendages, one tube sock for the palm, zero-to-five ends closed depending on fingerless style; Socks: one tube sock with one end closed; Hats: one tube sock with one end closed.

So it's entirely possible to construct a sock weaving pattern that ends up weaving a head-to-toe single garment for you out of some kind of stretchy yarn, that you would then have to figure out how to clamber into through the face hole (since that's the only open-ended sock) — but that coverall (literally!) pattern would have to be constructed for your complete set of measurements [2] in every regard, and that's an exceedingly costly amount of labor (measurement, knitting, measurement, unraveling, repeat). You can scale down that cost for seamless tops or bottoms somewhat, which you'll absolutely see high-fashion retailers do, but at the end of the day it's the cost of bespoke-tailored clothing from scratch plus the cost of bespoke-knit fabric from scratch plus the cost of not getting it exactly right the first time. None of this is intended to criticize your desire — I hate awful seams and I have collected clothing that has seams that don't bother me and/or are extravagantly seams because the sweater was intentionally panel-knit inside-out! — but I wanted to offer a bit of depth into why it's difficult to find seamless. You have to start and end the knit somewhere, and that's exponentially simpler if you start and end the knit more than once; thus, seams.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_7Limzg3O60 or https://blog.tincanknits.com/2013/10/03/socks/

[2] https://cwandt.com/products/personal-body-unit-index makes the point nicely enough, though I believe you need Even More And Different measurements for tailoring [3] that were out of scope for this particular creation:

> Che-Wei’s Mom often does this weird finger walking dance along the edges of furniture, fabric or random stuff. She knows that the span of her hand from thumb to pinky measures 18cm. So she can quickly size things up. We always thought this was funny, until we realized it was GENIUS and started to copy her. We made Personal Body Unit Index so we can be more like Che-Wei’s Mom.

[3] Men's tailoring measurements are generally optimized for a couple dozen taken at most; further variability gets handled through 'adjustments' or 'on the fly' rather than formally at the construction stage. I think I can identify a couple dozen measurements just on my torso alone — just the bust is an entire three-dimensional construct that has to be measured over, across, under, rise, attachment shape, attachment height and width, volume, not to mention desired support/lift/shaping, and that's before we even get to the usual waist-hips-butt conglomerate, torso/arm length, shoulder width, upper/lower arm width that men are familiar with, and the perhaps less-familiar belly shape/distribution (it isn't always above-the-belt as is typical for men) and front abdomen curve shape (often without a certain male sexual characteristic, often with varying fat pattern distributions, see also belly).

Re: Sizing chaos

#168

Post by mauvehaus »

zetanor wrote: post #110
diath wrote: post #89

The issue is not the sizes, the issue is the obesity epidemic. According to CDC [1] the average woman in the US is 5'3" weighing 172lbs. That's not just overweight but rather first degree of obesity. I guess you could argue that sizes should catch up to the demands when half of your population is straight up fat but I feel like a better angle would be educating people that 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks sugar for break…

Despite the article highlighting only people of width as the "millions of people who are excluded from standard size ranges", sizing is also a problem in the other direction: it's practically impossible to find well-fitting clothes if you're tall and in decent shape. To your point, though, perhaps there was a time when "large" and "x-large" meant "slightly tall" and "quite tall" rather than "slightly tall plus obese"…

As a dude who is 6’ 1” or thereabouts with a 32” or thereabouts waist and a 34” (or thereabouts) inseam: can confirm.

Carhartts size up a waist size to account for shrinking, and I can almost reliably find a 34/34. Finding 32/34 in other pants is a challenge. On the subject of vanity sizing, I’m 15 pounds heavier than I was 20 years ago, and I still wear a 32/34. Which is why all those measurements are qualified above.

Finding shirts that fit is a similar challenge. Fitted shirts can usually be found in 16 34-35 with an athletic cut. Letter sizes are a total crapshoot. Sometimes I’m a L, sometimes an M. If I’m an M across the gut, frequently the shoulders are far too tight.

Not that I’m complaining as such, but I do agree that the sizes encompass too little information about body shape.

Re: Sizing chaos

#169

Post by tikhonj »

kccqzy wrote: post #99
munificent wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like a better angle would be educating people that 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks sugar for breakfast is not healthy. An even better angle is educating Starbucks to stop selling unhealthy garbage. The idea that all blame rests on individuals and corporations are blame-free is crazy. They have way more agency over what we consume than individuals do.

That Starbucks probably saved my life after I made an unwise decision to bike 40 miles on an empty stomach. Bonking is real, and I’m glad they are allowed to sell the sugary beverages to prevent me from bonking. Oh and I also fainted the first time I donated blood, because I did not know I should not donate blood while fasting. Again, sugary drinks helped.

There's a lot of area on the spectrum between where we are today and "sugary beverages are all banned".

For example, Starbucks could limit the sizes it sells and advertises—you'd still be able to have as much sugar as you would like by buying multiple drinks, but it would raise the activation energy needed to do that. Making the healthier choice the path of least resistance works wonders.

Post reply on HN