Microsoft TV Remote Control

8 Jul 2004 - 10:01am
10 years ago
26 replies
1204 reads
zayera at bluewin.ch
2004

Hey folks,

I have some questions which I would like to discuss about the Microsoft Media
Center Remote Control (see the attached picture, also in the article).

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/mediacenter/evaluation/overviews/useremote.mspx

Personally I find this Remote Control not optimal for a TV/Web experience,
and think it could definately be better designed from a Interaction design
aspect, but also improved ergonomics/usability.
Has anyone used this remote control? If so, what do you think about it?

I can't stop thinking that even if some group (at microsoft) did design &
test it, it is still not the best possible solution around.
There are many issues which this remote control just does NOT quite convience
me about:
-digital content navigation, browse, search
-digital video-recording functions
-not to mentione the enhancement of traditional tv functions (channel browsing
etc)

Last but not least, why are we still stuck with poorly designed products,
or take over old paradigms, in this case a "tradional remote control" instead
of creating a better device which supports the enhanced functionality and
interactive experience?

Regards,
Zayera

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: remote_control.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 22395 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040708/b47df83b/remote_control.gif

Comments

8 Jul 2004 - 11:16am
drewbam
2004

Zayera,

Do you have any thoughts as to how you would improve the remote to
better support the digital user experiences that you mention?
Disclosure: Teague worked on a second generation version of this
remote.

Drew Bamford
Interaction Design Manager
TEAGUE

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 16:01:33 +0100, zayera at bluewin.ch <zayera at bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
> Personally I find this Remote Control not optimal for a TV/Web experience,
> and think it could definately be better designed from a Interaction design
> aspect, but also improved ergonomics/usability.
> Has anyone used this remote control? If so, what do you think about it?
>
> I can't stop thinking that even if some group (at microsoft) did design &
> test it, it is still not the best possible solution around.
> There are many issues which this remote control just does NOT quite convience
> me about:
> -digital content navigation, browse, search
> -digital video-recording functions
> -not to mentione the enhancement of traditional tv functions (channel browsing
> etc)
>
> Last but not least, why are we still stuck with poorly designed products,
> or take over old paradigms, in this case a "tradional remote control" instead
> of creating a better device which supports the enhanced functionality and
> interactive experience?

8 Jul 2004 - 11:32am
Gardner, John
2004

>From the pic and descriptions in that page, it sounds similar to a TiVo
remote. The original TiVo remote is my favorite remote of all time so far.
It fits well in your hand, has the useful buttons properly sized, is pretty
intuitive. The newer remotes with "Standby" buttons are worse. That
standby button is the bane of my tv watching experience. My cable box
remote has the "guide" button in about the same place as the TiVo remote has
standby, so I inadvertently put my tivo into standby all the time.
Interestingly enough, my other (even newer) TiVo remote does not have that
standby button at all, so this problem is gone. So in the TV watching
experience, I don't have any complaints about the MS remote (without
actually using it).

Now back to the browse/search type thing. I have a lot of devices that
require remotes at home, so I bought one of those sony remotes with the
touch screen on the top that changes button layouts depending what mode you
are in. I've found that it is the LEAST usable remote that I have.

1) You can't tell what mode it is in just by looking at it
2) you have to press a button for the screen to become active, so that you
can see what parts of the screen ARE buttons and what they are
3) no tactile feedback for those buttons. I end up hitting menu all the
time, then have to look at it to find the exit button
4) people are afraid to use it because they might "mess something up"

some of those issues have been fixed by newer versions of the same remote.

I'm kindof surprised that I haven't seen any remotes that have areas like
the palm/treo pda phones that have a tiny but full keyboard for some of that
web style interaction.

I think one of the things Microsoft has to contend with is getting these
devices into the "consumer" market vs the "pro-sumer" market. I wouldn't be
afraid of a remote with a tiny little qwerty keyboard on it, but I know that
my parents would. Almost everyone can operate a "standard" pushbutton
remote control with very little learning. They all have the same buttons.
I'd guess that's the direction they headed with this remote.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesi
> gners.com
> [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interac
> tiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of d|b
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 9:16 AM
> To: zayera at bluewin.ch
> Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control
>
>
> Zayera,
>
> Do you have any thoughts as to how you would improve the
> remote to better support the digital user experiences that
> you mention?
> Disclosure: Teague worked on a second generation version of
> this remote.
>
> Drew Bamford
> Interaction Design Manager
> TEAGUE
>
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 16:01:33 +0100, zayera at bluewin.ch
> <zayera at bluewin.ch> wrote:
> >
> > Personally I find this Remote Control not optimal for a TV/Web
> > experience, and think it could definately be better designed from a
> > Interaction design aspect, but also improved
> ergonomics/usability. Has
> > anyone used this remote control? If so, what do you think about it?
> >
> > I can't stop thinking that even if some group (at microsoft) did
> > design & test it, it is still not the best possible
> solution around.
> > There are many issues which this remote control just does NOT quite
> > convience me about: -digital content navigation, browse, search
> > -digital video-recording functions
> > -not to mentione the enhancement of traditional tv
> functions (channel browsing
> > etc)
> >
> > Last but not least, why are we still stuck with poorly designed
> > products, or take over old paradigms, in this case a
> "tradional remote
> > control" instead of creating a better device which supports the
> > enhanced functionality and interactive experience?

9 Jul 2004 - 4:00am
Andrei Sedelnikov
2004

How this remote so even the famous TiVo-remote is still stick to the
same old model - buttons and more buttons. Personally I believe there
are more natural interaction models for TV-remotes. Take for example
the channel selection panel: the numbers are still the primary
selection mechanism, but the basic problem with them is that there is
no relation between the number and the name of a channel. How do I
know that the BBC News has the number 24?

As you may guess, using channel names for selection is not the
solution because you either have to type it, which is even more
awkward than number selection and requires the whole alphabetical
keyboard, or show the names on the small display on the remote and
select them with the "soft buttons". The latter case is no good, too,
because firstly, you have to always look on the remote in order to
find the name and secondly, due to size of the remote you can show
only a small set of channels, which means you'd need some kind of
navigation through channels which would again be even worse that the
number selection.

So other methods of interaction should be found. We need something
which would allow us:

a) to select the desired channel from the small set of my preferred
channels without having to look onto remote (physical position mapping
comes to mind)
b) circle through all available channels (may be only filtered by the
category), for the time we have nothing to do and just looking for
something interesting to watch.

Andrei Sedelnikov
http://usabilist.de

9 Jul 2004 - 11:50am
drewbam
2004

Andrei,

It seems to me that many EPG (electronic program guide) systems (e.g.
Tivo), satisfy your below requirements. All of the channel information
is presented onscreen, and thus does not require the user to divide
their attention between the remote and the display (assuming that they
are able to use the directional navigation controls without looking at
the remote). I have designed some remotes that integrate
touch-sensitive displays, and have found that the lack of tactile
feedback and the necessity for the user to divide their locus of
attention between two displays are major hurdles. I am of the opinion
that the solution is not a smarter remote, but better integration of
the channel UI with the primary display (e.g. transparent overlays,
PIP, etc.).

