On Sun, 13 Mar 2016, Wayne Workman wrote: > I actually like the idea of having a small display on a consumer router. > > Obviously this would not be cost effective for enterprise grade, though, > when a network administrator is overseeing 2,000 access points remotely, he > does not care about a display on the device, he cares about functionality > and cost. > > But back to having a small screen. Newer high-end business HP network > printers have had a small display for a really long time. I really like it, > and it allows me to very quickly have the printer print out (on paper) it's > configuration. I can also quickly get to some common areas that way. But, > all these printers with small displays... they have a full-on Web interface > as well. > > So I'd ask for what you do to be able to tie into a web interface at a > later time. > > But maybe we could go with cheaper hardware if we didn't need to run a full > Web server? no, a webserver is really cheap to run. I expect that you would not be able to tell the difference in CPU load between running a webserver and driving a built-in display. David Lang > On Mar 13, 2016 10:19 AM, "Jonathan Morton" wrote: > >> >>> On 13 Mar, 2016, at 02:15, David Lang wrote: >>> >>> my point is that you can use a browser interface to mock-up what you >> would do on your local display without having to build custom hardware. >> Yes, it would mean you have to work with javascript/etc to build this >> mockup, but it would let you create a bitmap image with buttons/etc that >> will work the same way that your physical device would, but be able to >> tinker with things that would require hardware changes if it was a physical >> device (different screen sizes, button placements, etc) >> >> And my point is that if I can do that *without* involving a browser, so >> much the better. Given my existing experience, I can probably do it >> *easier* in something like C and Xlib (yes, really) than in a browser. >> >> Yes, it would be a pure software mockup, and thus still easy to change. >> >>> a 6x8 font on a 2.7" screen is unreadable for many people, this is about >> an 11pt font on something that is not at your optimum reading distance. >> >> The display I linked has basically the same pixel density as a 1980s/1990s >> Macintosh display, a 9-pin dot-matrix printer, and a basic Nokia phone - >> the standard 72dpi. Anyone with standard visual acuity should be able to >> read 8-pixel-high text on it. Your concern would be limited to that >> segment of the population who already needs to buy large-print books and >> newspapers. >> >> The most important text wouldn’t be 6x8 - I included that stat only to >> contrast it with the 16x2 cell text-only display. Since it’s a graphical >> display, we can use larger fonts where desired. >> >> Incidentally, the classic Nokia phones seem to use a proportional font >> which is 5x7 on average. They sold many millions, probably because they >> designed a UI that even my mother could be coached into learning (believe >> me, that’s a feat). Up, down, select, cancel, and a numeric keypad. The >> size of the text on the screen doesn’t seem to have been a factor. >> >>> OLEDs do color as well. >> >> The ones that do colour are even more expensive than the mono ones. >> Increasing the size of an OLED display also seems to be incredibly >> expensive - I couldn’t even find one at 2.7” or larger on the “maker kit” >> sites, only as raw components. >> >>> don't forget that you also have to have buttons/switches to go along >> with the display. don't assume that people are going to have a spare USB >> keyboard around to plug in. >>> >>> There is a substantial population who's only computers are tablets, >> phones, TVs, and other non-traditional devices, but who need wifi to use >> them. >> >> Keyboard, mouse, xbox/ps4/wii controller - don’t care. They’ll either >> have at least one of those (basic models are cheap), or we can >> auto-generate a basic working configuration and display the resulting wifi >> SSID/password on the screen. The only button needed is a factory-reset. >> >> If they don’t have anything with an Ethernet connection, they would have >> difficulty configuring most existing routers from the factory-reset state >> anyway. I just made a brief search for WPS on my Android phone - no dice. >> Apparently there *is* a WPS function, but it’s buried four layers deep in >> the UI, behind an “advanced” option^W^W “beware of the leopard” sign - and >> it’s potentially in a different place on each device, making it hard to >> give directions remotely. >> >> But with the wifi SSID and password visible on-screen, we wouldn’t need >> WPS. That’s something an ordinary router can’t do. >> >> - Jonathan Morton >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bufferbloat-fcc-discuss mailing list >> bufferbloat-fcc-discuss@lists.redbarn.org >> http://lists.redbarn.org/mailman/listinfo/bufferbloat-fcc-discuss >> >