Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf (More info?)

Hello, I'm new to this group, but I've been using Polycom Viewstation
equipment for several years in an educational environment. I have
avidly searched for software that would allow control of a Polycom
system similar to the old VTel Galaxy control pads or even the CLI
touch screens, but at a low price and without unnecessary hardware.
The Crestron and AMX solutions were overkill and way overpriced for my
situation, but the handheld remote leaves a lot to be desired and the
instructors here hate them. I needed something that could run on a
standard PC and if a touch-screen was important, I could get a
touch-screen monitor.

I never could find any such software, so I decided to make it myself.
I dove into Java and came up with an application. I designed the user
interface to appear similar to the controls on the Polycom handheld
remote and the button icons similar (or the same as) those used in the
Polycom system.

Surely I'm not the only one with need for such a program. So, I'm
considering marketing it and offering it for sale. It's not yet
finished, but I would like to begin beta testing and receiving user
feedback. Beyond the question of whether the program actually works,
I'd like to know if it is needed. Is there a market for it? Would it
be prefered over the handheld remote? Does it make it easier to use a
ViewStation in certain situations?Does something like this already
exist that I don't know about? What would be a good price for it (I'm
thinking between $200 and $400)?

If you're interested, please visit the (very very basic) web site I've
thrown together for it at http://www.heathtek.com. There's not much
there but some descriptive text, a screen shot of the program running,
and a form to fill out to express interest or leave comments.

I'm anxious to hear with other Polycom Viewstation users would have to
say about this.

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf (More info?)

Doesn't look too bad.
Try a Google search for Polycom Control and see what you get.

/sarcasm
If your users don't like the Polycom remote, they should try the
Tandberg...
sarcasm/


On 19 Feb 2005 20:01:14 -0800, "Heath" <HFitts@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hello, I'm new to this group, but I've been using Polycom Viewstation
>equipment for several years in an educational environment. I have
>avidly searched for software that would allow control of a Polycom
>system similar to the old VTel Galaxy control pads or even the CLI
>touch screens, but at a low price and without unnecessary hardware.
>The Crestron and AMX solutions were overkill and way overpriced for my
>situation, but the handheld remote leaves a lot to be desired and the
>instructors here hate them. I needed something that could run on a
>standard PC and if a touch-screen was important, I could get a
>touch-screen monitor.
>
>I never could find any such software, so I decided to make it myself.
>I dove into Java and came up with an application. I designed the user
>interface to appear similar to the controls on the Polycom handheld
>remote and the button icons similar (or the same as) those used in the
>Polycom system.
>
>Surely I'm not the only one with need for such a program. So, I'm
>considering marketing it and offering it for sale. It's not yet
>finished, but I would like to begin beta testing and receiving user
>feedback. Beyond the question of whether the program actually works,
>I'd like to know if it is needed. Is there a market for it? Would it
>be prefered over the handheld remote? Does it make it easier to use a
>ViewStation in certain situations?Does something like this already
>exist that I don't know about? What would be a good price for it (I'm
>thinking between $200 and $400)?
>
>If you're interested, please visit the (very very basic) web site I've
>thrown together for it at http://www.heathtek.com. There's not much
>there but some descriptive text, a screen shot of the program running,
>and a form to fill out to express interest or leave comments.
>
>I'm anxious to hear with other Polycom Viewstation users would have to
>say about this.