¿ªÔÆÌåÓýFor basic room control I highly endorse the use-the-Touch 10-as-the-UI approach (I have several clients with large deployments in this vein including one where we¡¯ve done a couple hundred rooms in a handful of countries and a few local languages) ¨C not only does it work well and you don¡¯t have to worry about the most complicated part of the UI or keeping up with UI refreshes and improvements but it takes a lot of the UX workload away because Cisco locks you into a relatively rigid framework, so even if you want to reinvent the wheel you can¡¯t really. ? ? For wackier rooms the line is less clear because of that same lack of flexibility (e.g. divisible rooms with multiple codecs, lots of analog controls) and depending on room use cases (is this a room that¡¯s 95% VTC or 5% VTC, for example?) other approaches ?start to make sense, e.g. for a primarily VTC room it may be best to use the Touch 10/Navigator as the primary end user UI but have a real Crestron panel somewhere for more tech/room setup tasks. I¡¯m finding it more and more rarely makes sense to reinvent the VTC UX (Though having said that I do have a project we¡¯re replacing Zoom with WebEx in a dozen or so rooms being build where VTC is less than 1% of the functionality and we¡¯re working with the client on what makes the most sense for the UX. In that case, though, auto join or OBTP and end call are probably the limits of the normal VTC control. ? -- Lincoln King-Cliby, CTS, DMC-E-4K/T/D ? From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Andrew Linck
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:32 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [crestron] Cisco Touch 10 Layout ? Before you go spending a lot of time trying to develop a UI that would resemble the layout of a Cisco Touch 10, why not think about using the Cisco Touch 10 as the UI?? |
