On 5/14/2025 3:50 PM, Don Y wrote:

A necessary condition is that devices be easily cleaned,
without the benefit of sight (so people aren't "grossed out"
by the accumulated dirt and grime on a device used by an
unsighted individual:  "Don't you ever CLEAN that?")

By way of common example: look down at your mouse.
Chances are, there are bits of dead skin hiding in the
various seams between the assembled covers, buttons,
etc. And, the handled surfaces likely show signs of wear.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I've been "auditioning" a bunch of existing products to get
a better feel for packaging ("encapsulation?") options.

A necessary condition is that devices be easily cleaned,
without the benefit of sight (so people aren't "grossed out"
by the accumulated dirt and grime on a device used by an
unsighted individual: "Don't you ever CLEAN that?")

But, glossy smooth finishes are pretty boring (not everyone
is blind; a product should appeal to sighted users as well!).

Texturing the mold is an option -- as long as the resulting
texture isn't too aggressive AND the material flows well
enough to take on that level of fine detail.

There seem to be some coatings that are widely used. But,
they don't seem to hold up over the long term -- many get
"tacky" as if a plasticizer shit the bed (?)

And, a sheath/condom could also be used at some increase in
manufacturing and maintenance costs (ensuring the sheath can
be removed, cleaned and replaced -- but not LOST -- without
also providing opportunities for "crud" to collect in any
gaps or "seams")

I suspect most folks don't design handheld devices? Or,
wearables? But, for any who *do*, can you shed some light
on how your packaging decisions are made -- along with
the expected lifetimes of the affected products? (i.e., if
something will be discarded before it "wears", then the
decision is largely moot)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

But, glossy smooth finishes are pretty boring (not everyone
is blind; a product should appeal to sighted users as well!).

I have had good results in the past with the following:

Apply primers etc in the usual way, finishing up with a coat or two of
matte black.
Apply white transfer lettering.
Apply a thin coat of cellulose varnish to fix the lettering and allow to
dry thoroughly.
Apply several more thin coats of cellulose varnish

This is similar to the methods used by coachbuilders in the past and
produces the clearest readable lettering on a deep gloss black that
appears to have depth. It would probably be too labour-intensive for
anything but a one-off, but the underlying principle of a clear varnish
layer on a matte undercoat could be adapted to small batch production
and gives outstandingly good results; the 'depth' effect is really
attractive.


For clear lettering, I have found nothing better than Helvetica Bold
unless it is critical to distinguish between '1', 'I' and 'l', in which
case you need a Roman font.


[...]

There seem to be some coatings that are widely used. But,
they don't seem to hold up over the long term -- many get
"tacky" as if a plasticizer shit the bed (?)

I have some cooking utensils that I dread touching. The plastic surface
is supposed to be soft and appealing, but on something that may come
into contact with food, such as the handle of a frying pan spatula, it
just feels tacky and uncleanable. -- Ugggh!

Some of the QUAD amplifiers were coated with a 'flock' surface that I
presume was supposed to give the impression of quality or opulence.
After a while it broke down into a disgusting sticky mess which needs a
lot of work to remove cleanly without damaging the panels underneath.

You would do much better to avoid the latest gimmicky materials and just
keep to established surface finishes applied in a thoughtful way. You
aren't in the fashion business; fashion is ephemeral and risky but good
taste lasts much longer.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 14/05/2025 23:52, Don Y wrote:

On 5/14/2025 3:50 PM, Don Y wrote:

A necessary condition is that devices be easily cleaned,
without the benefit of sight (so people aren't "grossed out"
by the accumulated dirt and grime on a device used by an
unsighted individual:  "Don't you ever CLEAN that?")

Does that mean basically making it IP67 so that it can survive dunking
in a basin of warm soapy water?

I have seen stuff intended for clean rooms where everything is made as
smooth as possible and all moving parts hermetically sealed behind a
flexible membrane that is very easy to wipe down.

Environment where (noxious) chemical spills are a real possibility.

By way of common example:  look down at your mouse.
Chances are, there are bits of dead skin hiding in the
various seams between the assembled covers, buttons,
etc.  And, the handled surfaces likely show signs of wear.

