enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) (06/27/91)
There are subtle reasons that the "comment" field which is used in news is not the right thing, such as the "name" which appears below. Giving C News a *HUG* <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: | | enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) writes: | > Can you imagine a telephone which is so easy to use that you don't | > need any time learning how to use it? [...] | > Now think of all the incredible losers in the world who | > could actually _need_ a menu-based phone. | | You certainly picked a bad example there. I think it would be proper to quote from the article I wrote a little more substantially, such as making it clear what I said. Not all news readers are able to grab the parent of an article, and they might not even get alt.religion.computers in the first place. I actually wrote: | | Can you imagine a telephone which is so easy to use that you don't | need any time learning how to use it? Think of it, a number, access | codes, dialtones, busy tone, ringing, push buttons, tones, flash, etc, | etc, are not at all user-friendly. It would be much better if you had | a menu on the phone on which you could select with a mouse that you | wanted to move your phone to another office, select from a menu which | person you wanted to talk to, have voice feedback, "Your party is | busy", "Your party is now being summoned to answer the phone. Please | wait." And instead of ringing at the other end, the phone would say | "A PC salesman from Bogus, Inc would like to speak with you, shall I | tell him to bug off and forget it?" Now think of how many times you | use a phone. Now think of all the incredible losers in the world who | could actually _need_ a menu-based phone. Surely that is the way to | go. Now try to observe through some magic hyper-medium approximately where in my cheek my tongue is located. Think of it, _any_ command, request, message, idea, novel, etc, can be encoded with the means of 12 push-buttons (*, #, 0-9). I already said it's "not at all user-friendly". I don't think three-hundred button phones would be an improvement, either. Somehow, I think I'd like to talk to the damn phone and say things like, "I'll be over at Lene's, but I don't want anybody to disturb unless it's an emergency, so forward calls to the pager, unless it's Debbie or Anne, in which case just take their number and I'll call back. If that rodent Paul calls, I'm in Bergen until August." However, a "phone" which can handle this usually demands both salary, benefits and limited working hours, plus lunch breaks. I'd settle for numeric code sequences any day. My phone and the central office I'm connected to is pretty lame in comparison to what I should be able to get with SS#7. I miss call waiting, caller-id, call forward on busy, call forward on no answer, world-wide call forward, etc. I would _really_ like to have some kind of notification that a busy party has hung up and is free, so I can work while people finish talking on the phone rather than my having to poll them at irregular intervals. How I invoke those functions is a secondary matter to having them. If I can't have them because some user interface creep decides that he has to invent another bloody user-friendly interface first, I'm likely to strangle said creep if I get the chance. (This is of course not to deride the importance of a decent user interface, but the current trend in user interface design in which the difference between a small furry animal with fangs and a user is size, fur and fangs, not stuff like memory and intelligence.) Actually, I'd like a system wherein I notify people I'd like to talk to that I would to talk to them, and then our computers can schedule the time when that should occur with minimal waste of time. Such a system is more or less deployed, and it's called e-mail. All in all, I think telephones are terrible instruments, but not because of the supposedly evil user interface they have. They _inter- rupt_ me, and require synchronosity, and I spend many hours a week trying to find/reach/etc the person I want to talk to. The Telcos are rumored to earn more money from people being on "hold" than people actually talking to eachother. Now, _that_ is user-inimical. If you need user-friendly, call Manpower, but it costs money. | There are week-long training courses for secretaries to teach them | to use their telephones, because the telephones are so appallingly | badly designed. Most businessmen have no idea how to use their | telephones for even a quarter of the things they can be used for. This tends to have the effect that secretaries can teach their bosses something for a change, or put them down, if need be. More power to the atrocious telephone user interface! :-) </Erik> -- Erik Naggum Professional Programmer +47-2-836-863 Naggum Software Electronic Text <erik@naggum.no> 0118 OSLO, NORWAY Computer Communications <enag@ifi.uio.no>
mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) (06/27/91)
enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) writes: > There are subtle reasons that the "comment" field which is used in > news is not the right thing, such as the "name" which appears below. My news postings don't have Comment: fields. Only my mail does. [ Quoting his own article in an indignant fashion ] > | Now think of all the incredible losers in the world who > | could actually _need_ a menu-based phone. This is where you went off the rails. It may be some amazing piece of Norwegian subtlety, but I'm afraid it didn't work very well once translated. > Think of it, _any_ command, request, message, idea, novel, etc, can be > encoded with the means of 12 push-buttons (*, #, 0-9). I already said > it's "not at all user-friendly". I don't think three-hundred button > phones would be an improvement, either. Great. I'm not proposing either of those approaches (12 button or hundreds of buttons), because they're both awful. > Somehow, I think I'd like to > talk to the damn phone [...] > However, a "phone" which can handle this > usually demands both salary, benefits