BBCi ceefax numbers

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 118
Forum Member
Waveguide says BBCi is going to get ceefax page numbers for increased accessibility. :)

http://www.waveguide.co.uk/latest/news041103.htm#Digital%20Text%20-%20Page%20Numbers
«134

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 58
    Forum Member
    About time too.
    I assume Teletext UK's decision to include page numbers on their new interactive service a few weeks back had an influence.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,930
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes, cos you can knock something like that up in a few weeks can't you? Dead easy. Just a bit of code init. Doddle.

    Funnily enough, the BBC first announced page numbers back in 2003...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 58
    Forum Member
    Yes, cos you can knock something like that up in a few weeks can't you? Dead easy. Just a bit of code init. Doddle.

    Funnily enough, the BBC first announced page numbers back in 2003...



    Er, yes it is just code, and unless the system is very badly coded in the first place, it shouldn't be much of a job at all to convert it to recognize page numbers. Or are you suggesting that some poor bloke will have to climb every single transmitter in the country with his bare hands and perform micro surgery at the top of every mast. :eek:
    They might have announced it in 2003, but they didn't do anything about it did they. And if you read the article, it isn't happening tonight.
    The point is, Teletext UK beat them to it.
  • holsy1982holsy1982 Posts: 1,788
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't think he's suggesting that any engineering work of transmitters will need to take place, but it won't be an easy job essentially produce a whole new navigational system for the website. Programming well takes time, for one it will have to have the formatting (the look) of each and everypage altered to make sure that placing a 3 digit number in the top corner won't go over any text. Then on almost every page there will need to be some reprogramming to say something along the lines of "if number pressed take input and display it at top" then" when 3 numbers entered use the brand new complicated programmed interface to find correct page". Just to give you some idea it took freeview at least 6 months to have the bridge programmed into MHeg after it appeared on Sky, and this was a relatively simple change compared to a whole new navigation system. So simply no they're not just copying Teletext if it is released any time soon, it will have been indevelopment for several months.
  • nwhitfieldnwhitfield Posts: 4,556
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I would also suspect that the BBC are likely to have been rather more thorough in their testing of new features like this than Teletext; there may be many charges you can level against the corporation, but a lack of thoroughness in developing technical systems is not usually one of them.

    (Implementation, of course, is a slightly different matter; that's where the bean counters get involved)

    Nigel.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,930
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ATV_East wrote:
    Er, yes it is just code, and unless the system is very badly coded in the first place, it shouldn't be much of a job at all to convert it to recognize page numbers. Or are you suggesting that some poor bloke will have to climb every single transmitter in the country with his bare hands and perform micro surgery at the top of every mast.

    Have you ever actually coded anything in your life? Have you worked for an organisation where software development is done? Are are you just completely niave?

    You don't just walk in there one day and go "Oh look, Teletext have put page numbers up - lets us do it". Why not? because you have other projects to do in mid flow if nothing else. Because people have different priorities.

    And if nothing else, because you have to test it to make sure it works.

    :eek:
    They might have announced it in 2003, but they didn't do anything about it did they.

    How do you know? How do you know they haven't done anything about it?

    True I don't know that they didn't just come along a few weeks ago and do all that. But on the other hand, I work in software development - I manage the development of big software products - so I actually know how these things work in the real life.

    And if you read the article, it isn't happening tonight.

    Well of course not. But given they've mentioned a few months for Freeview, and Satellite is launching before that, doesnn't that suggest to you that the presence of press releases and news stories actually means that they're close to launching on satellite? It looks suspicious to me...
    The point is, Teletext UK beat them to it.

    Well fine. But how do you know that Teletext didn't merely see the BBC talked about it in 2003 and thought "what a good idea"?
    Well given there is
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,768
    Forum Member
    Have you ever actually coded anything in your life?...
    When the new teletext system came along it was (no doubt) deemed that dispensing with page numbers was a good idea. It was then programmed that way. If you decide - for whatever reason - to bring them back - it is likely to require some very carefull 'pragmatic' programming to bring them back - or a complete re-write!

