In the continuing adventure of the junior civil servant…
If you live in a country or area that is at all non-monolingual, you will encounter telephone trees where the first prompt requests you specify your language. For example, in the United States, it is usually Spanish.
Unfortunately this does not scale well. If you have to deal with even, say, the UN languages, that’s 6 possibilities. Further, they are rarely standardized, so for one firm, you key in “6” to get Spanish. For another it’s “2”, etc.
I propose this:
- A universally understood tone or sequence of tones that means “specify your language” (SYL). These would be tones that a computer could recognize, like SITs. In this way, a person could specify to their phone/phone company what their language was and have them automatically reply.
- A universally standardized mapping of languages and dialects to numbers. For example, en-US = 1033 (Microsoft LCID).
This would result in the following pass:
- Caller dials some number with a phone tree.
- Called party PBX picks up.
- Called party PBX plays SYL SIT.
- Caller (or caller’s phone/phone company) recognizes the SIT.
- Caller (or caller’s phone/phone company) responds with language code
- This would include a termination character, like # or *.
- Called party PBX connects the caller to the phone tree or operator of that language.
Of course, even the UN isn’t going to maintain an operator for every possible language, so in those cases, a fail-gracefully routing tree would be set up so that the nearest neighbor language would be selected instead. As an example, if en-GB (2057) wasn’t supported, but en-US was (1033), the call would be routed there. Alternately, a message could be prerecorded in that language, telling the called party that their language wasn’t supported.
What do you think?
I have successfully (maybe) relocationized from where I was (the middle of the state) to where I am now (the pinch of the state), a difference of about 4 hours and maybe 20 to 40 % relative humidity. I now live next to a river.
To my minor annoyance, yesterday I was not able to get online despite ordering service in advance. The ISP had to send someone out to check signal strength and then activate the service himself. Upshot of which was I had a night without Internet.
No, I didn’t go insane or do anything stupid. I read a little of a biography of Benjamin Franklin (neat dude) and pondered on my future life. Really, I was a little homesick for the old place, but then again, I had been looking forward to this move for some time. Sort of a “grass is greener” phenomenon I think.
Anyway, I have a PC and an Internet connexion now, so I will be able to blog againe.
Many of us remember the famous Windows XP Service Pack 2, which really marked when Microsoft started to get serious about their client systems’ security. Prior to that there was little to guide the end user that I remember. XPSP2 brought the first version of the Security Center, which made it easy to set up the Windows Firewall and actually told them they they needed an antivirus to be safe. This was still prior to Microsoft’s providing one.
Anyway, Windows Firewall is still around and rarely seen after maybe the first week of an installation of Windows, since it is on by default and by then, all the other programs will have been installed and configured to go through the firewall.
Sometimes, however, things glitch:
I have no idea what the cause of this is. Is it a problem?
I’ve noticed something about industrial/intellectual property marking: the bigger or more established the company or undertaking, the more understated the marking. For example, Mozilla Firefox’s about box (The traditional place for dropping IP notices) just has a small type note that “Firefox and the Firefox logos are trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation”.
In contrast, small time operators usually go overboard with the ©®™ stuff. I have decided to call this “hypermarking”. The thought of the thesis above came from my observing an example of it in, of all places, Microsoft Windows.
I was applying for a position (in the United States) at the firm GSK (alias GlaxoSmithKline) and was presented with this option to select my “prefix”:
I have filled out more of these forms than I can tell you, probably a easy hundred, but I have never otherwise seen options for “Lady” and “Lord”. Why did they feel the need to include these? Do they regularly recruit tituled nobility? If so, do they really have to go through the same HR software/ATS that commoners like me do?
If so, HAH!
While applying for a position at Fenwal, I was presented with the typical EEO form to fill out:
As I have shown, it is bizarrely possible to declare yourself both Hispanic and non-Hispanic at the same time. Shades of the radio button confusion of PSEG. Also, for some reason, the Hispanic/Latino question is a subheading under gender. Why?
When I was applying for a position at, if I remember correctly, PSEG, I had to fill out a diversity form or two or three. I don’t have a problem with that.
I did notice this UI confusion though:
Clearly that is a drop down menu. However I would note that check boxes would actually be improper here, since the options are mutually exclusive (check one). However, if they said “click on of the radio buttons” they would be probably confusing people who don’t know UI designers jargon.