OK, so we know that most remotes don't pass the old "WFI" (Wife Approval Factor) rating. So in the back of my mind, every time we discuss remotes and options, I get this nagging feeling: "Yeah, but what about the wife?!" Now, I know that there are some females who have taken to the MX-500, but I have a feeling the real reason is because that's the one the husband bought, so she's damn well gonna learn it.

What about the Sharyns (my wife) who don't give a rat's patoot, and just want a KISS remote ( a good marketing name, but too cutesy even for women, I think). These are people who only want to control the TV basic functions, and sometimes watch and/or program a tape.

In fact, when you think about it, I myself would like one that does pretty much just that, fits nicely in the hand, has no display-screen elements other than indicating the Device in use, and can be programmed to do a number of things that most "universals" with built-in Device codes cannot do.

Here's one quick example of a single function capability that would simplify my life immensely: Adding punch-through capability to bottom-line remotes. Here's why: now that I have Rogers Digital installed, Sharyn's remote is set up to use the "Scientific Atlanta" Device code. She has a little All For One 4-Device remote. BUT, she cannot punch-through to the TV volume; this means she is always adjusting the Scientific Atlanta volume. All my remotes allow me to adjust the TV volume, but as we play the volume off against each other, pretty soon they cancel each other out. I turn up the TV during the show, she turns down the Cable box during commercials: when I turn the TV up again, my baseline volume is from where she has the cable box turned down to. So I lose a little master volume everytime, until there is nothing but hiss.

And that is just one example I have recently discovered.

I'd like to see if HTM is interested in doing a programmable, lower-end, simplified remote. This remote would include, in a very obvious place, a "Watch DVD" and "Watch VCR" set of buttons. Of course, to you and me these would be nothing more than cleverly disguised input/macro buttons, but labelled for the lower class, as it were... LOL.... .

It would have to be small for a woman's hand. In fact, while I love the MX-500, let's face it... it's HUGE. But of course it has to be in order to do what it does. But the PARTNER REMOTE could stay small, because it would be designed for simpler use. Just not simpler capability.

There's the rub, eh? The easier to use, the fewer the features. But I ask you: Why? Why not make a simple remote that can do things that today's systems require? Is there some goofy law somewhere that says if you dumb down a remote, you have to dumb down its command capability? I don't think so, but that pretty much seems to be the rule.

I know what you're thinking: Cinema 7, right? But take a look at it: it is not a wife-friendly remote. Too many unknown button labels, and spread out way too weirdly even for me.

I believe this would fly big time:

- ergonomically shaped
- small enough for tinier hands
- Device display
- 4 devices
- Direct access to auto-switching for Devices, through the TV (note that most women don't care about theater sound, only TV sound)
- Built-in device discrete code capability
- Wal-Mart price-point to compete against all the RCA and GE URCs out there
- two AA batteries, for size and weight
- super-easy programmability (like my Onkyo/Integra: hold the TV button and the Setup button for a second, and it is in learning or coding mode, bam, just like that)


Need your thoughts and suggestions... ... Mike

Already exists, Niles Intellicontrol, the wives love it. For the first time, the audio equipment and tv work the way one would expect them to. Its an intuitive product with a non-intimidating, almost low tech feel. Just don't tell her what it costs, not until she's used it at least once. Now it doesn't hit all of your points, but that's not necessarliy all that bad.

