I remember reading a while ago where A/V manufacturers were working on firewire interconnection standards. Along with digital audio & video, the boxes would communicate control information. In this scheme, a remote would only have to send a single "system off" command, and the 'central processor' (likely the receiver) would take care of executing the function. Likewise, when you insert a DVD, the system could automatically configure itself to play the DVD. The remote would send generic transport control commands and the receiver would figure out what it applies to. It wouldn't be perfect (i.e. you power up with both a DVD and a tape in the machines, which should play?), but it could help the WAF.

I don't think it is official but Barry Gordon has done an excellent job of describing it. Here is a link to the file [Link: remotecentral.com]

Looks like the Pronto standard is the way to go. Or, something similar if Philips claims copyright.

Take this firewire interconnectivity stuff w/ a grain of salt. The model being used for this development is the MS Windows standard. The concept involves device drivers, etc. Talk about out of the frying pan...

jcmitch

After reading through the original post about simple remote that works intuitively and a few followup posts, I'm left wondering why a remote such as the RS 15-1994 doesn't fit the bill?

You could easily (for example), map the S1 (macro) key to power on the TV and Cable box. Them map the channel keys to TV channel for both modes and the volume keys to TV volume for both modes. So, you press one button and the TV and cable comes on, and the volume and channel buttons change the right things without worrying about device modes.

Is this not what is desired?

David: in a word, NOPE. You may recall that part of my requirement is that buttons be labelled in a WAF way. So, powering up two devices would simply say: WATCH DVD or something similar.

Also, I have, and love, the RS-1994. But it is cluttered with buttons and meaningless labels, which fall way outside the definition of WAF. The PARTNER REMOTE has to pass the "babysiter" test, remember?

Jsut as important is the ease-of-programming requirement. We do away with the word Macro altogether. ... Mike

Mike I don't think any remote can be called WIF if it does not do macros. I think that is the reason all these remotes work.

If I understand this whole thing correctly, Mike is talking about a "partner" remote. One that doesn't control every function of every piece of equipment, just one that does the basics.

If it is, in fact, a "partner" remote, is there any reason it couldn't be sold with a more high-end remote? So, let's say you do all of your programming into a 'better' remote, say, the RS-1994 or something similar. Then you point this remote at the "partner" remote, and the "partner" remote picks and chooses what to get from the more advanced remote. Of course, then the macros you program into the more advanced remote would have to be very specific. This would eliminate having to program 2 remotes to perform some functions. Let's say the advanced remote has buttons for 4 macros. You're pretty much forced to make macro 1 "watch DVD" and macro 2 "watch cable". You connect the 2 remotes, and "macro 1" from the advanced remote transfers into a nicely labled "watch DVD" on the partner remote. The advanced remote can control 6 devices, but you have to put the TV in spot 1, cable in 2, and DVD in 3. The partner remote controls devices 1, 2, and 3 only.

That would hopefully eliminate having to spend much time tinkering with programming the partner remote. The only downfall is that the programming of the advanced remote wouldn't be quite as flexible as it normally would be.

Tim I think the idea (but I might be wrong) is design a remote for the home theater challenged. The "partner" that does not know how to set the system up so that they can watch a movie. And not a partner remote. Obviously like David B said and you somehow imply, a household can have two remotes one that is meant for the gadget freak and the other for the people that just want to watch the TV.

I think the 15-1994 is almost up to the task, despite the number of buttons. The JP1 folks (Nicola Salmoria in particular) have figured out how to put macros on the device selection buttons. So now when I push the VCR button, the receiver and TV switch to the appropriate inputs, and the transport/channel/volume buttons all do what you'd expect them to do.

Same for the DVD, and both of my TiVos. The only problem is that the device buttons at the top aren't labelled "DVD", "TiVO 1" and "TiVo 2", but rather "AUX2", "CD", and "CBL/SAT". If I could just relabel the buttons, it would be perfect.

Maybe somebody will come up with replacement buttons or caps by the time I meet my future wife. (I wouldn't mind if she liked to tinker as much as I do, but that's not at the top of my list of criteria...)

Joe

See, Joe, there's the rub: the button labels don't pass the "babysitter test". Not only that, the 1994 is way too big for the average user, and it has way too many buttons.

Remember, I'm not looking for a remote with all kinds of features; I'm looking for a design that hides its complexity and offers ease-of-use and programming. Tim has the right idea: I'm also not looking for a remote to replace my own higher-end ones, I'm looking for a design that "any idiot" can make use of.... ... Mike

But Mike, the only way to have few buttons, that are well labeled is to have it be dynamic. For now that means an LCD remote that you do not like.

