Digital TV too complex for viewers, says study

"Andrue Cope" wrote in message
...
In article , Dom Robinson
wrote:
There's also the perceived difficulty. In all the blurb about digital
TV, they
go on about how there's tons of channels to choose from, but never
highlight
the fact that you can just go up and down the list in the same manner.


I can see some logic to this. When I first got Sky I was somewhat
overwhelmed by
the sheer number of channels. Luckily within a couple of hours I learnt
that 90%
of the channels were broadcasting crap and could be safely ignored.


You paid money to Sky to learn that?
Gosh
Now that is stupid.

Dom Robinson wrote in message . ..

Did it never occur to them that something was wrong?

I once visited a friend who had a WS TV and Sky, but the box was set to 16:9
letterbox, so all the 16:9 programmes looked like they were shot in 2.35:1 and
with fat people.

I changed it to 16:9 anamorphic while he was out of the room. Never said a
word about it when he came back in!

Have you forgotten the words of wisdome, from ye man known as "Bill"
of ye place known as "Wrights aerials"?

"if you encountered the real
actual great British public on a daily basis as I do you would realise
that the
vast majority of people can't tell the difference between a live
performance
and Radio Luxembourg on a foggy night received on a tranny in a steel
shed with
flat batteries, any more than they can tell the difference between VHS
with the
heads covered in **** and the view from the Royal Box."

As for the original topic: Just having an extra box with an extra
cable and an extra remote will scare some people. But if it's an IDTV
where the +/- buttons just happen to go beyond 5, then folks will be
more than happy. The quoted report is complete nonsense.

Cheers,
David.

Dom Robinson wrote in message . ..

Did it never occur to them that something was wrong?

I once visited a friend who had a WS TV and Sky, but the box was set to 16:9
letterbox, so all the 16:9 programmes looked like they were shot in 2.35:1 and
with fat people.

I changed it to 16:9 anamorphic while he was out of the room. Never said a
word about it when he came back in!

Have you forgotten the words of wisdome, from ye man known as "Bill"
of ye place known as "Wrights aerials"?

"if you encountered the real
actual great British public on a daily basis as I do you would realise
that the
vast majority of people can't tell the difference between a live
performance
and Radio Luxembourg on a foggy night received on a tranny in a steel
shed with
flat batteries, any more than they can tell the difference between VHS
with the
heads covered in **** and the view from the Royal Box."

As for the original topic: Just having an extra box with an extra
cable and an extra remote will scare some people. But if it's an IDTV
where the +/- buttons just happen to go beyond 5, then folks will be
more than happy. The quoted report is complete nonsense.

Cheers,
David.

70% of the population are stupid.

50% are below average intelligence

70% of the population are stupid.

50% are below average intelligence

To be sure they are watching the digital channel of say BBC 1 a viewer
would need to select 'info' to see if the 'now and next' caption appears.
I sometimes wonder how many 'digital' viewers are in fact watching
analogue
tv by mistake.

A strong case for having an identifying DOG on all digital channels, if ever
there was one.

To be sure they are watching the digital channel of say BBC 1 a viewer
would need to select 'info' to see if the 'now and next' caption appears.
I sometimes wonder how many 'digital' viewers are in fact watching
analogue
tv by mistake.

A strong case for having an identifying DOG on all digital channels, if ever
there was one.

austin500 wrote:
"Martin Angove" wrote in message

70% of the population are stupid.


pedantic

70% of the population *is* stupid.

/pedantic


Are stupid sounds better.



even-more-pedantic
I suspect it's also correct. % means "per cent", or "out of a hundred".

So "seventy out of a hundred are stupid", "seventy" being plural. To
say "seventy out of a hundred is stupid" would be incorrect.
/even-more-pedantic

--
Tony

austin500 wrote:
"Martin Angove" wrote in message

70% of the population are stupid.


pedantic

70% of the population *is* stupid.

/pedantic


Are stupid sounds better.



even-more-pedantic
I suspect it's also correct. % means "per cent", or "out of a hundred".

So "seventy out of a hundred are stupid", "seventy" being plural. To
say "seventy out of a hundred is stupid" would be incorrect.
/even-more-pedantic

--
Tony

Time To Burn said this:

To be sure they are watching the digital channel of say BBC 1 a
viewer would need to select 'info' to see if the 'now and next'
caption appears. I sometimes wonder how many 'digital' viewers are
in fact watching analogue tv by mistake.

A strong case for having an identifying DOG on all digital channels,
if ever there was one.

Please leave. And don't forget to die on the way out.