From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Universal Serial Bus)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Electronics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon

Connectors and plugs - Usability and orientation: misleading/biased information[edit]

The section "Connectors and plugs" starts with a box reading: "Please help improve it by merging similar text or removing repeated statements". I'm tempted to take this advice advice and remove the word "incorrectly" from the sentence starting the subsection named "Usability and orientation" ;-) Jokes aside, the section really is lacking a lot of arguments. The main problem with the design is in the word "visible". I.e. To match a USB plug and a receptacle both of them must be visible, which is not easily achieved in most situations. The only use case where the USB plug design matches its expectations probably is, when you connect the plug at the end of a cable into a receptacle located at the end of another cable under good lighting conditions and without visual impairments preventing you from detecting the logo. In general the USB plug design fails to provide a reliable method for mating when you

  1. are sitting at a table and insert a plug into a PC standing below the tabletop
  2. insert a plug into a receptacle located at the back of a PC (traditionally the most common location)
  3. insert a plug into a laptop computer without turning it around or bending your head over
  4. are farsighted and don't wear your glasses
  5. try to connect a device under low light conditions, esp. in combination with low vision

The Micro USB plugs found on mobile devices are even worse, if you don't have optimal vision. Fortunately, the problem can be worked around rather easily by applying a drop of hotmelt glue or some such on top of the logo on the USB plugs, improving their tactile recognizability. But such a barrier-free design should have been in the specs from the very start - and these problems should be mentioned in the discussion of the plug design in the WP article as well. BerlinSight (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Well, that's already addressed in the USB § Usability and orientation section, here's a quote:
While it would have been better for usability if the cable could be plugged in with either side up, the original design left this out to make manufacturing as inexpensive as possible. Ajay Bhatt, who was involved in the original USB design team, is working on a new design to make the cable insertable either side up. The new reversible plug is also much smaller than the current USB 3.0 Micro-B connector; it is called Type-C, and should be introduced as an addition to the existing USB 3.1 specification.
That explains the reasons for such a design, and the future solution. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no! Though the introduction of the Type-C plug actually would solve the problem, the qouted section does not address the problems I mentioned in any way. Also the argument "as inexpesive as possible" does not apply in that context. E.g. extruding the logo by some tenths of a millimeter does not significantly increase production costs. As I mentioned, the real problem is that the USB specs focus on the visibility of the logo, which, as I pointed out above, is a severly flawed design. BerlinSight (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Some people have higher tactile sensitivity, some have lower; thus, it might be that raising the logo on USB plugs even slightly further might not help all people. However, manufacturers many times do not keep the USB sockets oriented in the right way, rendering the tactile feedback pretty much useless. I've seen numerous devices with wrongly oriented horizontal USB sockets, computer motherboards have their USB sockets in vertical position, for example, and not all ATX cases have the motherboards oriented the common way. Furthermore, people position devices they own differently, upside-down and whatnot. :) At the same time, Wikipedia is all about summing up reliable sources, not about publishing original research. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Micro-USB reliability[edit]

I saw articles tracing back Micro-USB reliability issues to its poor design. For example, Andreas Ødegård (2012-12-20). "Hardware comparison: Lightning connector vs MicroUSB connector".  favoured double-sided Apple Lightning design over the "standard" micro-USB one.ilgiz (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Right, Micro USB connectors aren't perfect and do have their own issues. Such design choices probably have origins in overall tendency to keep the cost low, and some associated inertia against redoing things from scratch. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

USB 3.1 and Type-C[edit]

The text of the USB 3.1 Specification has been released on December 13, along with USB Power Delivery 2.0 and Type-C connector specifications. -- (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

merge from USB 3.0 and restructuring[edit]

The connectors and plugs section of the USB article has become an incomprehensible mess, and having a dedicated section on USB3 only makes things worse, as it contains a similar incomprehensible mess forked into a separate article.

My proposal is to restructure the following sections: Overview, History, Connectors, Plugs and Cabling, Signaling, and Transmission rates, and make them into four major sections tentatively named:

  • Versions of the standard - should only list basic features and hardware requirements in each major version (1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1)
  • History - dates of major announcements and standard
  • Connectors and cables - description of pinouts, connectors and cables and typical usage cases for end users; please remove incomprehensible "connection matrix" diagrams
  • Transfer modes - detailed description of bus specs and transfer speeds, including signaling protocols

But the first step is to merge content from USB 3.0 so the main article has a complete coverage of all versions.-- (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I'm yet to review recent changes to the USB and USB 3.0 articles. However, per WP:LENGTH and WP:SIZESPLIT, an article as long as USB shouldn't be receiving more content through article mergers. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Dsimic, and I believe it's OK for USB 3.0 to have a separate article as the technology used is kind of new and advanced. While it still falls under USB technology it's better to keep it this way rather than adding more content to USB.--Chamith (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Style on micro and mini USB[edit]

The capitalization for micro and mini is inconsistent. We should confirm which is correct and normalize. The USB Implementers Forum (at seems to capitalize Micro uniformly, but I cannot find an instance of Mini to check. FelioLBB (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Version history - USB 2.0: misleading information about bitrate[edit]

The section claims that "Due to bus access constraints, the effective throughput of the High Speed signaling rate is limited to 35 MB/s or 280 Mbit/s." and has a source (a table p.40 of the specification) to back it up. The editor failed to realize or convey that this is only the case for control transfers. On page 53 of the source, an equivalent table, show speeds closer to the previous figure of 480 MBit/s for bulk transfers which are used when transferring files. The same is also true of isochronous and interrupt transfers. Given this, and the fact that the section is not a proper place to distinguish between transfer types, I'm tempted to just remove the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I'm sure you've tried to use a fast USB flash drive over USB 2.0, and for some reason it can hardly go over those 35–40 MB/s. How should that be explained? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the article is not correct with "due to bus access constraints": it's the mass storage protocol/class that is flawed not (that much) the transport protocol itself, UAS is somewhat faster. WP:RS anyone? -- Zac67 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
This one could be used as an overview of various restrictions; though, it's based on USB 1.0. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)