Small shape and size are not always advantages. I have found that most remotes have buttons that are just too small. Even this unit runs out of real estate for some key features.
Device display, it is important to know, of the many possible pieces of electronics, which one the remote is trying to control. Some clear indication needs to be made, but it doesn't have to be high tech, just clear.
4 devices, not in today's homes. A basic home theater has a vcr, dvd, cable or dbs box, off-air tv tuner, and those are just the video sources. I've yet to see a system w/o a cd player and most times a FM tuner (in the receiver). More comprehensive theaters also include Laser Disc, PVRs, multiple VCRs, video games, computer graphics, closed circuit surveilance cameras and audio sources like SACD, MP3, Lp, cassette tape and others. Six sources is a bare minimum, I'm more comfortable with 8, especially when we go to HD.
Direct access, got to give you that one, it is the most important point, and often overlooked. Though I've never had anyone complain about a natural, realistic, and balanced sound in any environment, home theater included. Its that overblown, look what I've got, "surroundy sound", that many people object to, not just women.
The Wal-Mart price point, well I'll think that the result should be worth the cost. That's all I have to say about that.
The batteries should work, or be able to be replaced easily when they don't. I think that standard battery sizes should be used, exotic and proprietary sizes and materials aren't worth the hassle. Why manufacturers don't take advantage some of the dozen or so "popular" cell phone batteries I'll never know.
Programming, well the gear should run like this out of the box shouldn't it. Far more complicated products do. You don't have to do anything like this to your car do you? That this is the currently acceptable norm is ridiculous. That many of the products around the home we already use, telephone, lighting, door locks, HVAC, and cooking appliances, might just work more like modern hi-fi gear scares me breathless almost as much as it makes me laugh. I kind of like my lightswitch.

jcmitch

My wife has a very simple voice activated remote control that always works, and amazingly understands exactly what she wants every time. Me. I have my choice of my Pronto or my Cinema7.


Dave ;-)

I'm guessing my situation is fairly common.

We're waiting for a remote that responds to a wife's wishes simply by thought. Preferably before she actually has the thought, but that would be an advanced model.

;)

PS-she's also waiting for this feature on me, but that's less likely....

JC: Some good points, although even I balk at the price of a Niles.

Nope, the number of devices that a lot of people want to control is still four or less. Unfortuantely, that's the darn point of the PARTNER remote: in my case, she doesn't care about DVDs, she doesn't play CDS, all she wants to do is watch TV and occasionally watch or tape a movie. She doesn't care at all about surround sound. Heck, I have male neighbours, usually guys who grew up in a different era, who feel exactly the same way.

The question is always "Why can't I just hit a button and start the tape deck?" There are a lot of people who still prefer a good old RCA TV in nice big wooden cabinet that sits on the floor, ya know? ... Mike

My Father had a voice-activated remote control years before infrared became all the rage. He'd just yell "Scott, turn to channel 6!", and I'd run over and turn the knob.

This methodology had a high Wife Acceptance Factor, as it was easy to learn and understand. Ironically, implementation of this methodology (at least by the mores of the day) REQUIRED a wife.

Actually, a carefully designed program running on my Pronto is what earned the highest WAF points in my house.

When you tap the pronto screen, the display lights up with these menu choices:

WATCH LOCAL TV Channels
WATCH DIRECTV Channels
PLAY A Video Tape Movie
PLAY A DVD Movie
LISTEN to CD Music
LISTEN to the RADIO

Each, when tapped, runs a macro of commands that configures the home theater devices to pump the correct video to the TV and the correct sound through the amplifier. When the macro is complete, the pronto screen displays the most commonly used controls for the selected device. MUTE, PAUSE, VOL+ and VOL-, and ALL OFF are assigned to the Pronto's hard buttons. Pressing the ALL OFF will prompt the user (wife) to confirm that she wants the entire system turned OFF. If she taps YES, everything will be shut down with a macro of discrete OFF commands. If she taps NO, she is taken back to the device control screen.

The Pronto program can be logically divided into three accessable areas: Device, Macro, and HOME. Keeping LIGHTING CONTROL under HOME, the wife-friendly macros under MACRO, and obscure device controls under DEVICES, it remains fairly easy for my wife to "jump around", to control lights or run another macro, and yet always find her way back to the device control screen.

Personally, I find the bulk and "need to see" nature of the pronto to make it less than perfect. My Cinema7, carefully programmed, can do 95% of the things the Pronto can. It's much easier to hold, and the button layout allows easy "feel" of the buttons for precise control in the dark.