There are only a few solutions that I can think of

1) LCD with hard buttons on the side (like the top part of the MX500

2) TS covered by "face plate". like Pronto (or other TS remote), but the LCD part is covered by a hard plastic grid , so that you use the plastic as a guide.
(cut out TS)

3) If someone can build a totally transparent button. build a remote that has the sea through buttons but that they act like the buttons on the flip part of a flip open remote (the kind that has buttons, but if you flip it open there are more buttons) and underneath it you put an LCD that will contain the button names
(cut out 3D TS)

Anthony,

My understanding is that this remote doesn't have to be dynamic. It doesn't have to have all sorts of cool customization and re-labling tools. It has to be easy to use for any idiot who picks it up. That means that the buttons do not have to be relabled.

Of course, this offers very little flexibility in the programming of this remote. The "Watch DVD" button HAS to be a macro that sets up your system for a DVD. If you don't have a DVD player... well, then this remote probably isn't the one for you. Since every system is different, it's virtually impossible to make a ready-made macro for your "watch DVD" button, so programming an "easy to use" remote will be a beast in itself.

Tim, I know that they did not ask for it to be dynamic, but if you want
PB remote, with all labels being correct, all buttons used and not too many buttons (intimidating), then I think the best way is for it to be dynamic, so that when you press watch DVD you only have the buttons necessary for a DVD. Who needs play when watching TV? dynamic means less hard buttons and less intimidating.
One could use stick on labels, or like the phone in my office, that the buttons have a see through cap, so you type on a piece of paper what the button represents and stick it between the button and cap, but then the remote would need a lot of buttons.

WAF? SAF? (Or "IAF" as it seems to be being used quite frequently here)!

27" TV with PVR; DVD/CD; Cable/Sat receiver built-in. On Screen Menu set-up by "layman worded" Wizard to set up what the person wants for "their" ON-SCREEN REMOTE and nice stereo/pseudo 5.1 sound (spatialized?). Video and audio can also be retrieved by the 2.4GHz receiver sender option that attaches to YOUR Home Theater system.

Set up is started by pluggin unit in! Wizard starts.

Aren't we talking about the people who don't want to worry about the receiver, and all the other components attached to it, and the "sweet spot", and the speaker placement, and the..... and the..... and the.......!

How many buttons would you need?

Possibly just a single "thumbpad" a la MX-500 and and a "REMOTE" button to enter On-Screen Remote mode. This button would be discrete and also power up the unit when pressed.

The TV itself is the LCD screen. Press the "REMOTE" button on the remote, and everything you've "programmed" with the Wizard is displayed and you choose with your thumpad. This "On Screen Remote" could be nicely designed along the lines of some Panasonic DVD players, which use very little on-screen area for the OSD, or at the very least be small and/or "see through" (what is the term for that?)

It would cost more than $14.99, but I'll bet you the *AF would be there!!! Don't most *AF members just want to watch TV/DVD; make sure they catch their favorite show; and listen to music with "decent" sound.

Also, he/she can put it where he/she wants, not where all the millions of posts on the subject on the internet think the best spot is.

I'll bet millions would buy the combo unit or at least millions would buy the combo unit for their significant others, if priced reasonably, with the One Button w/thumpad remote control. Hey, we spend thousands of dollars for our equipment, what would another few bucks be for the perfect solution?!!! There would be such demand that the price could be kept reasonable. IMHO!

I think the WAF remote might be too hard a proposition, but the WAF "component" would be easily attainable!

Plus, your "sacred", finely tuned Home Theater system would be left alone, in another room, for YOU and YOU alone! :-)

IMHO.

An upscale physical remote could be offered with additional transport, VOL, CH buttons if desired. But still have the buttons kept to a minimum.

-----------

Of course, I'm sitting here very sick and very tired, so I assume no liability for the suggestion above. I will hopefully review it when I feel better and itemize more throughly what I think are the benefits of the above component as it relates to your concerns above! ;-)

-----

Final thought for now! Mike, you started this. Don't you want Sharyn to be with you at times on the BIG SYSTEM to watch that "block buster" movie or listen to that "special" CD together, but usually want her to have her own component to use at her discretion and at her location?

Of course, I might just be on Jupiter right now, and check this post later and realize I'm crazy! ;-)

(This has not been speel chkd, edtd, or looked back at much at all, so please bear with me!

Later........