    Both methods are not to be taken lightly!

    No doubt 'Cahoot' thought a few small changes in their banking program would help their clients - and banks hopefully take great care - not exactly what happened!

    Displaying page numbers is easy - allowing users to hit numbers to get to them is a different kettle of fish!

    Micro$oft would have brought back page numbers like that - like they removed the hour-glass - doing a proper job is not as straightforward as people believe.

    We often get clients who ask if can you do 'a' which appears simple to them and fail to ask for 'b' which appears complex.
    We had a case some years ago when 'a' would require a complete rewrite of the system - 'b' only required a single change in a line in a 4million line program.
    From the outside you cannot judge how much work was required for a particular feature - you can only judge how well the work was done!

    Teletext HAD to beat the BBC to it because for teletext its their bread and butter - for the BBC it is not exactly their main line of business!
    We (DTT watchers) haven't got 6 NewsMultiscreens yet - the problems on DTT are more difficult as you have to steer your way through the bandwidth restrictions - which presumably are less so on sattelite.
    Its an adage of computing - first make a program work - then make it work fast!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,621
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's about time.

    Nice to see the BBC are finally falling into line with the other digital text providers (Teletext and Sky Text)!

    This took a heck of a long time for them to see sense and stop the ludicrous wading through menus to find one simple page.

    It leaves me with serious doubts about the judgement with those powers that be in that organisation. It was as plain as the nose on your face that this didn't work. Did it really take the expense of a survey to reveal what most people would regard as common sense? When you've got lots of cash to throw around I guess that's what you get!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 58
    Forum Member
    People have been asking for this since Digital Text started.
    What I'm saying is that the timing of BBCi's re-announcement of their page number intentions obviously has something to do with Teletext UK's recent developments - I wouldn't be surprised if BBCi have been bombarded with mails asking "why haven't you done the same?", users don't care about excuses and explanations, they just want a user friendly system and, hey presto, TeletextUK have done it.
    Who cares who announced it first? as I said, the point I was making is that Teletext UK got their first, BBCi have been given a kick up the backside and I'm glad to see BBCi are now pulling their finger out to catch up.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,930
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ATV_East wrote:
    Who cares who announced it first? as I said, the point I was making is that Teletext UK got their first, BBCi have been given a kick up the backside and I'm glad to see BBCi are now pulling their finger out to catch up.

    Yeah, whatever. In your fantasy world perhaps.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,768
    Forum Member
    ATV_East wrote:
    People have been asking for this since Digital Text started
    Cards on table - with the limitations of bandwidth on DTT (I think) the new 'unpaged' teletext was a non-starter and I for one always use the analogue version - except for frustrating attempts now to see if it has been improved.

    The BBC re-wrote the whole thing some months ago to make it better - and at that time the last vestiges of page numbering was removed (the first version appeared to be a re-processed version of the analogue feed with pretty pictures added)
    It was probably re-programmed without any regard to page numbering - so returning to a page number DRIVEN system will be difficult - so don't hold your breath!
    Adding the page spinner at the top will subjectively speed up the system and allow the user to make 'pragmatic' choices of where and when to go next. The Teletext implementation is a problem because you cannot watch or listen to anything whilst you are waiting for a page - see 'YooPlay' where you can choose a radio station!


    [b}Analogue[/b] examples of how page numbers / page spinners speed sit up...
    If the page number on the spinner is now 603 you would quickly choose 606 (perhaps) as your next page rather than 601 and have to wait.
    You know with fastext (maybe not all implementations) that the previous page and the 4 next are usually stored - so if you want to look at TV listings you choose 602 and 601-605 are stored for immediate use.
    (trick lost here by the BBC put now-next on 600 - so you choose 600 and then 601-604 are then available immediately - put something like the TV index or 'Headlines' on 599 which would also be available immediately)
    Most sets allow you to store the start page for each channel - how can this be done with no page reference (eg number) on the pages!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,621
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Teletext UK got their first
    Unless someone knows different Sky text (FTA on Sky News on DSAT) were first of which I'm sure the Beeb are fully aware of has used numbers for years and it works great.