Conclusion? If you REALLY want a high WAF, get a Pronto.

Dave

This is what I’ve been wanting for years. A remote designed for what I use 99% of the time! Mike, I believe you are definitely on the right track. I have considered buying a Pronto and doing exactly what Dave described above. But, it disturbs me to think that I have to pay that much to get something "simpler" than a $15 universal remote. Also, I would much rather have hard buttons. When the MX-1000 came out, I thought it would solve most of these problems. But currently, it is too inflexible to program to the desired level of simplicity.

It appears that the current trend in the market is for a 100% replacement of all other remotes. But, that isn’t really necessary. I think I can dig out my original remote for the one time in my life that I'll have to adjust the rear channel delay. For the rest of the time, I don't want to see that button!

I think that a lot of cheaper remotes like the Sony VL900 would work well with one simple modification. Currently most remotes that allow macro programming of the device keys make you hold down the key for a long time to make the macro run. I think that if this were changed to an immediate run of the macro, all my problems would be solved. Then, if someone completely unfamiliar with the system walks in and wants to watch TV, he can just hit the TV button and the macro turns everything on and leaves the remote's controls in the TV mode. Then to turn things off, he just hits the TV button again. Or, better yet, have a single OFF button that remembers what was turned on and turns those devices off (since discrete codes aren't available for everything out there).

As far as which buttons are needed, I think HTM could start with the hard buttons on the MX-1000 (incl. Joystick). Then add the device buttons. That should cover about 99% of what I do. Maybe add a button to toggle through surround modes or a PIP button. I also think many people would pay a few bucks more for a remote made of good materials like the MX-1000.

I can’t wait to see what comes of this.

-Nick

I gotta side with Nick on this one. I know the Pronto is dynamite, especially the way David B. has his set up. But a couple of big things are in the way: one, cost. Two, programming.

Nick's point about paying the geek-price for the wife-remote is right on. And anything that requires a husband or boyfriend to program it first means it ain't friendly... at all... .

Programming, as point out by Paul Voorn elsewhere, is the biggest bugaboo of the whole URC concept.

I am starting to think more and more that there is a real market niche for a company that can provide the codes for everything, especially if that is all they do. That includes discrete codes; the whole works. Then, when you select your Brand of TV you also select your Model, and whammo. Done. Wife happy. Hubby happy. ... Mike

Amen, brother Mike!!

I think it could be easier to form this database than most people think. But, I think this would be better suited for a distributed open project than a company project. It sounds to me that the problem most companies have, is the vast amount of work needed to get all the codes.

So, here's my idea: We set up a system like CDDB. Then people like us who hang-out at this site can download any codes we have to a central database. One person writes a small client program to interpret IR codes and send them to the central database. Then give the program away to everyone! Once the database is built-up to a certain level, it will get the attention of URC manufacturers. Then they will be inclined to make their remotes compatible with our standard. Of course, we may have to persuade one of our friends like HTM to help us with a prototype remote. But, I definitely think that we need a standard and we need this ability to "help ourselves" to get the codes we need.

OK, everybody bring me back to earth and tell me why it won't work! :)

-Nick

"anything that requires a husband or boyfriend to program it first means it ain't friendly... at all... ."
Even if you could create a remote with a database that had all the codes for all devices. You would still need "the husband or boyfriend" to set it up and to set up macros. Macros exist for two reasons, laziness (one button instead of two or more) and so the spouse (or visitors) don't need to know how to set the system up to do what they want.

"OK, everybody bring me back to earth and tell me why it won't work"

1) To have a true database like you say is almost impossible, there will always be obscure new and old equipment. There might also be features that were added depending on the firmware. So either of two things are needed (the first is better), that the remote is a learning remote, or that there is a send me your remote and I will add its codes to the DB. (so we are back to what is out there).

