Re: X10/Room Occupancy/SWMBO acceptance

[Andy Laurence <andy@xxxxxxx>]

> > > order to go to bed - so why should she in the 'improved'
> >
> > automated home?
> >
> > What does she do now?  Probably nip upstairs, turn the
light
>
> This was an example of her reasoning, not mine.  But still, why
should
> she have to do this?

Do what?  Hit the light switch?  Surely hitting the light switch
isn't too 
much to ask?  Just mount a switch on the headboard which will set the
house to "bedtime".

> It's not really automated then is it if you have to provide manual
input
> to the system....

Well, it is to an extent.  It'll do several things at once (turn 
everything off, set alarm), rather than you having to tap your code in 
downstairs, run upstairs in the dark, turn the light on, get into bed, 
turn light off.  This becomes go to bed, turn off light. 
Simple.

> > IMO, that'd be poor programming.  You should have your
system
> > programmed
> > so everything works as it does without automation.  You then
add
>
> That is what I want, but as Ken and others have suggested, you
just
> can't do that :(

Why not?  Sounds simple enough to me.  Everything works as
normal, you 
just have extra functionality should you want to use it.

> > Surely that's the point of it.  You want to go to bed, so
you hit the
> > 'bed' button which switches off lights as you leave the room,
> > and arms the
> > alarm.  That's easier than before, and doesn't interfere
with
> > anything else.
>
> I want something that works, works consistently, and doesn't require
an
> instruction manual.

What can be easier than a button marked 'bed' on pronto, or a button 
marked 'sleep' on your headboard?

> So _I_ press button X on the pronto and it all happens nicely, but
> mother in law who has enough trouble with normal remotes, let alone
a
> touch screen, can when house sitting, turn the alarm on manually
and
> turn the lights on/off manually - all concepts she understands
perfectly
> because she does it all the time.

Why disable the ability to do things manually?  Automation shouldn't
remove any functionality, only add it, IMO.

> > That's a bit OTT, IMO.  Because someone had a problem
with
> > their curtains,
> > you'll not install them?  Do you only fly with Quantas?
>
> There are two reasons why I will not be automating my curtains:
> 1/ I do not want to end up with a system where manually operating
the
> curtains results in total confusion and the system unable to handle
it
> until someone in the know fixes it.
> 2/ The systems I ahve seen take far longer to close curtains than I
can
> do manually and if I'm going to go to the curtains and press the
button
> on the closer, hell I may as well pull the chord and do it myself.

Fair points.  I'll automate mine anyway, but that's for geek
factor.  I am 
going to brew my own and see if I can remove those errors.  I reckon I
can 
solve them with switches at either end proving whether the curtains are
open or closed, and a more powerful motor and more efficient pulley
system.

Andy
-- 
Building a community network for Bristol
http://consume.andylaurence.co.uk
- updated 04/08
4x4 in town - bog brush for your teeth
NB: Alternate E-Mail - andylaurence at yahoo dot co dot uk

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

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.