[asterisk-users] building a phone

[Tzafrir Cohen]

Thanks for your reply,

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:53:21AM -0500, SIP wrote:
> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > Hi folks
> >
> > A common wisdom here is that one should use a proper hardware phone
> > rather that an extra software on the user's PC. Why is that such a big
> > issue?
> >   
> 
> Marketability for one. People worldwide understand the telephone
> paradigm. You have a handset and a box with numbers. You pick it up and
> dial, talk through the handset, and listen in the other end. It's
> simple. It's an elegant design. And everyone from 1 year olds to my 97
> year old grandfather can use it.
> 
> Software phones? Not so much. In fact, not even close. The additional
> complexity of running software on a machine ALONE would keep my
> grandfather and that 1 year old from using it. Headsets? Seriously?
> Since when have those been user-friendly OR comfortably.
> 
> In essence, adherence to a software phone paradigm breaks a century of
> design advancement in telephone ergonomics, psychology, and reliance,
> and replaces it with something that's clearly just a kludgy add-on to a
> product which was never originally designed for the task.
> 

But imposes many stupid design limitations as well. A limitation of CPU
power. A limitation of screen space. A limitation of a pointing device.

A user has a keyboard to enter URLs. You can do that with a dialpad.
Sort of. And you curse whoever invented that.

How do you dial to an address pointed from the page you were browsing?

> > == Small Quantities:
> > When you look at such systems it becomes aparant that you can get much
> > nicer prices if you buy large quanities. But this is something that will
> > be a problem. Not only for prototying. The fact that you're limited to a
> > strict hardware setting is very limiting. No mixing and matching like in
> > a standard PC. I'm not exactly sure how to overcome that.
> >   
> 
> This is one of the biggest reasons all the hardware phones are
> proprietary -- they're each written for different basic hardware.

That's no inherent reason for being proprietary. It's proprietary
because that's how they can make money of it. I think that from selling
a hardware for which there's a good programmable phone you can
eventually make more money. But then that's pure speculation.

> > == Ease of Use:
> > A phone must be usable. The target device must be something my mom can
> > use. However that does not mean it must be easy to program. It must be
> > programmable and hackable. But I can live with a complicated user
> > interface for that. If such phones become successful and useful, better
> > interfaces will eventually be written.
>
> Just a note here -- a complicated user interface, though you personally
> may be able to live with it, will pretty much ensure that the phones
> never become successful enough for a better one to be written. UI design
> is about 10% code and 90% psychology (and so FEW people who call
> themselves UI 'programmers' understand that). Just having a UI that can
> get you from point A to point B without typing in commands is NOT a UI
> worth making, as it will never be a UI worth using.

It's a UI worth making because I don't spend a year over it. 
And because I'm not a UI designer and hte phone is first and foremost
for me :-)

-- 
               Tzafrir Cohen
icq#16849755              jabber:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
+972-50-7952406           mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:guest at local.xorcom.com/tzafrir