Cheers,
d|b

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:00:59 +0200, Andrei Sedelnikov
<usabilist at gmail.com> wrote:

> We need something which would allow us:
>
> a) to select the desired channel from the small set of my preferred
> channels without having to look onto remote (physical position mapping
> comes to mind)
> b) circle through all available channels (may be only filtered by the
> category), for the time we have nothing to do and just looking for
> something interesting to watch.

9 Jul 2004 - 1:19pm
Andrei Sedelnikov
2004

Ok, I'm aware of EPG systems, but then why their remotes still have
the number buttons (0..9 & more)? Since it is not now a primary
channel selection mechanism any more, but it can be used for other not
frequent number-entering operations, why not to remove them from the
remote or simply hide them under some cover?
Thus we could free about a half of the remote's surface.

Another issue is that having already from 10 till 20 selected
channels, I don't find the only back-forward navigation as an
effective interaction: To get from channel with the order 4 to channel
with the order 17 requires 13 button-presses. I imagine some kind of
shortcuts which would switch directly to the desired channel.

And with the rest I'm fully agree: we need a better on-screen UI and
touch-screen remotes has no future.

Sedelnikov Andrei
http://usabilist.de

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 09:50:05 -0700, d|b <drewbam at gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrei,
>
> It seems to me that many EPG (electronic program guide) systems (e.g.
> Tivo), satisfy your below requirements. All of the channel information
> is presented onscreen, and thus does not require the user to divide
> their attention between the remote and the display (assuming that they
> are able to use the directional navigation controls without looking at
> the remote). I have designed some remotes that integrate
> touch-sensitive displays, and have found that the lack of tactile
> feedback and the necessity for the user to divide their locus of
> attention between two displays are major hurdles. I am of the opinion
> that the solution is not a smarter remote, but better integration of
> the channel UI with the primary display (e.g. transparent overlays,
> PIP, etc.).
>
> Cheers,
> d|b
>
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:00:59 +0200, Andrei Sedelnikov
> <usabilist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We need something which would allow us:
> >
> > a) to select the desired channel from the small set of my preferred
> > channels without having to look onto remote (physical position mapping
> > comes to mind)
> > b) circle through all available channels (may be only filtered by the
> > category), for the time we have nothing to do and just looking for
> > something interesting to watch.
>

9 Jul 2004 - 1:28pm
Adlin, Tamara
2004

Hi Andrei--
Have you see the cd changers that allow you to put in 200+ cds? They either read the name of the cd off the cd itself or you can (fairly painfully) add the cd name manually. But the end result is a knob you can twirl to review the names of the cds (displayed on a small monitor, which, I think, we could reproduce on a remote by using cell-phone-like displays similar to the ones that show names of your contacts in a scrolling list). I like the combo of the dial-knob and the digital display. And in this case, people wouldn't have to hand code names of stations with numbers--the cable company could supply that.

That would be a cool remote in my book.

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Andrei Sedelnikov
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:01 AM
To: zayera at bluewin.ch
Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control

How this remote so even the famous TiVo-remote is still stick to the same old model - buttons and more buttons. Personally I believe there are more natural interaction models for TV-remotes. Take for example the channel selection panel: the numbers are still the primary selection mechanism, but the basic problem with them is that there is no relation between the number and the name of a channel. How do I know that the BBC News has the number 24?

As you may guess, using channel names for selection is not the solution because you either have to type it, which is even more awkward than number selection and requires the whole alphabetical keyboard, or show the names on the small display on the remote and select them with the "soft buttons". The latter case is no good, too, because firstly, you have to always look on the remote in order to find the name and secondly, due to size of the remote you can show only a small set of channels, which means you'd need some kind of navigation through channels which would again be even worse that the number selection.

So other methods of interaction should be found. We need something which would allow us:

a) to select the desired channel from the small set of my preferred channels without having to look onto remote (physical position mapping comes to mind)
b) circle through all available channels (may be only filtered by the category), for the time we have nothing to do and just looking for something interesting to watch.

Andrei Sedelnikov
http://usabilist.de
_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

9 Jul 2004 - 1:36pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Why do I need a screen on the remote, when I have a screen in front of me?

How about instead of making using the current guide, w/ a small subframe of
the current selection, do the opposite, where the guide is a small window
(maybe even w/ some level of transparency) on the main screen itself.

I also think that w/ 200+ channels that channel #'s are pretty broken in
terms of metaphor at this point and that the input mechanism should change a
bit to accommodate that we tend to think of channel names and categories
more than we think of channel numbers.

-- dave

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Adlin, Tamara
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:29 PM
To: Andrei Sedelnikov; zayera at bluewin.ch
Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control

Hi Andrei--
Have you see the cd changers that allow you to put in 200+ cds? They either
read the name of the cd off the cd itself or you can (fairly painfully) add
the cd name manually. But the end result is a knob you can twirl to review
the names of the cds (displayed on a small monitor, which, I think, we could
reproduce on a remote by using cell-phone-like displays similar to the ones
that show names of your contacts in a scrolling list). I like the combo of
the dial-knob and the digital display. And in this case, people wouldn't
have to hand code names of stations with numbers--the cable company could
supply that.

That would be a cool remote in my book.

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Andrei Sedelnikov
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:01 AM
To: zayera at bluewin.ch
Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control

How this remote so even the famous TiVo-remote is still stick to the same
old model - buttons and more buttons. Personally I believe there are more
natural interaction models for TV-remotes. Take for example the channel
selection panel: the numbers are still the primary selection mechanism, but
the basic problem with them is that there is no relation between the number
and the name of a channel. How do I know that the BBC News has the number
24?

As you may guess, using channel names for selection is not the solution
because you either have to type it, which is even more awkward than number
selection and requires the whole alphabetical keyboard, or show the names on
the small display on the remote and select them with the "soft buttons". The
latter case is no good, too, because firstly, you have to always look on the
remote in order to find the name and secondly, due to size of the remote you
can show only a small set of channels, which means you'd need some kind of
navigation through channels which would again be even worse that the number
selection.

So other methods of interaction should be found. We need something which
would allow us:

a) to select the desired channel from the small set of my preferred channels
without having to look onto remote (physical position mapping comes to mind)
b) circle through all available channels (may be only filtered by the
category), for the time we have nothing to do and just looking for something
interesting to watch.

Andrei Sedelnikov
http://usabilist.de
_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

9 Jul 2004 - 1:39pm
Andrei Sedelnikov
2004

Hi Tamara,

The things that you've described are going exactly in the direction I
was thinking of. I also like the combination of the knob and a
display. What else comes to mind in the Cooper's P at ssport Case Study:

http://cooper.com/content/clients/sony_trans_com.asp

Smooth operations with a knob seem to me much more natural than the
"digital" button pressing.

