Re: More 'PIDS'

[Mr Simpson <mdoyle@mail.usyd.edu.au>]

Paul McCabe wrote:

> In article <373EC710.F6900E29@mail.usyd.edu.au>,
>   Mr Simpson <mdoyle@mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> > We all complain about the unsuitability of the new type of
> indicators, and
> > obviously prefer the older style;
> > surely a newer version of the existing system could be introduced?
> (if it ain't
> > broke don't fix it)
>
> Yes but as was said in numerous postings it IS broke!  Sooner the old
> systems are replaced and a STANDARD PIDS (without all these trial
> variations which must confuse many) is installed and centrally
> controlled (that is, not turned off when the station is unattended)
> around the network the better of we will all be.

physically broke apparently.. but the concept isn't, a clear distinction.

the layout of the traditional design, as has also been mentioned plenty
before
that it is very simple and clear in what it conveys. I am yet to see a
PID variation
that matches let alone betters the ability of the old
light-next-to-the-name
indicator.