4 ms·

Choose better UX design. 1. Get a QR code to put at your door 2. Visitors scan the QR code using their smartphone camera 3. Get a notification on your phone

by nabla9 2y ago

Choose better UX design. 1. Get a QR code to put at your door 2. Visitors scan the QR code using their smartphone camera 3. Get a notification on your phone wherever you are! OR 1. Install doorbell at your door. 2. Visitors press the doorbell using any of their extremities. 3. Get a notification on your phone wherever you are!

Weetile 2y ago
Not to mention a QR code excludes many people such as children and the elderly who might not have phones
- dirkc 2y ago
  Good point, I'm hoping that this increases access rather than decrease it. In my neighborhood there are plenty of homes without doorbells.
  - saaaaaam 2y ago
    Maybe those people don’t want people to bother them. I keep the buzzer in my apartment turned off a lot of the time because random people buzz it trying to deliver things to my neighbours. We have a concierge desk for that.
quesera 2y ago
I probably agree with your premise (it's not clear), but: Scenario 1 (QR code) puts 100% of the infrastructure on the client (visitor) side, and scenario 2 (Nest, Ring, etc) puts 100% of the infrastructure on the server (resident) side. [Edit: strained metaphor perhaps, and yes both scenarios require connectivity infrastructure] So these are completely different methods of achieving the same goal, and there are easily imaginable cases where one scenario would be preferable over the other. Usually, server-side makes the most sense. Certainly in the case of a traditional wired or wireless dumb doorbell, it's simpler. But there are cases where server-side is difficult or impossible, especially if you want "smart" features like photos or routing or two-way interaction. Higher cost, permission from property owner if renting, etc. Pushing the infrastructure to client-side solves these problems. Most users will have the client infrastructure in their pocket already. No wires. No new piece of hardware to maintain, repair, keep charged, etc.
- aaronax 2y ago
  You can get a wireless doorbell for $25 which will require no permission from any reasonable property owner.
  - quesera 2y ago
    But this gives you the functionality of a $200 system (Nest, Ring, etc) for ~zero cost, and not all property owners will approve a Nest camera on their porch.
    - michaelt 2y ago
      The way I see it, Nest and Ring are a $20 doorbell, plus a $10 range extender so you can hear the bell if you're out the back, plus a $170 home CCTV system because you're in a high crime area. Seems to me a QR code removes the $170 bit that was a key part of the Ring camera value proposition.
      - quesera 2y ago
        The "ring me even if I'm not at home" feature has some value also. And for people who do not live in high-crime areas, but might want the other features of a Ring camera, the value distribution would necessarily be different.
      - rootusrootus 2y ago
        I'm in a very low (nonexistent, really) crime area and I like the camera on the doorbell. Not worried about anyone breaking in, but being able to tell at a glance whether it's a package, a neighbor, or a salesman ... that's valuable.
    - aaronax 2y ago
      I wasn't thinking camera. Just a doorbell. https://www.honeywellstore.com/store/products/portable-wireless-doorbell-3-series-rdwl311a.htm https://www.honeywellstore.com/store/products/portable-wirel...
  - 2y ago
dylan604 2y ago
Choose better UX design from visitor's perspective Knock on the door while ignoring anonymous QR code that could have been left by anyone
- dirkc 2y ago
  This is my nr 1 question, will visitors scan the QR or will they still prefer to knock/phone?
  - dylan604 2y ago
    I hate it when people call/text me to say "I'm here". You know what else you could do to let me know that you're here? Knock or ring the bell. It's definitely a generational thing though. Having lived in a time with and without devices, I'm really thankful that I didn't grow up never not having a device. This is a good example of unable to think of how to operate without a device
    - quesera 2y ago
      Some places don't have functional doorbells, and some doors are too far from living space for a knock to be heard. Some renting situations make solving those problems difficult, annoying, or impossible. But yeah, generally a doorbell is a pretty reliable tool.
      - dylan604 2y ago
        > Some places That's probably true, but I don't live in some places. I have a door with a knocker and a doorbell. Calling/texting me is so damn annoying and pointless. You knock/ring, I get up and answer the door. You text/ring, I might ignore it or at least it could take time to go to where it might be sitting other than in my hand. If you live in one of these "some places", I doubt the landlord is going to be very happy about people plastering various QR codes on their property, especially if "some place" is a multi-tennant property which typically already have a system in place
eddieroger 2y ago
