>You just use a switch with 2 outputs: for on, and off position. Triggering 2 at the same time is impossible.
But then the switch will still bounce except now it bounces with an extra state and you need extra logic to read an extra output per switch and debounce both outputs, which also makes PCB's more complex further increasing the cost.
>Surely less than a percentage of a cent in extra cost.
With the extra PCB and custom logic complexity you just added with the extra output per switch, you're looking at way more than that, which I guess is why the industry went optical instead of following your idea.
> But then the switch will still bounce except now it bounces with an extra state and you need extra logic to read an extra output per switch and debounce both outputs, which also makes PCB's more complex further increasing the cost.
No, you don't need to debounce both. Both signals will never be connected at once.
>You just use a switch with 2 outputs: for on, and off position. Triggering 2 at the same time is impossible.
You've pretty much just described a standard everyday bog standard switch.
It's either over the threshold resistance for triggering, or it isn't.
Nothing you've suggested here excludes a switch that changes state by bouncing between the two states 50 times per physical press when you sample at MHz speed, as most switches do.
