Re: Re: Remote Control

[Chris Hunter <cjhunter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>The user interface is by far the most important thing ...

OTOH ... 'think I'd prefer a remote' without buttons at all ...

Some time ago, I had a go at this for our hi-fi ... RS232 connection to
'Mac, ASCII comms ... MS QuickBasic to create a graphical interface ...
with each unit of the hi-fi represented on-screen by a simple graphic,
with lines drawn between them to show what's connected to what ... plus
some boxes for functions (eg: play, record), plus a minimal grid of
numbers, months, days, etc ... plus a text-entry box for occasional
boffin use - so it was just a few points & clicks with the mouse to do
anything :

eg: Record / Radio / Station / 5 / Reel-to-Reel / Go = 6 clicks

eg: Record / Radio / Station / 3 / 0930 / To / 1030 / Wednesday /
Cassette Recorder / Repeat / Weekly / Until / 23 Mar 07/ Go = 24 clicks

eg: Command / 0895787 / Go = 9 clicks

eg: Play / CD-player / Tracks / 3 5 7 8 / In / 5-minutes / Loop/ Go = 12
clicks

whatever ... the delimiters being always implicit ... the instructions
almost in English ...

A second text-box spelt-out what you were telling it ... with implicit
words added, to make the message very clear ... and the comms were two-
way, so the individual graphics also showed the status of the individual
units - on/off, station tuned-to, including its name, speed of play,
minutes elapsed, whatever

The hi-fi had / has its own IR remote', but going via the 'Mac was
generally much easier & quicker, more fool-proof, and self-evident, for
anything more complicated than (eg) adjusting the volume or switching
stations !

Not having had the Mac for very long, I remember it 'took about five
hours / three evenings to write the programme - 'so long because 'had to
refer to the service manual for the hi-fi to get a grip on the ASCII
codes etc, and 'had to learn 'QuickBasic - so short because on the 'Mac
the graphics & user-interface stuff is mostly done for you (ie: you
build quickly  from modular components)

That was fifteen years ago, now - and since MS Quickbasic stayed 16-bit,
we've long-since been back with the remote' - anyway, it was only an
experiment !

'doing it today, I guess a PDA would figure in there somewhere, and
other innovations ...

Hopefully, before too long, I'll be able to do something similar for all
the house systems ...


Chris



Keith Doxey wrote:

>
> > I was quite surprised at Xmas ... My folks came down to spend a
few days
> > with us and my mum managed to control the TV using the iPronto
without
> > either Jo or I showing her how to use it at any point. She had
> > seen that we
> > poked the thing with our fingers the night before and that was
that
> - she
> > got up before us the first morning, decided she wanted to watch
> > the news and
> > so "gave it a go" and worked it out straight away. Of
course it
> > all depends
> > on the programming for its ease of use...
> >
>
> The user interface is by far the most important thing in making
something
> easy and intuitive to use.
>
> One thing that stikes me as funny is the terminology use in remotes. I
> have
> all four of the types listed below.....
>
> Pronto has "Soft Buttons" because they are configured in
software and only
> shown when needed. however when you come to "press" the soft
button you
> actually discover that it is HARD!
>
> Something like a cheap "One for all" remote has hard buttons
in that
> all the
> buttons are always present and whilst some configuration may be
> possible you
> cant change button labelling or hide any buttons.
>
> Then there is the middle ground with devices like Harmony and Kameleon
>
> Kameleon hasnt actually got buttons but has a large membrane that you
> press
> (similar to a touchscreen) and backlighting that only shows the
> legends for
> buttons when needed but legends cant be changed.
>
> Then there is what I personally prefer at the moment, Harmony. Fully
> programable except that the buttons are always there so cant be hidden
and
> you cant change the labelling EXCEPT for the buttons at the side of
> the LCD
> which are Soft(ware defined) Buttons.
>
> Although the OFA and Harmony remotes are "Hard Button"
devices, the actual
> buttons are SOFT to the touch and give tactile feedback when pressing
> them,
> you can also "feel" for the button without having to look at
the remote as
> you would with a Pronto etc.
>
> I guess the IDEAL remote is one with Large Physical buttons in the
form of
> small LED/LCD screens that can show whatever is needed, when it is
needed.
> Buttons not being use could be blank. Someone posted a link for a
> prototype
> PC keyboard that had such buttons.
>
> http://www.artlebedev.com/portfolio/optimus/
>
> Now a remote control based on that technology would be really cool.
>
> Regards
>
> Keith
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]