Andrei

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:28:54 -0700, Adlin, Tamara <tamara at amazon.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrei--
> Have you see the cd changers that allow you to put in 200+ cds? They either read the name of the cd off the cd itself or you can (fairly painfully) add the cd name manually. But the end result is a knob you can twirl to review the names of the cds (displayed on a small monitor, which, I think, we could reproduce on a remote by using cell-phone-like displays similar to the ones that show names of your contacts in a scrolling list). I like the combo of the dial-knob and the digital display. And in this case, people wouldn't have to hand code names of stations with numbers--the cable company could supply that.
>
> That would be a cool remote in my book.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Andrei Sedelnikov
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:01 AM
> To: zayera at bluewin.ch
> Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control
>
> How this remote so even the famous TiVo-remote is still stick to the same old model - buttons and more buttons. Personally I believe there are more natural interaction models for TV-remotes. Take for example the channel selection panel: the numbers are still the primary selection mechanism, but the basic problem with them is that there is no relation between the number and the name of a channel. How do I know that the BBC News has the number 24?
>
> As you may guess, using channel names for selection is not the solution because you either have to type it, which is even more awkward than number selection and requires the whole alphabetical keyboard, or show the names on the small display on the remote and select them with the "soft buttons". The latter case is no good, too, because firstly, you have to always look on the remote in order to find the name and secondly, due to size of the remote you can show only a small set of channels, which means you'd need some kind of navigation through channels which would again be even worse that the number selection.
>
> So other methods of interaction should be found. We need something which would allow us:
>
> a) to select the desired channel from the small set of my preferred channels without having to look onto remote (physical position mapping comes to mind)
> b) circle through all available channels (may be only filtered by the category), for the time we have nothing to do and just looking for something interesting to watch.
>
> Andrei Sedelnikov
> http://usabilist.de
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>
>

9 Jul 2004 - 1:41pm
Adlin, Tamara
2004

Ohhh...I like it.
Anyone from TIVO on the list? If not I can forward thru friends. Let's get them to make one.

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of David Heller
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 11:36 AM
To: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control

Why do I need a screen on the remote, when I have a screen in front of me?

How about instead of making using the current guide, w/ a small subframe of the current selection, do the opposite, where the guide is a small window (maybe even w/ some level of transparency) on the main screen itself.

I also think that w/ 200+ channels that channel #'s are pretty broken in terms of metaphor at this point and that the input mechanism should change a bit to accommodate that we tend to think of channel names and categories more than we think of channel numbers.

-- dave

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Adlin, Tamara
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:29 PM
To: Andrei Sedelnikov; zayera at bluewin.ch
Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control

Hi Andrei--
Have you see the cd changers that allow you to put in 200+ cds? They either read the name of the cd off the cd itself or you can (fairly painfully) add the cd name manually. But the end result is a knob you can twirl to review the names of the cds (displayed on a small monitor, which, I think, we could reproduce on a remote by using cell-phone-like displays similar to the ones that show names of your contacts in a scrolling list). I like the combo of the dial-knob and the digital display. And in this case, people wouldn't have to hand code names of stations with numbers--the cable company could supply that.

That would be a cool remote in my book.

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Andrei Sedelnikov
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:01 AM
To: zayera at bluewin.ch
Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control

How this remote so even the famous TiVo-remote is still stick to the same old model - buttons and more buttons. Personally I believe there are more natural interaction models for TV-remotes. Take for example the channel selection panel: the numbers are still the primary selection mechanism, but the basic problem with them is that there is no relation between the number and the name of a channel. How do I know that the BBC News has the number 24?

As you may guess, using channel names for selection is not the solution because you either have to type it, which is even more awkward than number selection and requires the whole alphabetical keyboard, or show the names on the small display on the remote and select them with the "soft buttons". The latter case is no good, too, because firstly, you have to always look on the remote in order to find the name and secondly, due to size of the remote you can show only a small set of channels, which means you'd need some kind of navigation through channels which would again be even worse that the number selection.

So other methods of interaction should be found. We need something which would allow us:

a) to select the desired channel from the small set of my preferred channels without having to look onto remote (physical position mapping comes to mind)
b) circle through all available channels (may be only filtered by the category), for the time we have nothing to do and just looking for something interesting to watch.

Andrei Sedelnikov
http://usabilist.de
_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

9 Jul 2004 - 1:46pm
Andrei Sedelnikov
2004

> How about instead of making using the current guide, w/ a small subframe of
> the current selection

No doubts, that should be exactly in that way! I'm wondering why they
have not implemented such thing yet.

> I also think that w/ 200+ channels that channel #'s are pretty broken

Well one usual knob is definitely not enough for 200 "entities". But
that's not a complete solution, I just find the knob-like interaction
more natural.

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:36:03 -0400, David Heller
<dave at interactiondesigners.com> wrote:
> Why do I need a screen on the remote, when I have a screen in front of me?
>
> How about instead of making using the current guide, w/ a small subframe of
> the current selection, do the opposite, where the guide is a small window
> (maybe even w/ some level of transparency) on the main screen itself.
>
> I also think that w/ 200+ channels that channel #'s are pretty broken in
> terms of metaphor at this point and that the input mechanism should change a
> bit to accommodate that we tend to think of channel names and categories
> more than we think of channel numbers.
>
> -- dave
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
> com] On Behalf Of Adlin, Tamara
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:29 PM
> To: Andrei Sedelnikov; zayera at bluewin.ch
> Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control
>
> Hi Andrei--
> Have you see the cd changers that allow you to put in 200+ cds? They either
> read the name of the cd off the cd itself or you can (fairly painfully) add
> the cd name manually. But the end result is a knob you can twirl to review
> the names of the cds (displayed on a small monitor, which, I think, we could
> reproduce on a remote by using cell-phone-like displays similar to the ones
> that show names of your contacts in a scrolling list). I like the combo of
> the dial-knob and the digital display. And in this case, people wouldn't
> have to hand code names of stations with numbers--the cable company could
> supply that.
>
> That would be a cool remote in my book.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
> com] On Behalf Of Andrei Sedelnikov
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:01 AM
> To: zayera at bluewin.ch
> Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control
>
> How this remote so even the famous TiVo-remote is still stick to the same
> old model - buttons and more buttons. Personally I believe there are more
> natural interaction models for TV-remotes. Take for example the channel
> selection panel: the numbers are still the primary selection mechanism, but
> the basic problem with them is that there is no relation between the number
> and the name of a channel. How do I know that the BBC News has the number
> 24?
>
> As you may guess, using channel names for selection is not the solution
> because you either have to type it, which is even more awkward than number
> selection and requires the whole alphabetical keyboard, or show the names on
> the small display on the remote and select them with the "soft buttons". The
> latter case is no good, too, because firstly, you have to always look on the
> remote in order to find the name and secondly, due to size of the remote you
> can show only a small set of channels, which means you'd need some kind of
> navigation through channels which would again be even worse that the number
> selection.
>
> So other methods of interaction should be found. We need something which
> would allow us:
>
> a) to select the desired channel from the small set of my preferred channels
> without having to look onto remote (physical position mapping comes to mind)
> b) circle through all available channels (may be only filtered by the
> category), for the time we have nothing to do and just looking for something
> interesting to watch.
>
> Andrei Sedelnikov
> http://usabilist.de
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>

9 Jul 2004 - 1:52pm
Dave Malouf
2005

To be honest, the remote is not my biggest issue base w/ my DVR system
(Sorry TiVo not as cheap as my cable company's DVR; of course its not as
good as TiVo, but hey, gotta pick your battlers.)

