Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!fuug!sics.se!ifi.uio.no!enag From: enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) Newsgroups: comp.human-factors Subject: Telephone - user interfaces Message-ID: Date: 26 Jun 91 22:42:07 GMT Article-I.D.: gyda.ENAG.91Jun27004204 References: Sender: enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 93 Nntp-Posting-Host: gyda.ifi.uio.no In-Reply-To: mathew@mantis.co.uk's message of 26 Jun 91 13: 42:36 GMT Originator: enag@gyda.ifi.uio.no 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* 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 Naggum Professional Programmer +47-2-836-863 Naggum Software Electronic Text 0118 OSLO, NORWAY Computer Communications