331–340 of 613 posts
If he read the manual he'd know the off-switch for Switch controller is clicking the pair button one time.
As indicated in the thread via his own words and pictures this is an off-brand switch controller, not a Nintendo official one. They don't have the same requirements for even features as the official Nintendo Pro or Joycon controllers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would fire the whole team immediately if they really dont listen. Noone wants another e-waste.
I am pretty sure the market disagrees with you.
> I am pretty sure the market disagrees with you.
Not applicable - efficient market hypothesis requires a host of conditions to be true, and all of the following are unmet: information symmetry, sufficient number of suppliers, lack of monopoly effects, and rational consumers.
Man buys cheapest product, is surprised by its lack of quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mean to nitpick, but please refer to my comment regarding the inability of being able to inventory everything that can possibly go wrong in a computerized system. That's especially true given that if you take any successful engineering project, you'll see that its useful lifetime usually spans several individual engineering careers. Take something like Windows, or even Android for example. The people who were…
For the example you gave, as a user, what would you do with "Error: 0xFHJAD1234"? The best you could do is report it to Apple (or whoever). But, the error alone doesn't achieve anything. You would have been better off with "Something broke, click here to send log to Apple." (which is roughly what the book recommends - replace the error with something actionable).
In my experience sending crash data to software companies has never resulted in my satisfaction, nor has using some 'wizard' to diagnose an error. As alluded to above these systems are just not smart enough to actually know what's wrong. If the original programmers could create a fully automated flow to repair all error conditions then why bother notifying the user at all?
The trouble with a mechanical off switch is that you cannot easily / periodically turn it on, so it depends on your usecase. AVR Picopower has been around for about 10y now. These devices dramatically drop power consumption to the point where batteries should last a very long time, definitely >1y, more like 3-5y. The fact that modern devices drain a lot of juice is either sloppy SW design or sloppy HW design, since I…
That's the point though, in this case off means off. There is no reason his controller should have to periodically turn on, when you want to use it you turn it on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ikr? They have these things now, they call them "AAA" batteries...holy heck, you can take them out, and they even make rechargeable ones. Like, if your thing doesn't work, you can just swap the batteries instead of waiting N hours for it to charge itself....what a concept.
Rechargeable AAAs are crap though. Power density sucks. Voltage level sucks (and voltage regulators will suck the battery dry before your micro does). And the form factor sucks. I'd sooner have a 18650-family (e.g. 14240 or 14500) become standard than a bunch of AAAs.
If he read the manual he'd know the off-switch for Switch controller is clicking the pair button one time.
(Background: I work in product design/new product development, and conceivably might have designed this thing! If any of those were still designed in the Western world. Which they aren't. I have designed some stuff like it, though!) Oh, great, this debate again! I shall use this post as ammunition next time I am arguing with our stupid design team about why we need an off switch on the stupid product we are designing…
> This is because they, one, don't listen to anyone ever; and two, never use the products they design. Oh, sure, there might be a user study or two. But they never actually have to live with or work with the damn things. I wonder the percentage of consumer (and business - have you ever used a POS in a pub?!) electronics this applies to? It's gotta be high 90s. I've lost track of the number of times I've lamented "did…
> Oh, great, this debate again! I shall use this post as ammunition next time I am arguing with our stupid design team about why we need an off switch on the stupid product we are designing, because it is a giant pain to live with devices you cannot turn off. I increasingly subscribe to the thesis that many designers and design teams design primarily in an effort to impress other designers . They don't have to use th…
I've been a designer for about a long time. I've done many dumb things, but never that. I have definitely had the irrational thought that "users will think I'm a bad designer if we ship this product", but that's usually because it was a bad product that shouldn't have been shipped.
I've never gotten the sense that my peers do this either. I have definitely gotten the sense that some designers want their designs to impress Apple, and Steve Jobs specifically.
Everybody wants to impress their peers to some degree, but to be clear, that usually translates into just doing a really good job. I've never had another designer show me something and say "Nobody else will appreciate this, but I thought you'd like it".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ” How much extra cost does a hard on/off switch add to the bill of materials?” BoM cost is not the whole story; a physical switch can greatly complicate an assembly, and may require hand-soldered wires. In addition to those cost-related factors, external switches are usually quite ugly, and getting them right can be very challenging, so it’s much easier to just omit them.
I think this is special pleading. At the volume we're discussing a surface mount flow solder on off device is not going to kill the BoM, and could be designed not to be ugly. It's no different to any other bad design. It could be better. All phones and computers can be completely powered down. They're hardly ugly switches.
This is an emotional, low-quality response to what is a measured comment actually providing nuance to the discussion.
The parent poster is very clearly not saying that leaving off the power switch leads to a better experience for the consumer - they're just giving legit reasons that a design/marketing team might use to justify doing so. Please don't try to cheapen the knowledge that they provided like this.