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

On Trouser Pockets

sambleckley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 400 posts

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#211

Post by wnoise »

Kalium wrote: post #43
jablan wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or that you simply have different aesthetic criteria. When did fashion start being axiomatic?

Excuse me. You're right, I've been over-broad. Purposely adopting cargo pants requires a rejection of the primacy of common, mainstream aesthetic culture in clothing decision-making for any of a variety of reasons. Examples include, but are in no way limited to, functional reasons and personal aesthetics. Thank you for this opportunity to clarify my thoughts.

Better, but still not quite right. You don't have to reject the primacy if you never acquired it or considered it in the first place.

Fashion is a feature of socialization, and not everyone was socialized the same way.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#212

Post by IggleSniggle »

msla wrote: post #194
groby_b wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we have opinions on our clothes without having to give every random person on the Internet a full justification? Why yes, yes we can. But, OK, let's answer it. The first answer is right in the fine article: Hip pockets lead to bad posture when sitting. They cause back pain. The second answer is that if you dress for aesthetic instead of functional reasons, one of the very first concerns is silhouette. And if you…

> Can we have opinions on our clothes without having to give every random person on the Internet a full justification? Yes, which is why I'm suspicious of people who make dictates and maxims about fashion. My point is that those maxims were created by people who have an obvious incentive to sell you more things, and having you supplement pants with carrying bags would benefit them. We must also take unconscious racis…

> > > awful hip pocket bulges

> > Who says they're awful? Why do they say that?

> > We must be informed and skeptical consumers.

> Hip pockets lead to bad posture when sitting. They cause back pain.

Actually, we are talking about hip pockets.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#214

Post by randomchars »

msla wrote: post #198
ebg13 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. At first I was intensely disappointed by the post ("why so wordy?", "why no pictures?"), but then I got to the design part and said "holy shit I want this". If people are happy with their cargo pants, no worries . It doesn't conform to a lot of current fashion aesthetic, but if that doesn't hit a person's radar, then cool, great. But a lot of people in the thread here are feeling attacked because someone…

This is denigrating cargo pants because they're associated with manual labor. It's classist, and, to some extent, racist.

So not wanting to wear cargo pants because I think they look like shit makes me classiest and racist?

This kind of behavior where people are labeling anything and everything racist is very much harmful, and makes every sensible people less sensitive to racist claims.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#215

Post by zuhayeer »

Love this. Would be great to see these in stores. An unfortunate thing about the apparel industry (which I think contributes to how outdated clothing styles have been) is that it's all about the marketing budget and distribution channels. Things like getting your brand onto racks in stores and massive online ad campaigns become the key things to your business. That doesn't really encourage much innovation on product, it's securing the channel that really matters. A large brand's marketing budget can simply just eclipse yours to do better in sales. As you become bigger, all the attention simply shifts to supply chain, distribution, and increasing sales. All optimization problems, almost doesn't matter what you make.

Hope that changes though

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#216

Post by telesilla »

maire wrote: post #152
jessewmc wrote: post #55

The dismissiveness in this thread is unreal. From the comments you'd think the article only had one sentence insulting the Sanctity of Cargo Pants. If you happily wear baggy jeans or cargo pants, these are not for you and you don't have the problem they solve. It's an elegant solution to wear slim fitted pants without awful hip pocket bulges. Cargo pants are not the solution here, as they are huge and baggy and the p…

For women the problem is worse since we are too curvy to use the exact location of pockets even when clothes are baggy. I find the solution interesting even for women. I solved the same problem by putting the pockets horizontally at the waist. I will try moving the pocket down to the upper leg.

Further, we are all curvy in different ways. I couldn't wear either of the trousers he made, without the fabric bunching. Other women might fit one or the other, or none. I like my pockets in the back, for example, but I need zips so things don't fall out and maybe a way of securing them so things don't get stolen and well it's all too hard so I just carry a purse unless it's running pants and I just need to slot my house key in there..

I hope for the return for Zozosuit, personally. I didn't get a chance to buy anything before they shut down but I enjoyed the measurement process and was hopeful for a good pair of jeans.

https://qz.com/quartzy/1539036/the-zozosuit-has-been-an-expe...

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#217

Post by zeroimpl »

jablan wrote: post #65
tlamponi wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of the article is the placement and design of pockets. Saying, "Oh, its just all some pants with pockets and thus it's all the same reinvention" doesn't help anybody - it's like saying to one which proposes a better roofing system that a shed and a house have both a roof already, so why bother making it better for one of those. Er what?

Sorry, you are conflating two things: placement and design. OP hasn't changed the placement of the cargo pants pockets. For me as a proverbial user, the interface didn't change. The implementation details did. Don't get me wrong, I like the approach OP took, but this is basically an iteration on cargo pants design, by making them more socially acceptable.

It's only an iteration on cargo pants if they started from cargo pants. If they started from dress pants, then it's an iteration on dress pants. The fact that it might be only a few steps away from cargo pants is irrelevant - it's also only a few steps away from most other pant designs.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#218

Post by tgb »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #190
jessewmc wrote: post #55

The dismissiveness in this thread is unreal. From the comments you'd think the article only had one sentence insulting the Sanctity of Cargo Pants. If you happily wear baggy jeans or cargo pants, these are not for you and you don't have the problem they solve. It's an elegant solution to wear slim fitted pants without awful hip pocket bulges. Cargo pants are not the solution here, as they are huge and baggy and the p…

Interestingly I have a pair of pants (these: https://www.duluthtrading.com/mens-duluthflex-dry-on-the-fly... , see pocket detail here: https://www.duluthtrading.com/dw/image/v2/BBNM_PRD/on/demand... ) They implement this pocket strategy and work well for me. The author would likely be interested to know that this topic was covered in detail as an engineering exercise in NASA flight suits. More functional pockets for…

I recall clicking a Duluth Trading link from a thread not so unlike this on HN years ago and then being followed by ads for their jeans across the internet for at least a year. Of course, I remember that just after clicking your link.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#219

Post by msla »

randomchars wrote: post #214
msla wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is denigrating cargo pants because they're associated with manual labor. It's classist, and, to some extent, racist.

So not wanting to wear cargo pants because I think they look like shit makes me classiest and racist? This kind of behavior where people are labeling anything and everything racist is very much harmful, and makes every sensible people less sensitive to racist claims.

No, saying cargo pants are ugly because they look like what a laborer (or a "pretend-laborer" to use the article's wording) wears is classist.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#220

Post by mumblemumble »

msla wrote: post #200
jessewmc wrote: post #55

The dismissiveness in this thread is unreal. From the comments you'd think the article only had one sentence insulting the Sanctity of Cargo Pants. If you happily wear baggy jeans or cargo pants, these are not for you and you don't have the problem they solve. It's an elegant solution to wear slim fitted pants without awful hip pocket bulges. Cargo pants are not the solution here, as they are huge and baggy and the p…

The dismissiveness comes from dismissing cargo pants for being associated with manual labor.

Here, again, is what was actually said:

Cargo pants solve different problems for different people.

If cargo pants are appropriate for your daily life, you definitely don’t want or need my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa. Cargo pants aren’t office-wear; these dress pants aren’t combat-wear.

This is not dismissing cargo pants or the wearing thereof. This is dismissing the failure to grasp that details matter a lot in fashion, and the detailing in cargo pants renders them inappropriate to certain contexts. It even directly acknowledges that this goes both ways, and that the detailing on these pants would render them inappropriate to the contexts that cargo pants are designed for (if not limited to).

Post reply on HN