Option 2 requires power, which not all doors have. There are wireless doorbells, but perhaps OP doesn't want to have to remember to charge or swap batteries.
- saaaaaam 2y ago
  While option 1 requires connectivity, which not all doors have. I live in a large apartment block. There is zero phone signal at my front door. WiFi, yes, but I’m not giving some random access to my WiFi network.
  - netsharc 2y ago
    My app idea is to tell guests to "Connect to this SSID to knock", and have a way of scanning for new MACs on the network and notifying the door owner... /s For security of course it'll be an SSID that doesn't connect to anything else, because hey, we care about security. ;-) Another app is: "connect to this SSID and ping6 2345:0425:2CA1:0000:0000:0567:5673:23b5 to ring doorbell!".
    - saaaaaam 2y ago
      This sounds far too simple for something as complex as dealing with unsolicited attendance notification injections occurring at randomly defined intervals against a primary public<>private security surface. Particularly when you consider that some of those attendance injections may contain potential threats or unsolicited commercial messaging, or be designed to cause interference with predefined private processes, or even be designed just to consume processor cycles in unnecessary communication processing across the security layer. While I like your implementation suggestion it feels a little lightweight for something this important. Please revisit the scope and come back with a more fully fleshed out project proposal.
toss1 2y ago
The other good thing about Option#2 is that visitors do not have to give you their mobile phone number (which they are doing by sending the text). Just because they are at your door for some reason does not mean they want to give up what has become their mobile ID. People are starting to get protective of it with good reason, since there are so many attacks using the Mobile #/ID... Also, as pointed out elsewhere, the static easily duplicated QR code has issues for you, but it would also be easy for someone to slap a malicious QR code over your static one, disabling yours and enabling their scam... Maybe I'm just the wrong generation, or live in a place that still has winter, but a QR code where I need to get out my phone, take off my glove in winter, activate the camera to scan, etc., seems a lot less welcoming. One thing that is good about your QR code option is that you do receive notice anywhere and you do have their mobile number, so you can reply immediately with a text or call, such as "sorry, I'm running late, not quite home yet, I'll be there in 10min". Ofc, you could also post your mobile number below the wireless doorbell. Perhaps Option #3 would be a doorbell that can display a scrolling message, so — wireless doorbell — sends text to you — you can reply to doorbell (e.g., "coming downstairs now", or "traffic, be there in 5min", "pls call me at 987-654-3210", etc.) This way, no one needs to reveal their mobile number, but everyone has the advantage of mobile communications, albeit with a small bandwidth. ?
- axelthegerman 2y ago
  How did you come to the conclusion that the mobile number is in play anywhere?! From what I read it says to scan the code and get a notification anytime it's scanned. Just looked at the android app listing and there seems to be something about taking a selfie which seems rather useless but hey maybe some people like it. Also love how people keep suggesting wireless doorbells when the whole point of this is not to install any hardware that could be to expensive, harder to setup/maintain than a QR code, or maybe stolen/damaged or not allowed to be installed
  - toss1 2y ago
    Seems it is the visitor's phone scanning the QR code, which means whatever mechanism sends the text has all the identifiers of the phone which scanned the QR code, right? If it protects the visitors' numbers from disclosure, that's great, but there is no assurance (and none that could be given and absolutely trusted) that they are not disclosed. OK, maybe the point is to not install any hardware (beyond a sticker), but it seems people are pointing out that a QR code introduces more problems than it solves (trust, spoofing, copying, misdirecting, inconvenience, etc.). If he wants to install no hardware and get a text on his phone, perhaps the easiest thing is to post a sticker with "pls text me at [mobile number]" at the location of the doorbell or QR code?
itake 2y ago
I think a note feature explaining why they are there would be useful. Knocking or a physical doorbell noise is fine for my house. But if I’m not home, they have no way to communicate with me unless they leave a note on the door, which requires them to have paper and me to not be traveling for days.
- dirkc 2y ago
  I agree, I've missed this feature myself. I wonder if the QR could be your away doorbell, "Gone fishing, leave a message"
  - itake 2y ago
    I don't want people to know when I am out of the house. It drives me crazy when solicitors leave ads on my door handle, b/c I can be out of town for weeks.
sangupta 2y ago
And not everyone carries a smartphone to scan QR code - read, elementary kids coming over every evening to play :)

