In Spirit of Hope and Collaboration

Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. (Or rather, for opening a space in which to discussion an issue we've all experienced but rarely confronted directly.) Don, I agree entirely with the assumptions and (especially) limitations you've detailed in your analysis. To recap a few key points:

1. Belt clips, "holster" style external cell caddies, and fannie packs are inappropriate for anyone not old enough to remember when fireside chats were actually broadcast over transistor-type radios and listened to beside actual fireplace fires, i.e. because said fire was heating your home and possibly cooking your mutton. And even then, such device "appendages" should be considered only as a last and desperate resort.

2. Inside jacket or blazer pockets are indeed the best solution, though situational and environmental concerns severely limit the universal adoption of this approach. Living in a hostile northern clime, I am able to wear a coat or jacket for perhaps eight months of the year, and I consider the use of the inside pocket during these times both a personal joy and a general privilege. However, complications are introduced even in this ideal scenario, such as Going Inside After Having Been Outside. Such a transition often requires removal of the coat/jacket, but what is one to do with what is now essentially a vessel containing precious cargo? Hang it up and abandon it? Trust it to the undifferentiated mass of coats piled haphazardly on some back bedroom's bed? Such situations have led me to the uncomfortable predicament of passing by the coat-pile an inordinate (and possibly alarming to the party's hosts) number of times in order to perform ad hoc "pocket squeeze tests" to ensure the device's continued safety.

2.a. This is not even considering the significantly greater plight of those residing in warm southern climates, where the pleasure of coat/jacket pockets is negated by the social stigma of chronic sweat stains and the medical risks of heat stroke.

2.b. And also not to mention that some of us, for reasons beyond our control and through no fault of our own, just really don't look that great in blazers or feel, when wearing them, always slightly awkward, as though we're playing dress-up.

I agree absolutely with DeSander that the historical bias toward below-the-waist pockets is a) in need of serious examination, b) unnecessarily (and possibly dangerously) limited, and c) essentially unjustifiable.

Of course above-waist pockets raise a number of concerns as well:

- Shirt pockets, in their current form, are highly limited in distribution (generally restricted to $30 catalog-style brushed cotton tee-shirts and button-down "men's wear"), but also, crucially, in location, sequestered almost entirely in the breast region.

- Breast/heart region pockets, when laden with fragile instruments, essentially prohibit all forms of chest-bumping, transforming this popular greeting style into a potentially expensive mobile device demolition derby. This danger applies especially to the "flying" chest-bump, and extends even to firm bro-hugs.

- DeSander mentions another crucial limitation of chest-pockets: the sag-factor. Such pockets, being designed originally for the feather-weight cargo of handkerchiefs, pens, and slide-rules, are unable to maintain the structural integrity of the shirt under the duress of greater loads. Devices weighing more than approx. 100 g cause significant sagging around the neck and collarbone area, leaving even a fitted shirt resembling a child's bib or poorly-tied cravat.

- The vast majority of chest pockets take a traditional pentagonal shape, coming to a "V" or point at the bottom. This is a poor design for housing mobile devices, which are almost universally rectangular. With such contents, V-bottom pockets provide an uneven base and encourage the device's leaning forward, causing a slip-out hazard when leaning forward or, depending on cultural context, bowing/curtseying. This worrisome geometry is further exacerbated by the fact that traditional beast-pockets are significantly wider than the mobile devices likely to be stored in them, with this extra material compounding the slip-lean problem.

As DeSander concludes, there is no one best solution, but I've come up with a preliminary design that addresses several key issues including climate/temperature concerns, indoor/outdoor use, chest-localization, and neck-line sag. I've built a prototype (see attached photographs) which is open to critique and suggestion. After reverse-engineering a common button-down shirt, I transplanted a traditional (donor) pocket to a "host" shirt, resulting in a hybrid structure combining a standard external pocket with the preferred position of an internal jacket/coat pocket. The host shirt is by no means fitted (it's actually a bit too big for me) and yet, as demonstrated in the photos, there is no detectable neck sag, the weight of the mobile device being distributed evenly up the hemline, under the armpit, and across the shoulders. I can wear the shirt alone or cover it with a jacket, move freely between indoor and outdoor conditions, and never lose contact with my precious cargo. I no longer have to go through my day fearing the prospect of chest-bumping or greeting Japanese businessmen. For now, I'm calling this a trans-pocket (transplant pocket) or "The Frankenstein," though the design will remain open-source; no copyright or patent requests have been initiated.

I should also state that I would not be dismissive of simpler, non-material, strategic courses of action. For example, in Neagle's particular situation, we may be prone to overlook more elegant answers, such as the easily missed Not Sitting On The Floor Indian Style Like You're At Fucking Summer Camp solution.

In Spirit of Hope and Collaboration

Patrick Foran, PhD Student, Cornell University