My point is that the main gripe I have w/ the cable version is the delay
factor. Pause/FF>> and <<RR are pretty good (love using them), but Getting
to the Guide and my list of recorded stuff are both so delayed that it is
painful. Even changing channels has such a hard delay on the cable box. To
me this is really the first battle line to be crossed. Until this is fixed
the remote will always be an after thought in my mind.

1 thing that might help on the remote side is sound on the remote for
feedback. Sometimes the delay is so long that I keep pressing the button
thinking that my drink on the coffee table is in the way of the IR. If tehre
was a sound for a click and another sound for a response from the TV then I
would feel more confident in my use of the remote. How many people use
sounds for IE. I know I do and it makes a big difference to me. They are
subtle but they make a difference. What I don't like is when apps like Gmail
constantly do refreshes it always goes off.

Anyway, just some thoughts from a user. ;)

-- dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Adlin, Tamara [mailto:tamara at amazon.com]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:42 PM
To: David Heller;
discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control

Ohhh...I like it.
Anyone from TIVO on the list? If not I can forward thru friends. Let's get
them to make one.

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of David Heller
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 11:36 AM
To: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control

Why do I need a screen on the remote, when I have a screen in front of me?

How about instead of making using the current guide, w/ a small subframe of
the current selection, do the opposite, where the guide is a small window
(maybe even w/ some level of transparency) on the main screen itself.

I also think that w/ 200+ channels that channel #'s are pretty broken in
terms of metaphor at this point and that the input mechanism should change a
bit to accommodate that we tend to think of channel names and categories
more than we think of channel numbers.

-- dave

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Adlin, Tamara
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:29 PM
To: Andrei Sedelnikov; zayera at bluewin.ch
Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control

Hi Andrei--
Have you see the cd changers that allow you to put in 200+ cds? They either
read the name of the cd off the cd itself or you can (fairly painfully) add
the cd name manually. But the end result is a knob you can twirl to review
the names of the cds (displayed on a small monitor, which, I think, we could
reproduce on a remote by using cell-phone-like displays similar to the ones
that show names of your contacts in a scrolling list). I like the combo of
the dial-knob and the digital display. And in this case, people wouldn't
have to hand code names of stations with numbers--the cable company could
supply that.

That would be a cool remote in my book.

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Andrei Sedelnikov
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:01 AM
To: zayera at bluewin.ch
Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control

How this remote so even the famous TiVo-remote is still stick to the same
old model - buttons and more buttons. Personally I believe there are more
natural interaction models for TV-remotes. Take for example the channel
selection panel: the numbers are still the primary selection mechanism, but
the basic problem with them is that there is no relation between the number
and the name of a channel. How do I know that the BBC News has the number
24?

As you may guess, using channel names for selection is not the solution
because you either have to type it, which is even more awkward than number
selection and requires the whole alphabetical keyboard, or show the names on
the small display on the remote and select them with the "soft buttons". The
latter case is no good, too, because firstly, you have to always look on the
remote in order to find the name and secondly, due to size of the remote you
can show only a small set of channels, which means you'd need some kind of
navigation through channels which would again be even worse that the number
selection.

So other methods of interaction should be found. We need something which
would allow us:

a) to select the desired channel from the small set of my preferred channels
without having to look onto remote (physical position mapping comes to mind)
b) circle through all available channels (may be only filtered by the
category), for the time we have nothing to do and just looking for something
interesting to watch.

Andrei Sedelnikov
http://usabilist.de
_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

9 Jul 2004 - 1:58pm
Gardner, John
2004

> > How about instead of making using the current guide, w/ a small
> > subframe of the current selection
>
> No doubts, that should be exactly in that way! I'm wondering
> why they have not implemented such thing yet.

TiVo already has a partially transparent program guide, as do some digital
cable boxes.

I think part of the original problem is that regular tv resolution is very
low. what, 320x240? making a "subframe" that has any amount of readable
text is hard, epecially once you add transparency. but a small section that
has channel number, call letters/name of station would be easy I think, and
readable on even tiny screens. once we actually move to HD, this isn't as
big of a deal because you have much better resolution.

the usefulness only comes there with responsiveness. if I scroll using the
wheel, those channels in that subframe better move pretty fast. I HATE my
cable box because it is so slow compared to my tivo. just pressing down in
the mini program guide at the bottom of the screen is annoying. if channel
changing was that slow, I would just memorize the numbers...

I'm surprised that cable/dish companies haven't moved to a system where the
program guide in the cable box is sorted by grouping / channel name or
something. They try to achieve this by renumbering channels to be togther,
but then once you add ESPN8, you need to move 200 channels down to put espn
8 next to espn 1-7. If they just removed the numbers entirely, or let users
define their own numbers, they wouldn't have to do that anymore...its
probably because they have to support standard basic tv's that don't have
any of those features.

9 Jul 2004 - 2:14pm
drewbam
2004

Can I assume that you are familiar with the iPod wheel + list browsing
mechanism?

Sorry. I just couldn't resist. In any case, as has been pointed out
several times already, two screens are not, in this case, better than
one. As soon as there is more than a single display, the user is
forced to continually shift their locus of attention.

d|b

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:28:54 -0700, Adlin, Tamara <tamara at amazon.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrei--
> Have you see the cd changers that allow you to put in 200+ cds? They either read the name of the cd off the cd itself or you can (fairly painfully) add the cd name manually. But the end result is a knob you can twirl to review the names of the cds (displayed on a small monitor, which, I think, we could reproduce on a remote by using cell-phone-like displays similar to the ones that show names of your contacts in a scrolling list). I like the combo of the dial-knob and the digital display. And in this case, people wouldn't have to hand code names of stations with numbers--the cable company could supply that.
>
> That would be a cool remote in my book.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Andrei Sedelnikov
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:01 AM
> To: zayera at bluewin.ch
> Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control
>
> How this remote so even the famous TiVo-remote is still stick to the same old model - buttons and more buttons. Personally I believe there are more natural interaction models for TV-remotes. Take for example the channel selection panel: the numbers are still the primary selection mechanism, but the basic problem with them is that there is no relation between the number and the name of a channel. How do I know that the BBC News has the number 24?
>
> As you may guess, using channel names for selection is not the solution because you either have to type it, which is even more awkward than number selection and requires the whole alphabetical keyboard, or show the names on the small display on the remote and select them with the "soft buttons". The latter case is no good, too, because firstly, you have to always look on the remote in order to find the name and secondly, due to size of the remote you can show only a small set of channels, which means you'd need some kind of navigation through channels which would again be even worse that the number selection.
>
> So other methods of interaction should be found. We need something which would allow us:
>
> a) to select the desired channel from the small set of my preferred channels without having to look onto remote (physical position mapping comes to mind)
> b) circle through all available channels (may be only filtered by the category), for the time we have nothing to do and just looking for something interesting to watch.
>
> Andrei Sedelnikov
> http://usabilist.de
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>

9 Jul 2004 - 2:28pm
Andrei Sedelnikov
2004

If someone from you did not see this link yet, it fits perfectly into
our discussion:

http://teehanlax.com/

Click on "Download Our PVR-report".