by nabla9 2y ago

Weetile 2y ago

Not to mention a QR code excludes many people such as children and the elderly who might not have phones

dirkc 2y ago
Good point, I'm hoping that this increases access rather than decrease it. In my neighborhood there are plenty of homes without doorbells.
- saaaaaam 2y ago
  Maybe those people don’t want people to bother them. I keep the buzzer in my apartment turned off a lot of the time because random people buzz it trying to deliver things to my neighbours. We have a concierge desk for that.

quesera 2y ago

I probably agree with your premise (it's not clear), but: Scenario 1 (QR code) puts 100% of the infrastructure on the client (visitor) side, and scenario 2 (Nest, Ring, etc) puts 100% of the infrastructure on the server (resident) side. [Edit: strained metaphor perhaps, and yes both scenarios require connectivity infrastructure] So these are completely different methods of achieving the same goal, and there are easily imaginable cases where one scenario would be preferable over the other. Usually, server-side makes the most sense. Certainly in the case of a traditional wired or wireless dumb doorbell, it's simpler. But there are cases where server-side is difficult or impossible, especially if you want "smart" features like photos or routing or two-way interaction. Higher cost, permission from property owner if renting, etc. Pushing the infrastructure to client-side solves these problems. Most users will have the client infrastructure in their pocket already. No wires. No new piece of hardware to maintain, repair, keep charged, etc.

aaronax 2y ago
You can get a wireless doorbell for $25 which will require no permission from any reasonable property owner.
- quesera 2y ago
  But this gives you the functionality of a $200 system (Nest, Ring, etc) for ~zero cost, and not all property owners will approve a Nest camera on their porch.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    The way I see it, Nest and Ring are a $20 doorbell, plus a $10 range extender so you can hear the bell if you're out the back, plus a $170 home CCTV system because you're in a high crime area. Seems to me a QR code removes the $170 bit that was a key part of the Ring camera value proposition.
    - quesera 2y ago
      The "ring me even if I'm not at home" feature has some value also. And for people who do not live in high-crime areas, but might want the other features of a Ring camera, the value distribution would necessarily be different.
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      I'm in a very low (nonexistent, really) crime area and I like the camera on the doorbell. Not worried about anyone breaking in, but being able to tell at a glance whether it's a package, a neighbor, or a salesman ... that's valuable.
  - aaronax 2y ago
    I wasn't thinking camera. Just a doorbell. https://www.honeywellstore.com/store/products/portable-wireless-doorbell-3-series-rdwl311a.htm https://www.honeywellstore.com/store/products/portable-wirel...
- 2y ago

dylan604 2y ago

Choose better UX design from visitor's perspective Knock on the door while ignoring anonymous QR code that could have been left by anyone

dirkc 2y ago
This is my nr 1 question, will visitors scan the QR or will they still prefer to knock/phone?
- dylan604 2y ago
  I hate it when people call/text me to say "I'm here". You know what else you could do to let me know that you're here? Knock or ring the bell. It's definitely a generational thing though. Having lived in a time with and without devices, I'm really thankful that I didn't grow up never not having a device. This is a good example of unable to think of how to operate without a device
  - quesera 2y ago
    Some places don't have functional doorbells, and some doors are too far from living space for a knock to be heard. Some renting situations make solving those problems difficult, annoying, or impossible. But yeah, generally a doorbell is a pretty reliable tool.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      > Some places That's probably true, but I don't live in some places. I have a door with a knocker and a doorbell. Calling/texting me is so damn annoying and pointless. You knock/ring, I get up and answer the door. You text/ring, I might ignore it or at least it could take time to go to where it might be sitting other than in my hand. If you live in one of these "some places", I doubt the landlord is going to be very happy about people plastering various QR codes on their property, especially if "some place" is a multi-tennant property which typically already have a system in place

eddieroger 2y ago

Option 2 requires power, which not all doors have. There are wireless doorbells, but perhaps OP doesn't want to have to remember to charge or swap batteries.

