[Asterisk-Users] Re: transfer with threeway calling

[Cees de Groot]

Steven Critchfield  <asterisk-users at lists.digium.com> said:
>Not exactly. The complaint here was that if a call was parked the user
>thought they had to wait for the timeout to have the call bounce back to
>their phone. My comment was that the user was just as capable of dialing
>the parked call as the intended transfer target, thus removing the wait
>for timeout.  
>
Which is exactly what I said, but let's not start an argument over who
said what - suffice it to conclude we're still talking about the same
topic ;-)

>> Which is a completely and utterly wrong answer to users complaining
>> about usability.
>
>Not always. Sometimes it is absolutely necessary.
>
Is there anything absolutely necessary, probably caused by *'s design,
that mandates that old-fashioned transfer mechanisms shouldn't work? 

>This is where it might come down to redesigning the way calls are dealt
>with in an organization. Sometimes new phone systems do this, and
>hopefully the company sees new efficiencies with dealing with the
>customer in general. 
>
Oh, I'm fully aware of the value of AA, IVR, and whatnot. In fact, we're
working hard to implement this in the various companies I'm involved
with. But it will not completely eliminate all transfers, and I must say
that it's not up to the 'technologists' to decide how this then should
be handled (barring some hard technological limits, budget limitations,
etcetera). If a customer wants to do old-fashioned, out-of-date, stupid
stuff like faxing, flash-transfers or wearing digital watches, we may
object, protest, and call the customer a [expletive deleted]; but then
we should shrug and implement the damn thing.

>All phones more complicated than a home phone start as a barrier to a
>new user. So does that thing usually on the right of the keyboard.
>Eventually they learn to use it and understand it, if it was implemented
>well to begin with.
>
So you throw Linux at people's desktops and say "stop whining, you'll
adapt eventually"? Or Macs, for that matter?

Steering users towards new behavior is ok. Ramming it down their throats
never works (and I should know - I've been in the 'convert people from
Word to StarOffice' market, it is always a matter of a lot of patience,
and the ONLY thing that finally gets them across is the promise of
compatibility).

>[...] Also on
>the occasions I have to park a call, I can usually walk over to the
>person about to answer the call and give them the quick 10 second
>briefing before they take the call.
>
We're completely virtual, we don't even have an office. I'd need to hop
in the car and drive for well over an hour to reach some colleagues ;-)

But the issue is not: 'how does the alternative feature work', the issue
is 'why is the original feature absent'. I haven't heard anyone giving
any reason whatsoever why * does not allow a user to retrieve an on-hold
call with old-fashioned flashing (or pressing #). I think that is what
the debate should focus on, not on whether the customer is right...


-- 
Cees de Groot               http://www.tric.nl     <cg at tric.nl>
tric, the new way           helpdesk/ticketing software, VoIP/CTI, 
                            web applications, custom development