Andrei
usabilist.de

9 Jul 2004 - 9:35pm
Coryndon Luxmoore
2004

Andrei
My Sony Wega TV has somthing similar to what you are describing. It has a recent channels button which when you press it pops up the last 5 or so channels you have selected and allows you to switch between them. How it determines your most recent channels is a little wierd but it works pretty well if you want to flip around 3-4 channels. What it doesn't have is the preprogrammed channels so you essentially have to program it by selecting the channels each time you watch tv.

Older models of this TV had an even cooler feature which allowed you to have approximately 8 smal snapshots of your channels around the main moving channel. This combined with the cursor keys allowed you to switch any of the snapshots into the center (sort of like expose for the mac) Now if those channels could all be live then you would have something.

--Coryndon

-------Original Message-------
> From: Andrei Sedelnikov <usabilist at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control
> Sent: 09 Jul 2004 18:19:00
>
> Ok, I'm aware of EPG systems, but then why their remotes still have
> the number buttons (0..9 & more)? Since it is not now a primary
> channel selection mechanism any more, but it can be used for other not
> frequent number-entering operations, why not to remove them from the
> remote or simply hide them under some cover?
> Thus we could free about a half of the remote's surface.
>
> Another issue is that having already from 10 till 20 selected
> channels, I don't find the only back-forward navigation as an
> effective interaction: To get from channel with the order 4 to channel
> with the order 17 requires 13 button-presses. I imagine some kind of
> shortcuts which would switch directly to the desired channel.
>
> And with the rest I'm fully agree: we need a better on-screen UI and
> touch-screen remotes has no future.
>
> Sedelnikov Andrei
> http://usabilist.de
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 09:50:05 -0700, d|b <drewbam at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Andrei,
> >
> > It seems to me that many EPG (electronic program guide) systems (e.g.
> > Tivo), satisfy your below requirements. All of the channel information
> > is presented onscreen, and thus does not require the user to divide
> > their attention between the remote and the display (assuming that they
> > are able to use the directional navigation controls without looking at
> > the remote). I have designed some remotes that integrate
> > touch-sensitive displays, and have found that the lack of tactile
> > feedback and the necessity for the user to divide their locus of
> > attention between two displays are major hurdles. I am of the opinion
> > that the solution is not a smarter remote, but better integration of
> > the channel UI with the primary display (e.g. transparent overlays,
> > PIP, etc.).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > d|b
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:00:59 +0200, Andrei Sedelnikov
> > <usabilist at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > We need something which would allow us:
> > >
> > > a) to select the desired channel from the small set of my preferred
> > > channels without having to look onto remote (physical position mapping
> > > comes to mind)
> > > b) circle through all available channels (may be only filtered by the
> > > category), for the time we have nothing to do and just looking for
> > > something interesting to watch.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
-------Original Message-------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20040709/21864aa2/attachment.html

9 Jul 2004 - 3:40pm
Gardner, John
2004

That was a great doc. Hopefully the folks at TiVo (and the others) have
seen that...

I'm still confused why all these cable companies and cable box vendors think
they should invent their own, different, DVR technology. They've all proved
that they can make a slower, substandard, less usable product than the ones
that exist. It would also seem that many of the people designing the new
ones have never even used the other systems because they don't seem to
overlap in features with the established brands.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesi
> gners.com
> [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interac
> tiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Andrei Sedelnikov
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 12:28 PM
> To: David Heller
> Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control
>
>
> If someone from you did not see this link yet, it fits
> perfectly into our discussion:
>
> http://teehanlax.com/
>
> Click on "Download Our PVR-report".
>
> Andrei
> usabilist.de

9 Jul 2004 - 6:18pm
Christian Simon
2003

> on 7/9/04 12:01,Andrei wrote:
> The things that you've described are going exactly in the direction I
> was thinking of. I also like the combination of the knob and a
> display. What else comes to mind in the Cooper's P at ssport Case Study:
> http://cooper.com/content/clients/sony_trans_com.asp
> Smooth operations with a knob seem to me much more natural than the
> "digital" button pressing.

I heard the UI interface jog dial is a patented by Sony.
--KAAAAFFF
Maybe if Microsoft called it a "flywheel" you can get past Sony corporate
dogs!

The key to 200+ channels is ACCELERATION! Most TV listing on screen guides
flip channels at one speed--verry slow. If you had half the speed touch of
an X-Box, that would make scrolling a much different experience.

Christian

////////////////////christiansimon at pacbell.net\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

12 Jul 2004 - 5:09am
Andrei Sedelnikov
2004

> The key to 200+ channels is ACCELERATION!

Acceleration helps but does not solve the problem. In my opinion there
is a great unused potential in the haptic feedback. Since you are not
supposed to look onto remote while operating it, the sense of touch
can help a lot.

Andrei Sedelnikov
http://usabilist.de/en

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:18:21 -0700, Christian Simon
<christiansimon at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > on 7/9/04 12:01,Andrei wrote:
> > The things that you've described are going exactly in the direction I
> > was thinking of. I also like the combination of the knob and a
> > display. What else comes to mind in the Cooper's P at ssport Case Study:
> > http://cooper.com/content/clients/sony_trans_com.asp
> > Smooth operations with a knob seem to me much more natural than the
> > "digital" button pressing.
>
> I heard the UI interface jog dial is a patented by Sony.
> --KAAAAFFF
> Maybe if Microsoft called it a "flywheel" you can get past Sony corporate
> dogs!
>
> The key to 200+ channels is ACCELERATION! Most TV listing on screen guides
> flip channels at one speed--verry slow. If you had half the speed touch of
> an X-Box, that would make scrolling a much different experience.
>
> Christian
>
> ////////////////////christiansimon at pacbell.net\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>

12 Jul 2004 - 6:41am
Michael Bartlett
2004

>In any case, as has been pointed out several times already, two screens are

>not, in this case, better than one. As soon as there is more than a single
>display, the user is forced to continually shift their locus of attention.

I don't believe this has been proven. There is a big difference between a
one and two-screen approach in this instance that has not been considered
and that is the advantage that the screen in your hand (remote) can be touch
sensitive.

Consider a "My Favourite Channel" interaction. For the sake of the example
lets lay your favourite channels out in plain old text running down the
screen as such:

Sky Sports 1
eXtreme Sports Channel
Cartoon Network
BBC 1
Sky Movies
BBC News 24
Sky Sports 2
The Playboy Channel

So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4 times to
get to "Sky Movies". With a touch-sensitive screen it would require a single
touch.