and limited working hours, plus > lunch breaks. I'd settle for numeric code sequences any day. Well, I wouldn't. I don't expect a voice interface, but I expect something better than code sequences. > How I invoke those functions is a > secondary matter to having them. No. It doesn't matter how many functions there are; if the user interface is so badly-designed that you can't remember how to use any of them, they may as well not be there. The phone system we have here does things like call forwarding, but because of the lousy design nobody in the office uses the features. > If I can't have them because some > user interface creep decides that he has to invent another bloody > user-friendly interface first, I'm likely to strangle said creep if I > get the chance. Look, we already have phones with crappy numeric codes and two hundred page instruction manuals written in half-translated Japanese. I'm suggesting that the 99% of people who can't handle such devices should be given an alternative. mathew
emv@msen.com (Ed Vielmetti) (06/28/91)
A reasonable voice mail system is the one that's answering the NEARNET Hotline, 1-617-873-8730. The menus aren't too long, and you don't need operator assistance to look someone up by name -- punch in the first letters of the last name on the phone and it gives you the full name and extension of the person involved. All it needs to know is the email address and it's just about perfect. --Ed
bootl@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Bootland) (06/28/91)
In article <20B8414w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) writes: < text deleted> >Look, we already have phones with crappy numeric codes and two hundred page >instruction manuals written in half-translated Japanese. I'm suggesting that >the 99% of people who can't handle such devices should be given an >alternative. > >mathew > There are alternatives, but they cost more. I'm only really familiar with Mitel products, so I'll mention them, but most PBX manufacturers have sets with similar functionality ( I'm not going to comment on ease of use :-) ). Mitel supports the standard 2500 type set (just the 12 basic keys), and to access all the neato features, you need to know the feature access code that is programmed on your PBX for that feature - which is what you're dissatisified with. For more $$, you could get a SuperSet 4 (SS4). This phone has an LCD display consisting of 1 line with space for 16 characters, that displays time/date when the set is idle, and the other party when talking. Underneath the lcd there are 6 keys that we call softkeys because they have no fixed label. What each key does is indicated by a label displayed along the bottom of the LCD screen that lines up with the keys. These labels change with the state of the set, so if you can see it, you can use it. The softkeys supply the more common features such as: transfer, conference, callback, etc. Where input from the user is needed, you are prompted via the LCD screen. So, better interfaces are available, they're just more expensive. (There are other sets falling between the two in price and functionality, but they're not relevant to this discussion.) Disclaimer: don't hold Mitel responsible for the above, because I'm speaking only for myself. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Bootland bootl@Mitel.Software.com Mitel Corp. Kanata, Ontario, Canada.
enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) (06/30/91)
Giving C News a *HUG* <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: | | > How I invoke those functions is a | > secondary matter to having them. | | No. Yes. _I_ want fuctionality. If _you_ want user interface first, go ahead. Invent the wheel with that attitude. You see, you need to interface to _something_, despite the loads of graphical user- interface software with nice exterior and nobody home. | > If I can't have them because some | > user interface creep decides that he has to invent another bloody | > user-friendly interface first, I'm likely to strangle said creep if I | > get the chance. | | Look, we already have phones with crappy numeric codes and two | hundred page instruction manuals written in half-translated | Japanese. I'm suggesting that the 99% of people who can't handle | such devices should be given an alternative. There are a few interesting recommendations from CCITT and other recognized standards bodies that you might wish to learn about. Most of these are quite easy to master (as opposed to "learn", which is a transient phase in any human being's development, anyway). There is the AT&T (BELL) command set, mostly in use in Northern America, the CEPT command set, mostly in use in _mainland_ Europe (I know for certain that UK is, true to form, ignoring inventions from the continent in this area), and a Japanese command set whose acronym I've forgotten. Contrary to what you and perhaps somebody else might believe, the telephone network providers have been working with user interfaces to their network for some time. They even write about it in books published regularly. The latest edition of their recommendations may be found in the Blue Book (or 1988 edition) E series recommendations from the CCITT (Comite Consultatif Internationale de Telegraphique et Telephonique -- The International Consultative Committee on Telegraphy and Telephony), located in Geneva. If my memory serves me right, you can write them at CCITT, General Secretariat 1, rue de Varembe CH-1311 Geneve Switzerland If that isn't right, the Swiss postal workers will probably get it where it's supposed to get, anyhow. You can also call less user- friendly institutions such as British Telecom, and request the E series recommendations from them. I've forgotten the relevant volume and fascicle numbers, as well as the relevant number of the recom- mendations. </Erik> PS: See also my sizzling article in alt.flame to the less ingenious comments by "Giving C News a *HUG*" a.k.a. "mathew". -- Erik Naggum Professional Programmer +47-2-836-863 Naggum Software Electronic Text <erik@naggum.no> 0118 OSLO, NORWAY Computer Communications <enag@ifi.uio.no>