[Asterisk-Users] PBX Console

[John Todd]

I'll summarize instead of text-inserting:  I agree that a text based 
interface for an operator (perhaps with a fancy ANSI or VT100 
pseudo-graphics look) would be the best solution for some 
installations.  Keystrokes are much more operator-friendly than a 
mouseclick.  Access to directory functions are extremely useful, as 
would be some ability to rename call groups by the individual user 
who is accessing the transfer station.  Gastman (or any mouse-driven 
app, regardless of the underlying OS) is not what I would put in 
front of an operator that saw a lot of activity.

I'm betting almost all of this can be done the way you want by using 
the same TCP based interface that gastman uses.  Check it out.  You'd 
simply be writing your own call manager application on top of the 
pre-existing API-ish interface, which was (I assume) why that 
interface was abstracted to a TCP socket with generic data about call 
states.

JT

>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