Of course you could number "My Favourites" and choose them like you would
speed dial on a phone (hold down 1 - for Favourite Channel #1).

Personally I would prefer a colour touch screen with the icons (or logos) of
my favourite channels layed both across and down the screen - once again a
touch screen would bring considerable benefit to quickly selecting the
channel whereas now you would need to navigate both down and across to
access these channels using the "screen in front of you".

12 Jul 2004 - 6:52am
Andrei Sedelnikov
2004

>So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
>touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4 times to
>get to "Sky Movies"

That's true. But why do you think it's a problem for the user? I think
the problem looks similar to the operationg the computer with two
input devices (mouse & keyboard): it is know that the change of the
input device is usually not desired. May be it would be faster to
accomplish the action by pressing only one button on the keyboard,
but if I already have a mouse in my hand, it is "easier" to me to make
several clicks and get the same result.

Anyway, don't you think the solution, which will have favorites on the
TV-screen and provide faster and more accurate access to the list
elements than the buttons do, will be even better?

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:41:05 +0100, Michael Bartlett
<michael.bartlett at workshare.com> wrote:
> >In any case, as has been pointed out several times already, two screens are
>
> >not, in this case, better than one. As soon as there is more than a single
> >display, the user is forced to continually shift their locus of attention.
>
> I don't believe this has been proven. There is a big difference between a
> one and two-screen approach in this instance that has not been considered
> and that is the advantage that the screen in your hand (remote) can be touch
> sensitive.
>
> Consider a "My Favourite Channel" interaction. For the sake of the example
> lets lay your favourite channels out in plain old text running down the
> screen as such:
>
> Sky Sports 1
> eXtreme Sports Channel
> Cartoon Network
> BBC 1
> Sky Movies
> BBC News 24
> Sky Sports 2
> The Playboy Channel
>
> So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
> touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4 times to
> get to "Sky Movies". With a touch-sensitive screen it would require a single
> touch.
>
> Of course you could number "My Favourites" and choose them like you would
> speed dial on a phone (hold down 1 - for Favourite Channel #1).
>
> Personally I would prefer a colour touch screen with the icons (or logos) of
> my favourite channels layed both across and down the screen - once again a
> touch screen would bring considerable benefit to quickly selecting the
> channel whereas now you would need to navigate both down and across to
> access these channels using the "screen in front of you".
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>

12 Jul 2004 - 7:42am
Dave Malouf
2005

The other problem w/ the touch screen solution is cost.
Current touch screen remotes that are sold cost the same amount as I paid
for my TV (several hundred dollars). A TiVo is already loosing market share
slowly b/c of the growth of Cable-based devices that aren't as good, but
have no major cost obstacle, so anything that would make the product even
more expensive would be hard to swallow.

I think this brings up an important issue. Even (and I'm not convinced it
is) if the touch screen approach is the most usable and most useful for
end-users, it is meaningless if it can't get into people's hands due to
business/financial constraints.

We as designers cannot design in a background and to me this is one of the
core differentials between HCI/Usability professionals and what designers do
for a living. It is important for designers to have a clear understanding
that "best design" does not mean throwing away key criteria for constraints.

-- dave

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Andrei Sedelnikov
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 7:53 AM
To: Michael Bartlett
Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control

>So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
>touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4 times
>to get to "Sky Movies"

That's true. But why do you think it's a problem for the user? I think the
problem looks similar to the operationg the computer with two input devices
(mouse & keyboard): it is know that the change of the input device is
usually not desired. May be it would be faster to accomplish the action by
pressing only one button on the keyboard, but if I already have a mouse in
my hand, it is "easier" to me to make several clicks and get the same
result.

Anyway, don't you think the solution, which will have favorites on the
TV-screen and provide faster and more accurate access to the list elements
than the buttons do, will be even better?

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:41:05 +0100, Michael Bartlett
<michael.bartlett at workshare.com> wrote:
> >In any case, as has been pointed out several times already, two
> >screens are
>
> >not, in this case, better than one. As soon as there is more than a
> >single display, the user is forced to continually shift their locus of
attention.
>
> I don't believe this has been proven. There is a big difference
> between a one and two-screen approach in this instance that has not
> been considered and that is the advantage that the screen in your hand
> (remote) can be touch sensitive.
>
> Consider a "My Favourite Channel" interaction. For the sake of the
> example lets lay your favourite channels out in plain old text running
> down the screen as such:
>
> Sky Sports 1
> eXtreme Sports Channel
> Cartoon Network
> BBC 1
> Sky Movies
> BBC News 24
> Sky Sports 2
> The Playboy Channel
>
> So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
> touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4 times
> to get to "Sky Movies". With a touch-sensitive screen it would require
> a single touch.
>
> Of course you could number "My Favourites" and choose them like you
> would speed dial on a phone (hold down 1 - for Favourite Channel #1).
>
> Personally I would prefer a colour touch screen with the icons (or
> logos) of my favourite channels layed both across and down the screen
> - once again a touch screen would bring considerable benefit to
> quickly selecting the channel whereas now you would need to navigate
> both down and across to access these channels using the "screen in front
of you".
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>
_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

12 Jul 2004 - 12:34pm
drewbam
2004

Michael,

I have only one question for you: have you ever used a remote control
equipped with a touch panel? There are several available on the
market, including the (now discontinued) model from Microsoft that I
helped design. In fact, there is a model from Philips that has a very
nice color display. If you have not had the displeasure of using one,
I would suggest that you give it a try and then report back about
whether you find divided attention to be an issue. My own experience
is all of the proof that I need.

d|b

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:41:05 +0100, Michael Bartlett
<michael.bartlett at workshare.com> wrote:
> >In any case, as has been pointed out several times already, two screens are
>
> >not, in this case, better than one. As soon as there is more than a single
> >display, the user is forced to continually shift their locus of attention.
>
> I don't believe this has been proven. There is a big difference between a
> one and two-screen approach in this instance that has not been considered
> and that is the advantage that the screen in your hand (remote) can be touch
> sensitive.
>
> Consider a "My Favourite Channel" interaction. For the sake of the example
> lets lay your favourite channels out in plain old text running down the
> screen as such:
>
> Sky Sports 1
> eXtreme Sports Channel
> Cartoon Network
> BBC 1
> Sky Movies
> BBC News 24
> Sky Sports 2
> The Playboy Channel
>
> So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
> touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4 times to
> get to "Sky Movies". With a touch-sensitive screen it would require a single
> touch.
>
> Of course you could number "My Favourites" and choose them like you would
> speed dial on a phone (hold down 1 - for Favourite Channel #1).
>
> Personally I would prefer a colour touch screen with the icons (or logos) of
> my favourite channels layed both across and down the screen - once again a
> touch screen would bring considerable benefit to quickly selecting the
> channel whereas now you would need to navigate both down and across to
> access these channels using the "screen in front of you".
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>

