RE: X10/Room Occupancy/SWMBO acceptance

["Kenneth Watt" <kennwatt@xxxxxxx>]

> Aha!  Knew it :-)

Tried to slip that one through ;)

> No good for me - SWMBO would not want to fiddle with the pronto
just
to go
> to bed - she gets up and goes, that's it.....

It's a training thing though, I told you already to hide the remotes
and
only leave the Pronto out! :P

My SWMBO already uses the Pronto, so, if she switches off the TV or
whatever it is easy just to hit her "bed button", problem solved.
Your
problem here is that you *need* some compromise on the way you/SWMBO
thinks. At the end of the day an automated home cannot and will not act
as normal IMO and to think that you are, to a degree kidding yourself,
if you think it will all work as normal and become automated as well.

The real beauty of this is that at that point everything is done for
her, lights on, TV off etc all done with ONE button so she appreciates
the fact that it's EASY! :)

> I like your lateral thinking though regarding this kinda stuff and
your
> use
> of indirectly detecting something because of the state of X or Y
around it
> rather than trying to detect something per se (eg IIRC, you use a
PIR
to
> detect someone in the lounge, but if lounge 'empty' and TV still
on
then
> chances are someone still watching it so DON'T turn off lights
etc)

Yes, as above, although an automated home allows for manual control
that
is not the point of automating it, the point IMO, is to make it as
transparent to the user as possible and as simple to use as possible. I
have said many times, if SWMBO cannot use it or understand it inside
five minutes then I've wasted my time and it's useless.

That said, behind the scenes I can make it as complex as I like! ;)

Using different device states is, I've found, the best way in
conjunction with PIR triggers to do a "reasonable" job of
occupancy
detection and what should happen when. It is time consuming to get it
right and you need to program to your way of living but ultimately it
is
worth it and the whole process can become almost seamless.

> I was thinking something along the lines of detecting that SWMO
had
turned
> off her light from a minitimer (AKA 'A new alarm clock dear'') and
using
> that to say 'don't turn on the lights when movement detected' (ie
me
> coming
> in to the room) but I hadn't worked out all the specifics.....

That's pretty easy really, just a bit of logic and application of the
grey matter should sort that. However, remember that the PIR will
trigger the light on first before she reaches the timer if you do it
right ;) Again though, you can get around that problem too.

> I've no problem with _me_ having a bedtime routine I kick off with
> pronto/keyfob/whatever, but I want the house to be 'usable' also
without
> that bedtime flag being set.....

And therein lays your entire problem...

In order for any automation system to act it needs to be "told"
what to
do, therefore, to have events run differently at different times or
based on whether (for example as in this case) someone is in bed or not
the controller needs to know that the person has indeed gone to bed.
Somehow you have to tell it that!

IME (bitter), doing this using times or basing it on device status is
far, far to unreliable and results in errors which is ultimately
self-defeating as then SWMBO will view the system as fundamentally
flawed from the get-go.

Sorry Tony but IMO you need some way of SWMBO telling the house that
she
has gone to bed and likewise for yourself to do what you want IMO.

HTH

K.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx 
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx 
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx 
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.