[Asterisk-Users] PBX Console

[steve]

On Wednesday 23 April 2003 17:50, Gary wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:28:54 -0400, steve wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I've been looking into the one bad thing about * which is
> > there's no practical solution to running a console. You know
> > the kind where you have rows of buttons each representing an
> > extension. You press the button of the extension you want to
> > transfer the call to, and it's done.
>
> Why not use a text (or simple) windows (GUI) interface ?
>
> >The idea is to either use the extension number to access an
> >extension or for less than 100 station system, use a two digit
> >number for each person. This way there's minimum typing for the
> >operator. This have enough space to easily display busy, hold,
> >vmail etc. as the status of each extension.
>
> well from experience running pabx systems, it is a rare to use 2
> digit extensions so don't restrict yourself.

Thanks, but I'm not restricting myself, rather trying to keep the 
amount of keypressing down. If one has more than 99 lines then you 
will need to press three buttons. 

> >This way with a flatscreen monitor, or dual for bigger systems
> > we can even run the console away from the server and use
> > minimum bandwidth.
> >
> >The other status screen would be a voice mail screen where you
> > can A) see the status of voicemail. Lines in use etc. B) change
> > the name and features associated with voice mail.
> >
> >Steve Szmidt
>
> Great idea Steve, but whynot havea look at changing gastman ?

Thanks. 

Because of the CPU overhead. Plus it sucks working a PBX with a 
mouse. It's too slow and inaccurate or error prone. What an 
operator needs are; A) speed and B) knowing that when you press the 
button (keyboard or mouse) it will be where you intended. A mouse 
will click anywhere and thus mis-route a call too easily. Never 
mind time wasted while dragging a mouse around. (A typist will out 
type any mouse operator any day. She can type four digits faster 
than you can locate and click on any one. Sooner or later you are 
going to click on the wrong "button".)

> I'm not a programmer, but I would have thought is might be better
> simplifying whats there now (particularly the windows version)
> and make the screen look more like an operators console, removing
> the funny graphics and standardising the layout... (instead of
> lines etc, light boxes which change colour and have the link
> details etc....
>
> don't restrict yourself too much.

Actually I don't see any restrictions at all. There's nothing one 
cannot do without the CPU hungry GUI. As I point out in my email 
729 is VERY CPU intensive. Besides X has always been a huge 
security hole. On a small system with few calls nothing really 
matters. I intend to put * up squarely against PBXs where ever 
possible. So I'd like to be able to handle the console issue in the 
best possible manner. 


> Gary


-- 

Steve Szmidt
___________________________________________________________
HTML in e-mail is not safe. It let's spammers know to spam you more,
and sets you up for online attack through IE 4.x and above.
Using HTML in e-mail only promotes it as safe to the uninitiated.