12 Jul 2004 - 12:38pm
drewbam
2004

Agreed that these devices cost too much. Keep in mind, however, that
the target market is not people who spend several hundred on a TV; it
is people who spend tens of thousands on a home theater system. Most
of these systems are professionally installed. The remote is included
with the system and pre-configured by the installer.

d|b

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:42:35 -0400, David Heller
<dave at interactiondesigners.com> wrote:
> The other problem w/ the touch screen solution is cost.
> Current touch screen remotes that are sold cost the same amount as I paid
> for my TV (several hundred dollars). A TiVo is already loosing market share
> slowly b/c of the growth of Cable-based devices that aren't as good, but
> have no major cost obstacle, so anything that would make the product even
> more expensive would be hard to swallow.
>
> I think this brings up an important issue. Even (and I'm not convinced it
> is) if the touch screen approach is the most usable and most useful for
> end-users, it is meaningless if it can't get into people's hands due to
> business/financial constraints.
>
> We as designers cannot design in a background and to me this is one of the
> core differentials between HCI/Usability professionals and what designers do
> for a living. It is important for designers to have a clear understanding
> that "best design" does not mean throwing away key criteria for constraints.
>
> -- dave
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
> com] On Behalf Of Andrei Sedelnikov
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 7:53 AM
> To: Michael Bartlett
> Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control
>
> >So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
> >touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4 times
> >to get to "Sky Movies"
>
> That's true. But why do you think it's a problem for the user? I think the
> problem looks similar to the operationg the computer with two input devices
> (mouse & keyboard): it is know that the change of the input device is
> usually not desired. May be it would be faster to accomplish the action by
> pressing only one button on the keyboard, but if I already have a mouse in
> my hand, it is "easier" to me to make several clicks and get the same
> result.
>
> Anyway, don't you think the solution, which will have favorites on the
> TV-screen and provide faster and more accurate access to the list elements
> than the buttons do, will be even better?
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:41:05 +0100, Michael Bartlett
> <michael.bartlett at workshare.com> wrote:
> > >In any case, as has been pointed out several times already, two
> > >screens are
> >
> > >not, in this case, better than one. As soon as there is more than a
> > >single display, the user is forced to continually shift their locus of
> attention.
> >
> > I don't believe this has been proven. There is a big difference
> > between a one and two-screen approach in this instance that has not
> > been considered and that is the advantage that the screen in your hand
> > (remote) can be touch sensitive.
> >
> > Consider a "My Favourite Channel" interaction. For the sake of the
> > example lets lay your favourite channels out in plain old text running
> > down the screen as such:
> >
> > Sky Sports 1
> > eXtreme Sports Channel
> > Cartoon Network
> > BBC 1
> > Sky Movies
> > BBC News 24
> > Sky Sports 2
> > The Playboy Channel
> >
> > So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
> > touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4 times
> > to get to "Sky Movies". With a touch-sensitive screen it would require
> > a single touch.
> >
> > Of course you could number "My Favourites" and choose them like you
> > would speed dial on a phone (hold down 1 - for Favourite Channel #1).
> >
> > Personally I would prefer a colour touch screen with the icons (or
> > logos) of my favourite channels layed both across and down the screen
> > - once again a touch screen would bring considerable benefit to
> > quickly selecting the channel whereas now you would need to navigate
> > both down and across to access these channels using the "screen in front
> of you".
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Interaction Design Discussion List
> > discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> > http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> > already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> > --
> > http://interactiondesigners.com/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>

12 Jul 2004 - 12:43pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Wow! That was a big leap ... How did we get to market definition like that?

First we were talking about MS TV Remote ... Really? 10,000 dollar systems?
MS never goes that market ... So I'm not sure how you got there.

BTW, what's interesting is that I think I failed my MS interview when I went
whole hog into a touch-screen remote system when they asked me to design a
remote. I even said the system was like the one below.

Couple of things about a touch remote that was brought to my attention.
Where in the hand you hold it and how comfortable people are using it with
one hand. Two-handed systems are scorned upon for some reason. There is some
unique fascination with pointing at the tv like a gun or something like
that.

-- dave

Ps. I own a touch screen phone (Palm/phone hybrid) and I have to say that I
would kill for a real set of buttons like a keyboard for most of my
day-to-day use. Damn! You Treo for coming out 3 months too late. (oh! And my
impatience, too.) I love my Samsung except for that one thing.

-----Original Message-----
From: d|b [mailto:drewbam at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 1:38 PM
To: David Heller
Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control

Agreed that these devices cost too much. Keep in mind, however, that the
target market is not people who spend several hundred on a TV; it is people
who spend tens of thousands on a home theater system. Most of these systems
are professionally installed. The remote is included with the system and
pre-configured by the installer.

d|b

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:42:35 -0400, David Heller
<dave at interactiondesigners.com> wrote:
> The other problem w/ the touch screen solution is cost.
> Current touch screen remotes that are sold cost the same amount as I
> paid for my TV (several hundred dollars). A TiVo is already loosing
> market share slowly b/c of the growth of Cable-based devices that
> aren't as good, but have no major cost obstacle, so anything that
> would make the product even more expensive would be hard to swallow.
>
> I think this brings up an important issue. Even (and I'm not convinced
> it
> is) if the touch screen approach is the most usable and most useful
> for end-users, it is meaningless if it can't get into people's hands
> due to business/financial constraints.
>
> We as designers cannot design in a background and to me this is one of
> the core differentials between HCI/Usability professionals and what
> designers do for a living. It is important for designers to have a
> clear understanding that "best design" does not mean throwing away key
criteria for constraints.
>
> -- dave
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.co
> m
>
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
> com] On Behalf Of Andrei Sedelnikov
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 7:53 AM
> To: Michael Bartlett
> Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control
>
> >So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
> >touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4
> >times to get to "Sky Movies"
>
> That's true. But why do you think it's a problem for the user? I think
> the problem looks similar to the operationg the computer with two
> input devices (mouse & keyboard): it is know that the change of the
> input device is usually not desired. May be it would be faster to
> accomplish the action by pressing only one button on the keyboard,
> but if I already have a mouse in my hand, it is "easier" to me to make
> several clicks and get the same result.
>
> Anyway, don't you think the solution, which will have favorites on the
> TV-screen and provide faster and more accurate access to the list
> elements than the buttons do, will be even better?
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:41:05 +0100, Michael Bartlett
> <michael.bartlett at workshare.com> wrote:
> > >In any case, as has been pointed out several times already, two
> > >screens are
> >
> > >not, in this case, better than one. As soon as there is more than a
> > >single display, the user is forced to continually shift their locus
> > >of
> attention.
> >
> > I don't believe this has been proven. There is a big difference
> > between a one and two-screen approach in this instance that has not
> > been considered and that is the advantage that the screen in your
> > hand
> > (remote) can be touch sensitive.
> >
> > Consider a "My Favourite Channel" interaction. For the sake of the
> > example lets lay your favourite channels out in plain old text
> > running down the screen as such:
> >
> > Sky Sports 1
> > eXtreme Sports Channel
> > Cartoon Network
> > BBC 1
> > Sky Movies
> > BBC News 24
> > Sky Sports 2
> > The Playboy Channel
> >
> > So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
> > touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4
> > times to get to "Sky Movies". With a touch-sensitive screen it would
> > require a single touch.
> >
> > Of course you could number "My Favourites" and choose them like you
> > would speed dial on a phone (hold down 1 - for Favourite Channel #1).
> >
> > Personally I would prefer a colour touch screen with the icons (or
> > logos) of my favourite channels layed both across and down the
> > screen
> > - once again a touch screen would bring considerable benefit to
> > quickly selecting the channel whereas now you would need to navigate
> > both down and across to access these channels using the "screen in
> > front
> of you".
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Interaction Design Discussion List
> > discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> > http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> > already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> > --
> > http://interactiondesigners.com/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>

