Re: SWMBO blocking, was Cool!

["Ian Lowe" <ian@xxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave McLaughlin" <dave@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ukha_d] SWMBO blocking, was Cool!


> Hi Frank,
>
> You C-bus lighting SWMBO problem is the same here. If she tries to use
the
remote to switch the lights on (she knows she can still do them manually if
she wants) and they don't come on first time, I get the blame and asked,
why
can't we have a normal house like everyone else... :o)
>
> Her main fear is if the server goes down and I am away, what does she
do
to switch things on and off. Even after explaining that it all works
manually too, she still has to ask???
>
> I remember a poll in the past and it showed that very few of us have
HA
compliant SWMBO's. I think your name needs to be Mark to get one or just
lucky like Ian Lowe...
>
> Dave...

Hmm missed the earlier posts on this thread till now...

Personally, I would have to say: she's right! on the couple of occassions
we
have had someone "housesit" when we go away, they need a manual
to figure
out how to do something which is as simple in their own home as flicking a
switch, or pressing a single remote button.

I think it's the clearest indicator that HA technology has a looong way to
go: the HA experience can be much worse than the simple system it replaced
in terms of reliability and useability, and thats a bad thing.

Essentially, if someone even notices the HA in anything other than a
"wow,
cool" way, if they ever have to stop and read a label on a switch, or
use a
menu.. I can't help but feel that we have failed.. and it's not fair to
shoot the messenger by complaining about the perfectly rational response of
the missus!!

I.