    That the beeb went insanely on when most people were complaining about the tiered menus was typical of their arrogance IMO.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 58
    Forum Member
    Yeah, whatever. In your fantasy world perhaps.


    Reality - TeletextUK has page numbers, BBCi still talking about it.

    TeletextUK 1 BBCi 0
  • John259John259 Posts: 28,328
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ATV_East wrote:
    Reality - TeletextUK has page numbers, BBCi still talking about it.

    TeletextUK 1 BBCi 0

    Agreed - Teletext is now vastly superior to BBCi, which looks very complicated and dated. The BBC still persist with the silly gimmicks of including the picture on text screens and using the text system to change channels. It would be far better to bring the amount of information and the speed of its updating to the standard of Ceefax, IMHO.

    John
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,930
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ATV_East wrote:
    Reality - TeletextUK has page numbers, BBCi still talking about it.

    TeletextUK 1 BBCi 0

    Ah so you admit the concept of the BBC frantically rushing around panicing because they don't have page numbers is nonsense then? I have to assume that as now you're thinking they're playing football against each other!

    You are the best laugh I've had in ages...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 58
    Forum Member
    Ah so you admit the concept of the BBC frantically rushing around panicing because they don't have page numbers is nonsense then? I have to assume that as now you're thinking they're playing football against each other!

    You are the best laugh I've had in ages...


    I don't really care what is going on behind the scenes, I'm speaking as a viewer and user of digital text on Freeview from the perspective of my armchair.

    Up until recently I preferred BBCi, I now use Teletext. I may get very used to Teletext, to the point of no return.

    TeletextUK 2 BBCi 0
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,768
    Forum Member
    John259 wrote:
    ...The BBC still persist with the silly gimmicks of including the picture on text screens and using the text system to change channels. It would be far better to bring the amount of information and the speed of its updating to the standard of Ceefax, IMHO.
    The BBC changes channel to try to speed the system up.

    You cannot speed the system up without increasing the bandwidth - literally - or by switching to another stream.

    Analogue Teletext has a number of 'parallel' streams built in (I think it was originally 4 later upped to 13(??) ) - note when you choose a number in a series then that series spins at the top (eg 606 and the 600 stream is searched). Digital teletext has only one stream on each channel so the more you throw at it the slower the whole thing gets!

    If teletext only had (say) tvguide on LCN9 and switched to another for news and another for... etc the bandwidth would be increased and it would be faster. Teletext could put Holidays on LCN9 instead of LCN55 (??) - that would slow things down nicely!

    It would be nice to know the character rates available to analogue and DTT teletext - and then we may see why Digital teletext is struggling!
  • John259John259 Posts: 28,328
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The BBC changes channel to try to speed the system up.

    Sorry if I'm missing the point, but I don't find pressing Text, waiting for it to appear, then hunting in the text system for the "Interactive Feed" option (if there is one - and trying a different channel if there isn't), then waiting for it to appear, is faster than typing 701.

    Similarly, if the two quarter screen News 24 rolling news options had their own channel numbers they'd not only be much faster to select, they'd also be much easier to find.

    Only my opinion of course - some people seem to like having to select channels in the text system.

    John
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,768
    Forum Member
    John259 wrote:
    Sorry if I'm missing the point, but I don't find pressing Text, waiting for it to appear...
    I agree - it should be quicker - but I don't know why it is slow (perhaps someone who knows can enlighten us? - I have my ideas)

    I was really referring to the fact that Teletext doesn't have a video or sound stream and so switching should be fast -and a fast way of increasing bandwidth.

    I get the impression that the definition of the DTT teletext is/was very clever but crippled by being given too little bandwidth.

    The channel4/filmfour/E4 teletext was very good and quick and switched channels to get bandwidth - but not quite good enough because if you were watching Ch4 and wanted to see what was on FilmFour that night - it would change channels to FilmFour to get the text and you would miss the Ch4 program!