In my case mouse buttons have a high polish and I still use keyboards
that work OK even when the legends have long since worn completely off
the most commonly used keys. "Q" and "Z" never seem to wear out.
Advantage of touch typing.

Ancient mice with balls were pretty gross when they stopped working.

Last keyboard I had to retire got a glass of wine spilled into it and
did not recover after careful washing with distilled water.

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/15/2025 1:30 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

But, glossy smooth finishes are pretty boring (not everyone
is blind; a product should appeal to sighted users as well!).

I have had good results in the past with the following:

Apply primers etc in the usual way, finishing up with a coat or two of
matte black.
Apply white transfer lettering.
Apply a thin coat of cellulose varnish to fix the lettering and allow to
dry thoroughly.
Apply several more thin coats of cellulose varnish

Ouch! This would be a labor of love! I'm looking for a technique
or material that can be mass produced (100K qty's) without breaking
the bank.

This is similar to the methods used by coachbuilders in the past and
produces the clearest readable lettering on a deep gloss black that
appears to have depth. It would probably be too labour-intensive for anything but a one-off, but the underlying principle of a clear varnish
layer on a matte undercoat could be adapted to small batch production
and gives outstandingly good results; the 'depth' effect is really attractive.

Yes. "Labor of love".

For clear lettering, I have found nothing better than Helvetica Bold
unless it is critical to distinguish between '1', 'I' and 'l', in which
case you need a Roman font.

I've avoided lettering for the obvious reasons :>

The FIRST question (sighted) folks would invariably ask when encountering
The Reading Machine was "But there are no labels on the keys!"

<https://media.gettyimages.com/id/837628284/it/foto/jan-21-1978-jan-22-1978-mike-hingson-shows-the-kurzweil-reading-machine-hingson-head-of-the.jpg?s=612x612&w=gi&k=20&c=JP59v2mZikRffoVT5mMykH_xGDxXOH0Ot0TBiOYfQOA=>

"Ah, OK! I'll label them for you. Now, CLOSE YOUR EYES..."

There seem to be some coatings that are widely used. But,
they don't seem to hold up over the long term -- many get
"tacky" as if a plasticizer shit the bed (?)

I have some cooking utensils that I dread touching. The plastic surface
is supposed to be soft and appealing, but on something that may come
into contact with food, such as the handle of a frying pan spatula, it
just feels tacky and uncleanable. -- Ugggh!

Exactly. That's likely the same "coating" that I've been disparaging.
It appears to degrade. It's not "dirty", it has just turned to shit!

(The solution is to remove the material with a solvent)

Some of the QUAD amplifiers were coated with a 'flock' surface that I
presume was supposed to give the impression of quality or opulence.
After a while it broke down into a disgusting sticky mess which needs a
lot of work to remove cleanly without damaging the panels underneath.

You would do much better to avoid the latest gimmicky materials and just
keep to established surface finishes applied in a thoughtful way. You
aren't in the fashion business; fashion is ephemeral and risky but good
taste lasts much longer.

Even smooth plastic/metal is not immune from looking like shit,
over time.

I've made some product with textured molds that remained appealing
and were still "cleanable". But, someone still had to NOTICE that
they needed to be cleaned.

A "cleaning reminder" that alerts every N days???

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/15/2025 3:45 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 14/05/2025 23:52, Don Y wrote:

On 5/14/2025 3:50 PM, Don Y wrote:

A necessary condition is that devices be easily cleaned,
without the benefit of sight (so people aren't "grossed out"
by the accumulated dirt and grime on a device used by an
unsighted individual:  "Don't you ever CLEAN that?")

Does that mean basically making it IP67 so that it can survive dunking in a basin of warm soapy water?

No. There are openings and mechanisms involved that prevent it
being "water tight".

But, instead of just slapping things together with a goal of making
it all fit, you have to consider how to keep it looking "presentable".
The "user" (if blind) won't see what it looks like; but (sighted) folks
around him would and would be influenced by this sort of thing.

It's like using a bathroom at a friend's house -- and finding
it dirty and unkempt. In the back of your mind, you'd revisit
that image as you sat down to dinner at his table...