2) Where does the DB reside? If it resides on the remote, then how does it get updated and how do you stop it from becoming infinitely big (remember you are trying to create a DB with all IR codes)? If it resides on the web and you download only the codes you need, then how do you transmit them to the remote? (This is already true, if you go to the files section you will find countless devices for the Pronto and T2. The T2 also has a Pronto interpreter so you can import Pronto hex codes into a T2)

So Nick all you need is a PB version of the Pronto, but then Mike will not like it.

By the way did you see this review [Link: remotecentral.com]

:-)

Yeah, I agree with you Anthony. I think any good remote is going to require macros and learning capability. And, therefore, will require some programming. I'm not really all that opposed to programming. But, remote programming does seem much more difficult than it needs to be.

As for the code database, it would be a constantly evolving creature just like CDDB. If a person has an obscure or brand new CD that has never been entered into the database, then that person has the ability to add the entry into the DB. In this respect, the DB is self-maintaining. Likewise, if there were an obscure piece of equipment that came along, then the owner of that equipment could submit the IR codes for it. I was proposing the tool to allow anybody to add to the DB. This way, the problems with individually maintained databases could, hopefully, be avoided.

One key point, is the need for an industry standard. The Pronto codes are the nearest thing we have to a standard right now. But, will the Pronto format work for all the weird frequencies and formats that some manufacturers come up with? If so, great! If not then it may be unusable with some equipment (e.g. B&O).

Thanks for pointing out the Gemini. I'd forgotten about it. That method of programming and data transfer is about what I had in mind. A computer IR port or serial cable would be needed for bidirectional use, though. I wonder if the Gemini will have the flexibility (read: macros & learning) needed.

-Nick

For the Gemini since the download only takes 2.5 sec. (taken from Daniel's review) I would assume it only sends a device code to the remote.

The Pronto HEX code structure is very simple, and I would assume it can work with almost any IR (but whatever you create there will be some company that will do it on purpose for it not to work), The Pronto (as a remote) is limited by the learning led, the hex code and transmitter can contain and transmit them (that is why the B&O codes where added to its internal DB)

Hmmm, this is really getting somewhere. I like the URCDB concept; I think it would work.

I pull back on the macros, though: while I may want to program macros for myself, this remote isn't for someone like me. It is for someone who doesn't know what a macro is, and doesn't care. This remote is for people who just want to be able to use the equipment.

So, for situations where a sequence of commands is warranted in order to make that single "Watch VCR" or "Watch DVD" button work for them, there must be a jargon-free set of procedures in the programming guide that tells a person exactly how to do this. That's all; in fact, it may still be a macro to me, but to the other person, it's just a routine for setting up their device.

I can't speak for the person who won't even go so far as to RTFM, though... .

It's all about designing in useability. Most people can even figure out how to use a new microwave, even though controls for these devices have to be one of the most poorly applied sets of standards this world has ever seen. I know you think the example of the basement washing machine is a poor one, until you realize that the simple "set and push" concept took years of refining to come up with. Sure, it seems simple NOW... .

I believe the problems discussed above can be solved with some hard brainwork, that's all. ... Mike

PS: The Gemini certainly seems to be a step in the right direction...

Hmmm. It looks like we may have a problem with the macro thing. Mike, I think you are right about needing a very clear method for programming the macros. But, since there are so many different equipment configurations out there, I don't know if you could cover every situation without getting detailed. However, this would be a product to be marketed for its simplicity.

Maybe the solution would be to fill out a form on a web site, then the site figures out how to program your remote and does this automatically for you. But, this probably wouldn't work, because people would never enter the right information, and the remote wouldn't act right. People would get mad.

Or maybe you could have connection diagrams for a few basic setups. Have a setup code associated with each. Then, the user just enters the code for his setup. Of course this would force users into predefined setups. And, users may not know exactly how the equipment is set up. This may cause unexpected remote behavior also.

Anthony, is the Pronto code structure an open (published) standard? If so, this may be a really good place to start.

-Nick