[Asterisk-Users] PBX Console

[Gary]

Actually a web based interface to the manager would probably be the
least machine intensive and could easily be controlled from virtually
anywhere...



On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:59:36 -0400, steve wrote:

>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.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Asterisk-Users mailing list
>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

.