I have seen stuff intended for clean rooms where everything is made as smooth as possible and all moving parts hermetically sealed behind a flexible membrane
that is very easy to wipe down.

Yes. When doing pharma, we chose materials that were reasonably inert to
the types of solvents/cleaning-agents that would be used as well as
the amount of labor required to ensure a "good clean". E.g., if you
had been making viagra and were switching over to an antihypertensive,
you wouldn't want to risk "cross contaminating" the one with residue
from the other.

Like "this product is manufactured on machinery that is also used to
process NUTS".

[A company even went so far as to design a tablet press -- large and
heavy pieces of steel -- that could be "cleaned in place"... essentially turning it into a giant fish bowl!]

Environment where (noxious) chemical spills are a real possibility.

By way of common example:  look down at your mouse.
Chances are, there are bits of dead skin hiding in the
various seams between the assembled covers, buttons,
etc.  And, the handled surfaces likely show signs of wear.

In my case mouse buttons have a high polish and I still use keyboards that work
OK even when the legends have long since worn completely off the most commonly
used keys. "Q" and "Z" never seem to wear out. Advantage of touch typing.

The (blind) client who initially alerted me to this issue had a
notetaker (does what you think it does) that he would drag around.
Apparently, folks would comment about how dirty it would get
(oils from hands, dirt, etc.).

He, of course, couldn't SEE where to clean it. Nor could he
simply "wipe it clean".

I've already taken some measures to facilitate those sorts
of actions (e.g., disable touch panel for 30 seconds while
you are wiping it clean -- to avoid activating anything
unintentionally).

But, the actual materials being used are hard to "fast forward"
and imagine how they hold up to years of use.

E.g., I have found a coating that gives items a textured sort
of feel (almost like rubber but with no appreciable thickness)
that I've encountered in many places. But, it doesn't seem
to age well. I often find samples where this coating has become
sticky -- to the point where touching it is uncomfortable.

And, CLEANING it with simple agents doesn't work; I invariably
resort to scrubbing with mineral spirits (to actually REMOVE the
failed coating)

Ancient mice with balls were pretty gross when they stopped working.

Last keyboard I had to retire got a glass of wine spilled into it and did not recover after careful washing with distilled water.

A colleague used to take keyboards into his swimming pool to clean
them! (Huh? Does that actually work??)

I periodically disassemble my keyboards, wash the keycaps in soapy
water and wipe up all the detritus that has accumulated under the keycaps. Then, use a swab soaked in alcohol to pick up the malingerers.

This is a good example of how making wipe clean surfaces actually
penalizes usability; imagine using a "membrane keyboard" to type!
Easy to clean but a real drag on typing speed and accuracy!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

I suspect most folks don't design handheld devices? Or,
wearables? But, for any who *do*, can you shed some light
on how your packaging decisions are made -- along with
the expected lifetimes of the affected products? (i.e., if
something will be discarded before it "wears", then the
decision is largely moot)

I've not designed anything like this, but could you separate the human
contact surfaces from the functional part, with the contact surfaces being easily washable?

eg plastic-only front panel (no electronics) pops off and is dishwashable, reattaches to the body of the unit which is not subject to cleaning. Old
Nokia phones had removable covers that could pop off and be separately
washed.

The double duty of the cover is that it's also the device's outward 'dress'
- you make the body out of boring black structural plastic and
then use the cover for the device's designed look and feel. You can spend
the money printing a nice plastic cover instead of making the whole thing
have a nice look, eg making it out of machined aluminium, or having to make
the whole thing IP68.

Theo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/15/2025 9:57 AM, Theo wrote:

I've not designed anything like this, but could you separate the human contact surfaces from the functional part, with the contact surfaces being easily washable?

The devices are small. So, separating the "interactive" parts
from the "structural" is sort of like splitting hairs.

eg plastic-only front panel (no electronics) pops off and is dishwashable, reattaches to the body of the unit which is not subject to cleaning. Old Nokia phones had removable covers that could pop off and be separately washed.

But a (legacy) phone is almost "huge", in my context. Think more
in terms of smart-watches -- but with the addition of haptics
(beyond the crude "indicators" they currently support).

