From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

I tend to like assurances that the right connector is
in the right place. And, I think users -- when faced with
multiple connectors -- like some reassurance that they've
mated them correctly.

But, if I can deduce the role of the actual connection from
the data observed, is there a downside to NOT keying the
connector(s)? (aside from the fact that it requires LOOKING
at the signals before you can make that assertion -- if you
haven't looked, do you really *care* about Schr||dinger's cat
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

I tend to like assurances that the right connector is
in the right place. And, I think users -- when faced with
multiple connectors -- like some reassurance that they've
mated them correctly.

But, if I can deduce the role of the actual connection from
the data observed, is there a downside to NOT keying the
connector(s)? (aside from the fact that it requires LOOKING
at the signals before you can make that assertion -- if you
haven't looked, do you really *care* about Schr||dinger's cat

Do you mean orientation, or location?

ie if you have 3 USB-A ports they do care about orientation, but (perhaps)
it doesn't matter which one you plug into.

The main thing I can think of is user confusion. If the user is expecting a 1:1 mapping of cables to sockets, they may be uncertain when presented with
3 identical sockets and need to check documentation/techsupport about what's allowed. Whereas if your connectors are square / triangle / circle shaped
they instinctively know the round peg goes in the round hole. If you give
them three round connectors and three round holes, they may freeze because they're worried about plugging into the wrong hole may blow something up.

For things like US mains receptacles and USB-C sockets, they're familiar
enough with the idea that any orientation works and plugging into the wrong socket isn't going to blow anything up, but if you have a proprietary
solution then they may not have that assurance.

Theo
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

On 1/12/2026 4:45 AM, Theo wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

I tend to like assurances that the right connector is
in the right place. And, I think users -- when faced with
multiple connectors -- like some reassurance that they've
mated them correctly.

But, if I can deduce the role of the actual connection from
the data observed, is there a downside to NOT keying the
connector(s)? (aside from the fact that it requires LOOKING
at the signals before you can make that assertion -- if you
haven't looked, do you really *care* about Schr||dinger's cat

Do you mean orientation, or location?

ie if you have 3 USB-A ports they do care about orientation, but (perhaps)
it doesn't matter which one you plug into.

But, (like your mains example below) the user would know
that the connections were "universal"; that which cable
mates with the "top" connector vs. "bottom" doesn't matter.

OTOH, if one cable obviously terminates in a MOTOR and
the other terminates in a SWITCH -- both, for a MECANISM,
they seem different enough that you would expect each to
have a designated "specific" connection point.

The main thing I can think of is user confusion. If the user is expecting a 1:1 mapping of cables to sockets, they may be uncertain when presented with
3 identical sockets and need to check documentation/techsupport about what's

That's exactly the issue. Some folks won't even notice.
Others would "freeze", looking for further clues -- cursing
the labels that must have fallen off, etc.

allowed. Whereas if your connectors are square / triangle / circle shaped they instinctively know the round peg goes in the round hole. If you give them three round connectors and three round holes, they may freeze because they're worried about plugging into the wrong hole may blow something up.

Cause damage or cause it to simply not work properly.

E.g., a 4 pin connector where 1&2 are connected /on one connector pair/
to a particular termination; 2&3 on another; 3&4 on a third, etc. would
be "safe" to misconnect -- but would likely leave you with something
that isn't working properly.

[OTOH, if each mate was "compatibly wired" so the three can actually
accept each cable, then there would be no electrical/logical problem.]

[[OToOH, if there were 4 conductors on all connectors -- both sides -- you
can again find yourself worrying that THESE four will be compatible with THOSE four...]]

For things like US mains receptacles and USB-C sockets, they're familiar enough with the idea that any orientation works and plugging into the wrong socket isn't going to blow anything up, but if you have a proprietary solution then they may not have that assurance.

Anyone who "notices" will be angry at the "sheer incompetence" of
failing to provide that information to the user. A call to Support
will give them an opportunity to express their displeasure (on YOUR dime!)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2