I'd like to know what you prefer.

Cinema6 and 7s have unique shapes for each group of buttons. The numbers buttons are shaped like numbers. The transport buttons resemble transport symbols, etc..

Some remotes have all the buttons the same, with only the printing changing to identify the function of the button.

I prefer the Cinema6/7 approach. With some practice, I've gotten to where I can identify what button I'm pressing even in complete darkness. Of course, with any sort of backlight darkness would not be an issue.

What do you prefer, and why?

Dave

There's only one flaw I can see to the number-shaped keypad buttons... the small crevasses begin to collect all sorts of junk. Hard to "wipe down" those buttons. But it is One For All's trademark.

Hint: Use toothbrash :) Works very well.

David,

You've expressed one of the things I love about the Cinema 7. I've got a buddy who tried to convince me to get a Pronto. Putting aside the price (I know, that's hard to do!) I could never have a remote that didn't have buttons. And the different shapes are good in the dark (as opposed to the all same size same shape buttons I've seen on some remotes).

EMT

I like the different shaped buttons. Good for the dark, but since the Cinema6/7 really don't have an extremely large # of buttons anyway, and they are layed out rather uniquely (not just rows/columns) then its easy for me to remember where buttons. The only problem I have is the 7 blue circles on the top half by the arrow keys.

A backlight would most definitly make life much easier at night.

How important is tactile feedback when you press a button? Should it feel like it "clicked", or actually make a click sound? Is the red light flash enough to assure you you've pressed enough? Do you even notice the red light flash when you press a button?

Dave

No, tactile feedback is not necessary. As long as the device I'm trying to operate performs the desired function, that's all the feedback I need. Audible clicks would be EXTREMELY irritating.

For hard, physical buttons I don't want any sound. For instance, on the Pronto I have hard button clicks turned off. When I sit there tweaking the volume during a movie I don't want any distracting sound. Red lights are mostly useless, however there should be some indication that a signal is being sent.

> I'd like to know what you prefer. Cinema6 and 7s have unique shapes
> for each group of buttons. The numbers buttons are shaped like
> numbers. The transport buttons resemble transport symbols, etc.. Some
> remotes have all the buttons the same, with only the printing changing
> to identify the function of the button. I prefer the Cinema6/7
> approach. With some practice, I've gotten to where I can identify what
> button I'm pressing even in complete darkness. Of course, with any
> sort of backlight darkness would not be an issue. What do you prefer,
> and why? Dave

I think the unique number and transport key shapes are the best
approach to RC's (one of 1000 reasons why I hate the ugly Radio Shack
remotes). The best way to operate a remote, light or dark, is by feel
(like a typewriter/computer keyboard), so you teach your fingers where
the preferred buttons are without having to think about looking for
them. If you have to visually identify a button, such as with
buttonless remotes (ie. Pronto, Marantz, Rotel, Sony, etc), or if your
fingers get confused about what's under them, I believe the remote is
seriously flawed. Multiply all the times you have to push a button
with all the times you have to look at the unit to do so, and you'll
have an idea of how much time you're wasting, and that is time in your
life that you will never get back, I'm sorry to say.

I have a Magnavox SmartTalk that actually lets you operate your remote
by talking to it (it has no number keys...), but the One For All
designs are a hell of a lot more practical than this approach. The
OFA's are, from all that I have seen, the best designed remotes on the
market. Of course, I could do a LOT better than them, so they
certainly are not near perfect!

As far as lighting goes, well they can put a vehicle on Mars, maybe
one day some genius will come up with a way to make phosphorous key
stenciling glow well in the dark without having to stick it under a
light first. That would be the best approach. Until then, I do think a
luminescent backlight is a good addition to even a well designed
remote, as long as you can completely turn it off via programming (if
it gets turned off by a key, it will eventually get turned on again
when you don't want, from accidental presses).

And if you don't have a lighted remote like the a/v Producer 8, and
are stuck with the non-lighted Cinema 7 (ie. you're a Canadian who
just found out they don't sell them in Canada...), hey all is not
lost. If you're into souping up your remotes, I'm sure you can always
find some creative way to stick a tiny flashlight, say a itty bitty
widdy teeny weeny tiny winy booklight, at the top of your remote and
click it on when you need the light. Didn't get a clock with your Cin
7 either? Hey no problem. Take the module out of a cheap LCD watch,
stick it on the side. Now you've got an $80 remote for the price of a
$20 remote. Who could ask for anything more?

Yes, they can land a vehicle on Mars (at least they claim it wasn't a hoax). But they AREN'T very good at getting anything intact and working to mars in general.

Rather than leave it to NASA scientists I'd rather just make the whole remote more intelligent. It anticipates the function you MEANT to hit, then sends that command no matter which button you pressed. Take this concept a but farther, and you realize the remote only needs one button. Hmmm... sounds kinda MacIntosh to me. Probably won't sell well.

Dave

> Rather than leave it to NASA scientists I'd > rather just make the whole
> remote more intelligent. It anticipates the > function you MEANT to hit,
> then sends that command no matter which button > you pressed. Take this
> concept a but farther, and you realize the > remote only needs one button.
> Hmmm... sounds kinda MacIntosh to me. Probably > won't sell well.
> Dave

If you're serious here, then it sounds like what
you want is a "communicable remote", or a remote
you can talk to. Not unlike the SmartTalk I mentioned, but more advanced. Something you could
just speak the function you want and it would operate it. That's certainly possible if you're
one of those people that never quite got the hang
of pushing buttons on a telephone, for example...
So unless you're operating your remote drunk,
you couldn't screw up the operation. It's also a lot more possible than expecting the remote to enact a command you are merely "thinking", unless you're willing to act as a guinea pig in pioneering biotechnology experiments. Another thing that's more possible down the road is the ability to look at a key on the remote and select the function based on your eye or head movement.
Have you got $3,000 dollars to pay for a remote, by the way?

I guess the SmartTalk concept *is* a lot like a
Mac computer. As far as I can tell, it never sold
in any significant number (and is probably discontinued), it is alone in its class, as I've never seen any competitor make a similar device, and its very much a niche market kind of product, it would seem. This all despite the approvcal of John Cleese, go figure...