I'm not sure how to make my point completely.

As I walk trade shows or encounter systems, that are mostly spinoffs of example configurations, I think that the screens are too cluttered and that there is a tendency to include all of the native remote buttons, many of which are never used or are only required for setup. The configuration captures the pain of multiple native remotes in a single shell.

In some cases I can interrogate the system and, as the remote wakes, I'll display the appropriate screen. This is very convenient when a user walks into a room and it is not immediately clear what is playing (cable, ROKU, Internet radio station, etc.) -- especially for significant others who don't appreciate the mega system approach to A/V.

One annoyance as an integrator is if I must go back to the site for some reason, need a rare button, must track down a native remote, and probably some fresh batteries. A way around this is to include an initial screen, possibly password protected, that leads to all these buttons. This screen is available only after a reload or reboot and cannot be accidentally encountered during normal operation. In multi-room systems there should be a way of changing a remote's room in case the dog eats one remote, but this capability should not be available with a slip of the finger -- else there is the risk of introducing a late night thundering chase into a bedroom.

Implied in the above is that remotes are screen oriented. I feel everyone's pain who wants a button remote because a button remote can be all touch and you don't need to be constantly changing your focus between the remote screen and the TV screen. The other side of this coin is the button remote that has more buttons than necessary and the button labels do not correspond well with the native remotes. Another side of the coin is the phone/pad App that will probably better present a device's current status than a custom remote. And yet another side of the coin is the Apple approach with a minimum of confusing buttons, but it's an annoying (to me) routine of constant scroll and drill down. A "Netflix" (or similar) button would be convenient.

Buzz.... reading that mess made my head hurt!
WTF is going on in your customer's home and what remotes are you using? None of that made any sense what-so-ever if you are doing it correctly.

My customers pick up a remote, there is an ON & OFF button at the top. They select what they want to do on the remote, and it does it. They are using the system, and the remote tells them at the top what they are currently doing.
How the hell can it be any simpler than that!
And I always gather up all the OEM remotes, take the batteries out, and put them in a large ziplock bag. That bag is placed somewhere near the equipment, out-of-sight with a couple of batteries to install when needed.


[In other news]: I constantly have to go behind other installs fixing remote programming. I don't think I have ever walked into a house down here, that had a remote programmed properly. It's like these a-holes sleep thru the basic training courses (honestly I don't think they take it at all).
This causes even more animosity for the customer towards "universal remotes".... because of idiots!

Which will bring us to the topic again: If the customer just has a few devices (TV, soundbar, streambox), there is no need for a universal remote anyway.

Apps... Apps are the last f^n thing to be used to control anything; except audio only systems, whole house systems, and one off IoT devices. Anyone trying to use an app to watch TV, well... they deserve what they get. Including anyone on here that wants to argue that one - enjoy your masochist.

Made my head hurt just trying to express this.


Agreed

agree and that was the point. bad/lazy custom set-up IMHO is a cluttered screen with all the buttons and the customer needs to muddle through it. A good set-up is is a screen with minimal buttons controlling nothing but the basic features of each device needed for what the customer is doing at the time.


20 years ago when I was doing Pronto's I did that. For every device used, create a screen with small buttons that had every possible command. Then for each system add the base screens needed that had all the codes and link to those buttons from the user interface that was not cluttered. Maybe what you use has the same limitations? and then I fully get why there can be buried screens with full buttons. These days what we use has a device library so such screens are not needed, I can access the device library directly and send commands if needed.

Me too.

u can hate all u want.. no need to to tell me i suck bc i like my system?? relax boys. im just saying for me, im not in love with control systems anymore. maybe my hands are small, id rather have the XR11 in my hand than a GIANT T2X.. i turn my system on to a volume im used too, then it stays there unless its a movie and it may turn up. but tv watching, i like the XR11 or my app... im different i guess. sonos spoiled me...the volume stays where it is for the nigth.. i dont need to navigate thru a t2x that has a million pages of stuff i will never ever use... its not how i watch tv.

it was great for along time and now im over it. the 1 and only 1 good thing about sonos is i install it, get paid and move on to my other 4000 jobs. this is just my opinion and wanted to hear yours.. no bashing needed.

Sensitive much? A few of the earlier posts did bash T2 (if you want to call it that) a nd you weren't even involved in the later posts, but I don't see any post that bashed you personally earlier on or later.

As for wanting others opinion. I am not interested in a lot of small jobs where we move to the other 4000, we specialize in big complex jobs which is why our customers need and want simplified controlling. It does not matter if we are talking HW (for example OEM remotes/T2) or SW (for example a phone or tablet that can control the devices) our customers don't want complex find the right control (be it HW or SW) but simplified I don't know what is happening behind the scenes but I can press the button in front of me and it will happen.

totally agree. makes sense, and i lover that. i dont like when remotes crap out, freeze or break a few months after. things change when ur busy i guess. i just love not doing them anymore and simple systems that work?

After RA’ing most of the T2c and T3 remotes I sold, I was relieved when the T2i and T2x came out. Great, a redesign.

First one I put in locked up immediately.  Did a handful, and I finally put a note in my phone on the key sequence for rebooting, so I could copy, paste, and send to clients who called with issues.

URC CCP is simple and reliable in comparison.

And the RTI database, “the best on the planet”, not even maintained by RTI, has more useless fragments and junk in it... give me a break.

Sorry to derail.  XR11 is fine in simple cable only setups, but add a Roku, DVD, AVR, and you do need a real remote.

I chose to separate the world of remotes some time ago into icons on a screen, operated by someone who doesn't know, really KNOW, the system, and so needs clear and simple button names; and the person who uses the same system over and over and over and who has thus learned to operate the remote by touch. This is me and my DirecTV remote. Also my Apple TV remote.

By the way, I learned about this need for separate approaches years and years ago with my Marantz RC5200. I Fast Forwarded my DVR to bypass an ad, and hovered my thumb above the PLAY button on the screen. Thing is, I moved slightly without knowing it, and when it was time to hit PLAY, I missed. The program kept skipping forward... and of course it needed to be stopped NOW, making it harder to do... this redefined screen commands for me as the ones where you HAVE to look at the remote anyway.

My biggest issue with C4s SR260 after coming from URC is the lack of custom buttons that can easily be named whatever you like, and you can basically add as many as you need.  The 260 has been a good and easy remote overall to use for normal functions, but if you want to do more, its a pain.  For instance, in one job, I have the custom buttons on the remotes in a couple rooms toggle lights with one button and on a second, toggles the shades up/down.  The problem, even I forget which button does which.  Sure, if the client uses it enough he will likely remember, but if it was designed more like the URC remote, it would be labeled and easy to pick up and use, even if you've never used it before.  With that said, I believe buttons are important and I do not like a touch screen remote.  Going back to URC, the TRC1080 was great as it allowed for custom labeled hard buttons.  I wish C4 has something similar.