BBUXEIPD@UIAMVS.BITNET (Robert Pearson) (08/31/88)
> Robert, if manufacturers of switchable tone/pulse phones do not provide > the '*' and '#' keys then you should be complaining to them. Those keys > all along were designed for use as special-function keys. > > For a dial-up service that accepts DTMF input, if you have input fields > of unknown length it is very hard to implement without a delimiter that > won't be confused as data. (It can be done with a time-out, but then you > might as well call a human) I suppose you are right. If these services become attractive enough to consumers than they will demand equipment that supports them. As I see it, the process goes something like this: 1) A 'standard' is created that contains some features that are rarely, if ever, used. (In this case the two 'extra' touch tones.) 2) Various companies that make 'compatable' equipment find advantages to deviating from the standard in these rarely used areas. These advantages could include lower cost, more features, or it could simply be sloppy design. 3) Since the equipment is perfectly 'compatable' in those areas most used, many units are sold. 4) Eventually, software or other services are developed that require these 'standard' features that aren't universially implemented. 5) Catch-22. The end user eather needs to replace equipment that is working flawlessly, or not use the new software/service. Indeed, the user that purchased the 'compatable' equipment, that wasn't, is often in a worse position then the person who is just getting started.... There are two ways to attack this. Software/service developers can avoid using 'incompatable' featues (even if supposedly 'standard') unless they 'need' them for some reason. Or users could refuse to buy any equipment that doesn't exactly meet the standard (this however can sometimes be VERY costly). In the case of the 'touch tone' example, the '*' key was being used to end voice input. It was not a situation where the key was being used as a deliminer between digits, or as a 'shift' key to choose the desired meaning of the digits. As such, wouldn't it have been just as easy to use the '0' key in this situation? A few years ago when I was buying my phone, it was the ONLY pulse/tone phone I could get for less then $75 (it's a $25 phone). This phone used the '*' key as a 'mute' button, and the '#' key for the memory dialer. While it could have been designed with additional buttons for these features, it wasn't. (I've noticed the same thing in a lot of pulse/tone switchable phones.) Should I have forked over $50 extra, just to maintain possible compatability in the future? It all comes back to the slippery process of defining a 'standard'. Even if a 'standards committie' has addressed an issue, manufacturers and consumers will often find reasons for violating at least some aspect of the 'standard'. (9600 baud modems are a good example. Just what percentage are V-32 compatable?) And the situation is worse if some large company (such as IBM) simply declares something to be a 'standard'.... Robert Pearson
bga@raspail.UUCP (Bruce Albrecht) (09/15/88)
> In the case of the 'touch tone' example, the '*' key was being used to end > voice input. It was not a situation where the key was being used as a > deliminer between digits, or as a 'shift' key to choose the desired meaning > of the digits. As such, wouldn't it have been just as easy to use the '0' > key in this situation? Perhaps, but if the designer is used to systems that use the '*' or '#' keys, it probably would never have occurred to use the '0'. > A few years ago when I was buying my phone, it was the ONLY pulse/tone phone > I could get for less then $75 (it's a $25 phone). This phone used the '*' > key as a 'mute' button, and the '#' key for the memory dialer. While it > could have been designed with additional buttons for these features, it > wasn't. (I've noticed the same thing in a lot of pulse/tone switchable > phones.) Should I have forked over $50 extra, just to maintain possible > compatability in the future? I've been using touch-tone entry systems (through my banks) for at least 10 years, and they've always used '*' and '#'. If you get a touch-tone phone and special options, such as call waiting or call forwarding, any special options use the '#' key. The people who designed them were expecting you to use a standard touch-tone phone, and they shouldn't be designing their systems to use only a subset, just because some phone manufacturers decided to use the 'unused' keys for something else. Would you buy a PC compatible that had a keyboard that generated different codes for ALT-<key>, just because MS-DOS didn't use any ALT-<key> strokes (ok, so it does, this is just an analogy)? Would you complain to software companies because your non-compatible PC didn't work with their software? I wouldn't buy a touch-tone phone that doesn't have working '*' and '#'. Or, if I did, I wouldn't use it when I knew I might need the '*' and '#'. Bruce
mfv@ptsfa.PacBell.COM (Michael Vargo) (09/20/88)
In light of the discussion about touch tone (DTMF) digit usage and the use of * and #, there is an effort now taking place in the Information Industry Association sub-group on Voice Information Services (VIS) to come up with some sort of standard for the functions assigned to keys. This effort intends to compile a set of rules for the usage of these keys across all VISs so that users will not have to re-learn a new interface for each service. An example of one of these rules may be to always use the # key as a command or input terminator. That seems to be somewhat of a trend already. One of the objectives of this effort is to base all the recommendations on solid human factors data. No opinions, just data please. If anyone is aware of some relevant work on this subject, or has any ideas, please mail to me or post here. I think it would be a boost to the VIS industry if this sort of standard were available so using these services would be easy and consistant for everyone. Mike Vargo