[Kis]

How much give is there, in the module connection sites, for lateral movement? That is, let's say one added enough modules to allow one side of the band to go around one's wrist before meeting the clasp of the other (regular length) band (essentially making a figure-8 looping around a wrist twice). Would there be enough give to allow such lateral displacement or would that strain the module connections too much? Four modules is really not enough and I'm trying to figure out a way to add more, given the expansion module is unlikely to appear for quite a while.
Example:

[Yousif]

The watch can support up to 128 modules so the length won't be a problem. The modules are quite stiff and probably won't bend very easily, but maybe you could use another clasp (which is flexible). I don't really know why you need more than 4 module because there only are 7. I also don't know anything about your lifestyle, but is a flashlight, HR or GPS useful at all times. The NFC module isn't very good too so I wouldn't even get one.

[Bryanxst]

Good question. I think the motive for a reply might be better served with a 'would you' rather than a 'should you' answer.
So with that in mind would a better solution to your problem be a second band with a lateral connection? Not a reality now, I know but pause for thought! Though blu-tooth connection would negate the need.

[Kis]

@Bryanxst:
That's a good idea but it suffers from using up two modules for the connection, so you'd lose one from the first band and one from the parallel. The bluetooth idea is even better. I worry, however, that such an expansion module (however it ends up being conceived) will either never materialize or, if it does, will be years away.

@Yousif:
1. I didn't ask about length or if length is a problem.
2. I didn't ask if the modules themselves bend.
3. I don't care and didn't ask if you know why I need more than 4 modules.
4. I don't care about your opinions of my lifestyle or about the Blocks NFC module.

So, could someone from the company answer my question, please?

[TobDotBz]

SHOTS FIRED!!

[Alessandro G.]

(05-03-2016, 03:26 AM)Kis Wrote:  @Bryanxst:
That's a good idea but it suffers from using up two modules for the connection, so you'd lose one from the first band and one from the parallel. The bluetooth idea is even better. I worry, however, that such an expansion module (however it ends up being conceived) will either never materialize or, if it does, will be years away.

@Yousif:
1. I didn't ask about length or if length is a problem.
2. I didn't ask if the modules themselves bend.
3. I don't care and didn't ask if you know why I need more than 4 modules.
4. I don't care about your opinions of my lifestyle or about the Blocks NFC module.

So, could someone from the company answer my question, please?

Part 1: the answer. I am no member of the team, but according to what I have seen up until now and my engineering background I can say with confidence that the configuration you showed in your picture won't be possible, no matter which particular modules you're using. Another thing that you might not have noticed is that such a configuration would require, as shown in your picture, at least one overlap of the band. An overlap causes a neglegible increase in size if you're using a leather band, but a huge one were you to do it with modules (were it feasible and were module much smaller than how they are, in order to do so). So the only ways to wear more modules at the same time would be (other than increasing the size of your wrist or wear BLOCKS as a belt):

• Waiting for the expansion module to come out, clearly with no assurance that there will ever be enough demand for it for the team or an external developer to make it
  
• Waiting for the team or external developers to cram more functions into a single module, effectively freeing up space. I even have some ideas about this myself already
  

Part 2: your answer to Yousif were nothing short of inappropriate. I understand that the delay until September, the increased size of the battery module, and the limitations of the NFC one have raised more than one argument and discussion lately. This, however, doesn't justify taking it out on a fellow member who was just trying to answer in the most complete way possible. So I would really like you to apologise to Yousif for doing so, and refrain from doing so again in the future.

[Yousif]

I am sorry if I was disrespectful or rude. I completely understand why you are angry at me. I was just trying to inform you on how you could add more than 4 modules on to your watch, but it obviously did not help.

[Kis]

Thank you, Yousif. I very much appreciate you saying so. Online communication is often quite fraught. I knew there was a possibility that you were genuinely trying to help but I didn't "hear" that and was really quite offended. That's why I waited over two weeks to respond and why my response was cool and detached as possible (which Alessandro, apparently, himself in turn misinterpreted). I now believe you were sincere in trying to help. For my part, if my response to you crossed any line in any way then I also very much regret that.

@ Alessandro: On the other hand, my response was not at all inappropriate. It was measured, deliberate, careful, and reserved. Above all, certainly in no way was I "taking it out" on anyone. First, because there was no aggression nor inappropriate language, but more importantly because I was not at all responding, reacting, or in any way referring to "the delay until September, the increased size of the battery module, and the limitations of the NFC." That is something you projected onto my post. I asked a specific question (which you answered quite comprehensively, BTW, and for which I thank you very much) and got blindsided by a non-sequitur in response. Your finger-wagging is quite misplaced.

[Alessandro G.]

(05-06-2016, 08:53 PM)Kis Wrote:  Thank you, Yousif. I very much appreciate you saying so. Online communication is often quite fraught. I knew there was a possibility that you were genuinely trying to help but I didn't "hear" that and was really quite offended. That's why I waited over two weeks to respond and why my response was cool and detached as possible (which Alessandro, apparently, himself in turn misinterpreted). I now believe you were sincere in trying to help. For my part, if my response to you crossed any line in any way then I also very much regret that.

@ Alessandro: On the other hand, my response was not at all inappropriate. It was measured, deliberate, careful, and reserved. Above all, certainly in no way was I "taking it out" on anyone. First, because there was no aggression nor inappropriate language, but more importantly because I was not at all responding, reacting, or in any way referring to "the delay until September, the increased size of the battery module, and the limitations of the NFC." That is something you projected onto my post. I asked a specific question (which you answered quite comprehensively, BTW, and for which I thank you very much) and got blindsided by a non-sequitur in response. Your finger-wagging is quite misplaced.

Right, so I suppose we can call this even, as both you and Yousif apologised to each other.
Now, to put an epilogue to this matter, I would like to add just a few words.
The issues I referred to in my previous post were just the hottest points of discussion I have seen on this forum and on KS as of late, and I mentioned those as a possible (and I repeat: possible) source of the IMHO somewhat passive-aggressive way you responded to Yousif. Because, from an external point of view of someone like me who got into the argument while it was already ongoing, Yousif's anwser did sound somewhat presumptuous, but in a clearly unintended way. Yours, on the other hand, did sound a little arrogant in a more voluntary way to me, and that was the only reason why I thought you should be the one to apologise first.
Now, I think it is appropriate for me to apologise as far as misinterpretation is concerned, but I have no intention to apologise for having pointed out that the way of speaking you consider "measured, deliberate, careful, and reserved" has a very high chance of sounding much different to another's ear. I am not saying your way of speaking to other users is right or wrong, I am just saying I believe it has a very high chance of misinterpretation. That's all. So if you could weight your words a little more carefully in the future, as I will do and as I am sure Yousif will, the chance of another argument like this will likely be much lower, for the sake of the whole community.
That is all. Now back to work everyone, there is an update full of news waiting!

[Bryanxst]

Oh dear, I hope I didn't inadvertently provide the fuel for the community's first flame-war.