12 Jul 2004 - 12:55pm
drewbam
2004

Dave,

Apologies for the jump to market definition, but I was just following
the thread where it led. In any case, the reality of the situation is
that the Microsoft Take Control remote was sold primarily to owners of
very high end systems, under the Harmon Kardon and Madrigal brands. Of
course, it was hoped that eventually the product would hit a more
mainstream market, but, as with most technology products, rich geeks
are/were the early adopters.

d|b

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:43:30 -0400, David Heller
<dave at interactiondesigners.com> wrote:
> Wow! That was a big leap ... How did we get to market definition like that?
>
> First we were talking about MS TV Remote ... Really? 10,000 dollar systems?
> MS never goes that market ... So I'm not sure how you got there.
>
> BTW, what's interesting is that I think I failed my MS interview when I went
> whole hog into a touch-screen remote system when they asked me to design a
> remote. I even said the system was like the one below.
>
> Couple of things about a touch remote that was brought to my attention.
> Where in the hand you hold it and how comfortable people are using it with
> one hand. Two-handed systems are scorned upon for some reason. There is some
> unique fascination with pointing at the tv like a gun or something like
> that.
>
> -- dave
>
> Ps. I own a touch screen phone (Palm/phone hybrid) and I have to say that I
> would kill for a real set of buttons like a keyboard for most of my
> day-to-day use. Damn! You Treo for coming out 3 months too late. (oh! And my
> impatience, too.) I love my Samsung except for that one thing.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: d|b [mailto:drewbam at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 1:38 PM
> To: David Heller
> Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control
>
> Agreed that these devices cost too much. Keep in mind, however, that the
> target market is not people who spend several hundred on a TV; it is people
> who spend tens of thousands on a home theater system. Most of these systems
> are professionally installed. The remote is included with the system and
> pre-configured by the installer.
>
> d|b
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:42:35 -0400, David Heller
> <dave at interactiondesigners.com> wrote:
> > The other problem w/ the touch screen solution is cost.
> > Current touch screen remotes that are sold cost the same amount as I
> > paid for my TV (several hundred dollars). A TiVo is already loosing
> > market share slowly b/c of the growth of Cable-based devices that
> > aren't as good, but have no major cost obstacle, so anything that
> > would make the product even more expensive would be hard to swallow.
> >
> > I think this brings up an important issue. Even (and I'm not convinced
> > it
> > is) if the touch screen approach is the most usable and most useful
> > for end-users, it is meaningless if it can't get into people's hands
> > due to business/financial constraints.
> >
> > We as designers cannot design in a background and to me this is one of
> > the core differentials between HCI/Usability professionals and what
> > designers do for a living. It is important for designers to have a
> > clear understanding that "best design" does not mean throwing away key
> criteria for constraints.
> >
> > -- dave
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.co
> > m
> >
> [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
> > com] On Behalf Of Andrei Sedelnikov
> > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 7:53 AM
> > To: Michael Bartlett
> > Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> > Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Microsoft TV Remote Control
> >
> > >So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
> > >touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4
> > >times to get to "Sky Movies"
> >
> > That's true. But why do you think it's a problem for the user? I think
> > the problem looks similar to the operationg the computer with two
> > input devices (mouse & keyboard): it is know that the change of the
> > input device is usually not desired. May be it would be faster to
> > accomplish the action by pressing only one button on the keyboard,
> > but if I already have a mouse in my hand, it is "easier" to me to make
> > several clicks and get the same result.
> >
> > Anyway, don't you think the solution, which will have favorites on the
> > TV-screen and provide faster and more accurate access to the list
> > elements than the buttons do, will be even better?
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:41:05 +0100, Michael Bartlett
> > <michael.bartlett at workshare.com> wrote:
> > > >In any case, as has been pointed out several times already, two
> > > >screens are
> > >
> > > >not, in this case, better than one. As soon as there is more than a
> > > >single display, the user is forced to continually shift their locus
> > > >of
> > attention.
> > >
> > > I don't believe this has been proven. There is a big difference
> > > between a one and two-screen approach in this instance that has not
> > > been considered and that is the advantage that the screen in your
> > > hand
> > > (remote) can be touch sensitive.
> > >
> > > Consider a "My Favourite Channel" interaction. For the sake of the
> > > example lets lay your favourite channels out in plain old text
> > > running down the screen as such:
> > >
> > > Sky Sports 1
> > > eXtreme Sports Channel
> > > Cartoon Network
> > > BBC 1
> > > Sky Movies
> > > BBC News 24
> > > Sky Sports 2
> > > The Playboy Channel
> > >
> > > So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
> > > touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4
> > > times to get to "Sky Movies". With a touch-sensitive screen it would
> > > require a single touch.
> > >
> > > Of course you could number "My Favourites" and choose them like you
> > > would speed dial on a phone (hold down 1 - for Favourite Channel #1).
> > >
> > > Personally I would prefer a colour touch screen with the icons (or
> > > logos) of my favourite channels layed both across and down the
> > > screen
> > > - once again a touch screen would bring considerable benefit to
> > > quickly selecting the channel whereas now you would need to navigate
> > > both down and across to access these channels using the "screen in
> > > front
> > of you".
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Interaction Design Discussion List
> > > discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> > > --
> > > to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> > > http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> > > --
> > > Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> > > --
> > > Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> > > already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> > > --
> > > http://interactiondesigners.com/
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Interaction Design Discussion List
> > discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> > http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> > already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> > --
> > http://interactiondesigners.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Interaction Design Discussion List
> > discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> > http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> > already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> > --
> > http://interactiondesigners.com/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>

14 Jul 2004 - 9:21am
Greg Petroff
2004

Nice summary of remotes on the cnet web site.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7900_7-5114325-1.html?tag=promo2

greg

Gregory Petroff
desk 212 383 4092
mobile 646 387 2841

-----------------------------------------
This message and its attachments may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are prohibited from printing, forwarding, saving or copying this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and its attachments from your computer.

Syndicate content Get the feed