saaaaaam 2y ago
While option 1 requires connectivity, which not all doors have. I live in a large apartment block. There is zero phone signal at my front door. WiFi, yes, but I’m not giving some random access to my WiFi network.
- netsharc 2y ago
  My app idea is to tell guests to "Connect to this SSID to knock", and have a way of scanning for new MACs on the network and notifying the door owner... /s For security of course it'll be an SSID that doesn't connect to anything else, because hey, we care about security. ;-) Another app is: "connect to this SSID and ping6 2345:0425:2CA1:0000:0000:0567:5673:23b5 to ring doorbell!".
  - saaaaaam 2y ago
    This sounds far too simple for something as complex as dealing with unsolicited attendance notification injections occurring at randomly defined intervals against a primary public<>private security surface. Particularly when you consider that some of those attendance injections may contain potential threats or unsolicited commercial messaging, or be designed to cause interference with predefined private processes, or even be designed just to consume processor cycles in unnecessary communication processing across the security layer. While I like your implementation suggestion it feels a little lightweight for something this important. Please revisit the scope and come back with a more fully fleshed out project proposal.

toss1 2y ago

The other good thing about Option#2 is that visitors do not have to give you their mobile phone number (which they are doing by sending the text). Just because they are at your door for some reason does not mean they want to give up what has become their mobile ID. People are starting to get protective of it with good reason, since there are so many attacks using the Mobile #/ID... Also, as pointed out elsewhere, the static easily duplicated QR code has issues for you, but it would also be easy for someone to slap a malicious QR code over your static one, disabling yours and enabling their scam... Maybe I'm just the wrong generation, or live in a place that still has winter, but a QR code where I need to get out my phone, take off my glove in winter, activate the camera to scan, etc., seems a lot less welcoming. One thing that is good about your QR code option is that you do receive notice anywhere and you do have their mobile number, so you can reply immediately with a text or call, such as "sorry, I'm running late, not quite home yet, I'll be there in 10min". Ofc, you could also post your mobile number below the wireless doorbell. Perhaps Option #3 would be a doorbell that can display a scrolling message, so — wireless doorbell — sends text to you — you can reply to doorbell (e.g., "coming downstairs now", or "traffic, be there in 5min", "pls call me at 987-654-3210", etc.) This way, no one needs to reveal their mobile number, but everyone has the advantage of mobile communications, albeit with a small bandwidth. ?

axelthegerman 2y ago
How did you come to the conclusion that the mobile number is in play anywhere?! From what I read it says to scan the code and get a notification anytime it's scanned. Just looked at the android app listing and there seems to be something about taking a selfie which seems rather useless but hey maybe some people like it. Also love how people keep suggesting wireless doorbells when the whole point of this is not to install any hardware that could be to expensive, harder to setup/maintain than a QR code, or maybe stolen/damaged or not allowed to be installed
- toss1 2y ago
  Seems it is the visitor's phone scanning the QR code, which means whatever mechanism sends the text has all the identifiers of the phone which scanned the QR code, right? If it protects the visitors' numbers from disclosure, that's great, but there is no assurance (and none that could be given and absolutely trusted) that they are not disclosed. OK, maybe the point is to not install any hardware (beyond a sticker), but it seems people are pointing out that a QR code introduces more problems than it solves (trust, spoofing, copying, misdirecting, inconvenience, etc.). If he wants to install no hardware and get a text on his phone, perhaps the easiest thing is to post a sticker with "pls text me at [mobile number]" at the location of the doorbell or QR code?

itake 2y ago

I think a note feature explaining why they are there would be useful. Knocking or a physical doorbell noise is fine for my house. But if I’m not home, they have no way to communicate with me unless they leave a note on the door, which requires them to have paper and me to not be traveling for days.

dirkc 2y ago
I agree, I've missed this feature myself. I wonder if the QR could be your away doorbell, "Gone fishing, leave a message"
- itake 2y ago
  I don't want people to know when I am out of the house. It drives me crazy when solicitors leave ads on my door handle, b/c I can be out of town for weeks.

sangupta 2y ago

And not everyone carries a smartphone to scan QR code - read, elementary kids coming over every evening to play :)