[Asterisk-Users] PBX Console

[steve]

On Wednesday 23 April 2003 16:29, Steven Critchfield wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 14:28, 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.
>
> Couple of points here. What you point out isn't a bad thing. It
> may not live up to the expectation you have for asterisk right
> now, but it can't be everything to everybody. There are many of
> us using it just fine right now without that kind of
> functionality. This isn't to say it shouldn't be written and
> distributed at some point.

: ) I'm not looking at everything, just to be able to replace a 
typical PBX, and frankly Auto Attendant is in the minority use. 

> > There's the beginnig of GUI version but it's going to eat
> > resources for running X which can become less than desirable,
> > besides it's not very competitive having to use a mouse to
> > handle calls. Too slow.
>
> This gui version, are you refering to gastman? if so, it is able
> to be run remotely. I run it on a free monitor here so I can
> track system usage. I rarely use it for call routing.

Yes, but in order to forward X to another machine X has to run on 
the server, thus slowing down the server. Using 729 will eat enough 
horsepower by itself.

> > So my idea is to have a text window. We can run at a higher res
> > than 25x80 and squeeze a fair number of extensions onto it.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Maybe go to a GUI, but without all the cutesy icons. The icons
> would get in the way in a larger system. Also if you could go
> touchscreen and IAX VoIP, you could have an answer button and the
> next icon click is the transfer. This shouldn't be too hard to
> write up in perl or so once someone wrappers up the manager
> communication.

Touch screen is a nice "touch". But I'd settle for a text solution 
right now. 

> > 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.
>
> Voicemail doesn't use lines so part A is not exactly needed. As
> for B, why would a receptionist do this when it is available to
> each user via the phone line.

Because you cannot configure all the options via a phone. I need to 
be able to replace standard PBXs with voice mail. I don't expect to 
see an operator configuring voice mail, but it needs to be 
configured by some type of admin. In a corporate setting there are 
control you are not willing to give to the user like adding and 
removing boxes, reconfiguring how calls are to be routed for 
someone, typical maintenance stuff. I.e. not talking about messages 
and passwords.


-- 

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.