I've been trying to look at things that are "handled", a lot, to see where
they tend to "look grungy". E.g., my mice collect crud at the seams
between the upper and lower case parts, around the edges of the buttons,
ON the scroll wheel, etc.

(Smart) Phones tend to get cleaned without our even being aware of those actions; how often do you wipe the face of the phone (with your hand,
a cloth, against your shirt, etc.) As we are looking AT the "active surface" all the time, it seems like we avoid letting it get too "gross".

The double duty of the cover is that it's also the device's outward 'dress'
- you make the body out of boring black structural plastic and
then use the cover for the device's designed look and feel. You can spend

Good point.

the money printing a nice plastic cover instead of making the whole thing have a nice look, eg making it out of machined aluminium, or having to make the whole thing IP68.

I've tried to make the obvious design choices to avoid perforating the case unnecessarily (e.g., wireless interfaces instead of wired). And, leveraging any perforation for multiple purposes.

I'm considering making devices with different interface modalities in the hope of making some further optimizations. But, that leads to having different models for different populations. And, either overstocking some models
in excess of demand -- or, (worse) understocking them.

It also speaks to your commitment to accessibility; once you "admit" to different products for different "needs", you're reinforcing the pidgeon-holes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> Wrote in message:r

On 5/15/2025 9:57 AM, Theo wrote:> I've not designed anything like this, but could you separate the human> contact surfaces from the functional part, with the contact surfaces being> easily washable?The devices are small. So, separating the "

interactive" partsfrom the "structural" is sort of like splitting hairs.> eg plastic-only front panel (no electronics) pops off and is dishwashable,> reattaches to the body of the unit which is not subject to cleaning. Old> Nokia phones had removable
covers that could pop off and be separately> washed.But a (legacy) phone is almost "huge", in my context. Think morein terms of smart-watches -- but with the addition of haptics(beyond the crude "indicators" they currently support).I've been trying to
look at things that are "handled", a lot, to see wherethey tend to "look grungy". E.g., my mice collect crud at the seamsbetween the upper and lower case parts, around the edges of the buttons,ON the scroll wheel, etc.(Smart) Phones tend to get cleaned
without our even being aware of thoseactions; how often do you wipe the face of the phone (with your hand,a cloth, against your shirt, etc.) As we are looking AT the "active surface"all the time, it seems like we avoid letting it get too "gross".> The
double duty of the cover is that it's also the device's outward 'dress'> - you make the body out of boring black structural plastic and> then use the cover for the device's designed look and feel. You can spendGood point.> the money printing a nice
plastic cover instead of making the whole thing> have a nice look, eg making it out of machined aluminium, or having to make> the whole thing IP68.I've tried to make the obvious design choices to avoid perforating the caseunnecessarily (e.g., wireless
interfaces instead of wired). And, leveragingany perforation for multiple purposes.I'm considering making devices with different interface modalities in the hopeof making some further optimizations. But, that leads to having differentmodels for
different populations. And, either overstocking some modelsin excess of demand -- or, (worse) understocking them.It also speaks to your commitment to accessibility; once you "admit" todifferent products for different "needs", you're reinforcing the
pidgeon-holes.

What about pulseox meters. Just a plastic case, smooth finish.

Cheers
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/15/2025 2:31 PM, Martin Rid wrote:

What about pulseox meters. Just a plastic case, smooth finish.

Nothing needs to "poke through" the skin of a pulse oximeter
(besides the sensor). The displays can hide behind clear
plastic, the power button can be "encoded" in the jaws
of the device.

And, it would likely be cleaned, regularly (esp in a
professional setting).

As I've said, look at mice and see how spotless... they aren't!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 16 May 2025 13:10:43 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 5/15/2025 2:31 PM, Martin Rid wrote:

What about pulseox meters. Just a plastic case, smooth finish.

Nothing needs to "poke through" the skin of a pulse oximeter
(besides the sensor). The displays can hide behind clear
plastic, the power button can be "encoded" in the jaws
of the device.

And, it would likely be cleaned, regularly (esp in a
professional setting).

As I've said, look at mice and see how spotless... they aren't!

I have a laser mouse that burns through the dust bunnies.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)