    This problem doesn't arise with DTT Teletext because you cannot watch a program at the same time - (at least the BBC have got that right!) - the result is I watch Analogue teletext anyway!

    Basically 'teletext' is an additional service to video/sound - Teletext is not so - and will always lose out - even if it were fast enough - with or without numbers!

    The only way I see Teletext being usefull is as an EPG to find an interesting program and switch to it - if you want anything else you switch to the relevant channel (eg News on a News channel).

    Teletext holidays is the shining exception as you wish to look slowly through lots of info - rather than get quickly to a small amount! - but why not let us have a choice of Radio channel to listen to whilst we do it!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,930
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    John259 wrote:
    Sorry if I'm missing the point, but I don't find pressing Text, waiting for it to appear, then hunting in the text system for the "Interactive Feed" option

    You have a Goodmans GDB3 and you're complaining about speed? it takes 2 seconds to load up when you press text! is that too much for you?

    I mean. It takes nearly 10 on satellite.
  • John259John259 Posts: 28,328
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You have a Goodmans GDB3 and you're complaining about speed? it takes 2 seconds to load up when you press text! is that too much for you?

    I mean. It takes nearly 10 on satellite.

    No, I'm not complaining about the speed of the box (although the BBC News 24 quarter screen rolling news usually takes more like ten seconds).

    My point really is how long it takes me to figure out what buttons to press, and how many I need to press. If all the extra channels had their own channel numbers then it would just be a maximum of three button presses (more likely two) and easy to remember.

    John
  • chrisychrisy Posts: 9,418
    Forum Member
    Analogue Teletext has a number of 'parallel' streams built in (I think it was originally 4 later upped to 13(??) ) - note when you choose a number in a series then that series spins at the top (eg 606 and the 600 stream is searched).

    I thought it was one stream per "magazine". ie. a maximum of eight streams.
    Digital teletext has only one stream on each channel so the more you throw at it the slower the whole thing gets!

    If teletext only had (say) tvguide on LCN9 and switched to another for news and another for... etc the bandwidth would be increased and it would be faster.

    It would be the same speed overall. All that would happen is some streams would repeat quicker than others - which would speed those up, but slow otehrs down. The only way to make the entire thing faster is to increase the repeat rate - either by increasing the bandwidth or reducing the amount of data.
    It would be nice to know the character rates available to analogue and DTT teletext - and then we may see why Digital teletext is struggling!

    Analogue text is approx 250kbps, but the data changes on each carousel pass due to sub-pages.

    Teletext have approx 700kbps of bandwidth on mux 2, and this has to fit in elements of the design as well as all available sub-pages.

    Chris
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    When a large portion of the BBC text screen isn't taken up with the video, I might give it a go at home, but I've never used it there. Having the video feed on the screen at the same time as the text was distracting I found.

    I've only used DTT BBCi here at work, once, when the Tivo couldn't find the prog we wanted to record and we had to prog it manually. And when we lost 701 702 during Wimbledon (the ladies were really dissapointed) and had to try and find it through BBCi.
  • John259John259 Posts: 28,328
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Analog text can be set up by broadcasters in two ways: to appear to rotate round the entire carousel, or to appear to rotate around one magazine (one range of 100 page numbers).

    The analog text on the Dutch Publieke Omroep (public broadcasters) channels, technically identical to British analog text, rotates around the entire carousel. Page numbers flash round at a great rate of knots but you might have to wait for several hundred pages.

    Most British analog text is set up to appear to rotate round each magazine. So you don't have so many pages to wait, but the page numbers crawl.

    Either way, different subframes are transmitted on each cycle, or every other cycle.

    A few special pages, mainly indexes, are transmitted twice or more times per cycle.

    All analog text pages take exactly 1K bytes.

    The waiting time on analog text depends on the number of pages and the number of scan lines used for text. In the very early days only a few lines were used. Nowadays many more are used.

    John
Sign In or Register to comment.