05/ذو القعدة/1429 07:06 م
I am seeing that if a user locks their system before physically attending a meeting away from their desk that their status does not update at the appropriate time.
This is what I see
1. User locks system
2. Status goes to 'Away' upon locking
3. User has meeting scheduled well in advance, status does not update to 'In a meeting'
Upon testing with not locking, the status updates correctly.
Has anybody else seen this behavior?
06/ذو القعدة/1429 12:25 مالمشرفI believe this is intended behavior by design, as once a workstation is locked the user is always considered 'Away'.
06/ذو القعدة/1429 04:44 م
I agree that this is how it currently functions. But, I see this as a bit of a flaw in logic, giving a false representation of what the user is doing or where the user is (if they are in fact in a meeting).
I am not sure about you... but I will lock my PC before the meeting starts... and walk to the meeting room. Between the time I lock and the meeting starts, sure... I am away... but when the meeting starts my status should (technically) change to, in my opinion (regardless of whether the current logic is by design), 'In a meeting'. It was actually end users that pointed this out to me to begin with.
06/ذو القعدة/1429 04:57 مالمشرف
I think that it's more of an understanding of how 'presence' is reflected and what it means to the end user. I personally use presence information to tell if a person is reachable at their workstation; if they are active and in a meeting than "In A Meeting" tells me that, but if they are not at their desktop then they are 'Away'. I don't think the presence status needs to tell me what their calendar has scheduled, but yet where the person is (or isn't) in relation to be at their desk or not. If someone is 'Away' I can look at their contact card and (depending on my granted Access Level) see if the calendar shows any details beyond that. To me a locked workstation is definitely Away versus a user sitting at a workstation who just isn't interacting with the interface or has purposely set their status to Away (previous versions).
06/ذو القعدة/1429 05:16 م
Sometimes development teams and the architects behind them don't take 'joe user' into account when building the apps they are working on. Information on viewing contact card information was provided to the end users... the rebuttal is generally: "Why should I have to dig for it (the information)?" ...
If 2nd level support requires immediate 3rd level support on a technical issue, they will call somebody from my team. If I am 'In a meeting' (the idea of Presence is to tell other users what I am doing, or if I am available), they will go to the next person on the list. If I am listed as 'Away', I may just be out grabbing a coffee. 'Away' means I can still be contacted (by phone), even if I am not at my desk.
There are business issues that need to be taken care of ASAP and follow the same type of call out procedure as my example. Both types of issues, whether the be technical or business level emergencies, can affect revenue. This is why it is critical to us (and others, I'm sure) to have the right information. Presence is touted for the product. The correct status needs to be conveyed to the end user for them to make judgement calls at many different levels.
In this instance I have to agree with our end users.
07/ذو القعدة/1429 06:51 مالمشرف
I do see what you are getting at but I don't necessarily think that behavior would be a better approach for all deployment scenarios. You are describing a specific way that a single business operates.
On the flipside, when a user's presence is 'In a Meeting' that is type of 'Busy' status and most of the 'meetings' my coworkers attended are either Live Meetings or they take their laptops with them into the meeting. So I can assume they are online, but I should think twice before bothering them. If a locked workstation where to actually change from 'Away' (yellow) to 'In a Meeting' (red) then I would assume there user is back at their workstation; a locked workstation should really always show the user as 'Away'.
Also by "still be contacted (by phone)" I assume you mean a cell phone, or are people wearing wireless headsets? A cell phone doens't really wrap into the 'Presence' model at this point.
07/ذو القعدة/1429 09:06 م
Not really the way a single business operates... actually, several that I know of...
Many businesses, right now, are not using this technology 100% of the time. Some are entering this domain slowly, some will utilize it 100% of the time, some will utilize it where it makes sense (with respect to IM, A/V Conferencing, and Live Meetings), some will not accept it.
With an office size of nearly 800 people I can't assume that they (nor can they assume that I) are attending a meeting online if their status is set to 'away'... if somebody was attending a Live Meeting, they will be listed as 'in a conference'. With the current logic, if a user leaves their system is unlocked (not sure why you would not lock your system. We are PCI certified, so the lock is forced after a short period of time) and have meeting scheduled and are in one of our 10 meeting rooms (in one of several buildings... this is still quite common in more than just our business), they will obviously not be at their desk and should have a status of 'in a meeting'. If they are listed as 'away', perhaps they are out to lunch, getting a coffee,on a smoke break, or performing some other menial task like putting paper in the near by printer/copier. What I need to know is: can I interupt what you are doing right now? It seems that 'away' has many different translations and ideas. If they are on the phone and do not wish to be interupted, they should change their status to 'busy' or 'do not disturb' (or status should change to 'on the phone' if everything is truly unified). I am not really concerned about 'where' a user is when they are in a meeting... they are in a meeting and should not be disturbed. This is what I would expect to see, in a perfect world... 'in a meeting' .
Yes, I do mean cell phone. Not really sure what you mean about cell phones not really wrapping into the 'presence' model... every bit of propaganda that I have seen at the events I have attended seem to indicate quite the opposite... IM supported on the Mobile 5/6 platform, as well as a supported client coming for the BlackBerry in R2 (RIM has a client, which they support on OCS2k7).
Aside from all if this... the behavior appears to be 'by design'. Users will be trained... they will generate calls to our help desk (this has begun)... until the idea is understood and they are forced to accept it.... right now... it is: "I think I found a bug'.
Thanks for your input!
08/ذو القعدة/1429 04:16 صالمشرف
My statement about cell phone simply meant that I would not use a user's presence to decide wheter or not they were 'reachable' by a cell. I would assume that their cell is always on them.
R2 is introducing 'mobile presence' so you can tell if contacts are on regular OC or CoMo clients.