On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:37:29 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <sp9pvt$1rdg$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:00:32 on Tue, 14 Dec
>2021, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:44:31 +0000
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <sp1vdd$u0s$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:43:57 on Sat, 11 Dec
>>>2021, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>itself to the head of the queue is Adobe, and they demand you "sign in
>>>>>with your Facebook password". No thanks.
>>>>
>>>>You are aware of who owns whatsapp arn't you?
>>>
>>>I don't think it's Adobe. The company whose software is so wobbly they
>>>have to issue security updates far more frequently than one would like.
>>
>>When you use WhatsApp you have to sign up to Facebooks T&Cs.
>
>So what? Although I think I joined before Facebook bought them.
>
>>>>Quite. Paper tickets are universal, just work and should always be an
>option.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you should read the thread, then you'd realise the ONLY REASON
>>>for it is to discuss the situation where paper tickets aren't available
>>>because the TVMs are broken.
>>
>>If the ticket machines are broken then not buying a ticket is option #2.
>>If there's someone on the train selling them then great, otherwise you pay at
>>the other end. Or if there's no barriers then a free trip.
>
>The problem is the signs which say travelling without a ticket will get
>you a (soon to be �100) penalty.

That won't stand up in court if there was no reasonable way to buy a ticket
and not everyone has a smartphone so just telling turn up and go pax to use the
app won't wash either.

On 14/12/2021 14:36, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <7j6brg14mtdkrntob51ds416s8njen8cc3@4ax.com>, at 07:09:36 on
> Sun, 12 Dec 2021, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 07:23:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <1ia5rg5tvo3okv08iei4krmdlomr02rnq6@4ax.com>, at 01:24:47 on
>>> Fri, 10 Dec 2021, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 19:32:59 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <mk4lqgdglqpc327o7ukkp49ollpkk0mmln@4ax.com>, at
>>>>> 22:54:32 on
>>>>> Fri, 3 Dec 2021, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In theory if you aren't an invalid, you aren't supposed to use the
>>>>>>> concessions given to invalid carriages (of which mobility
>>>>>>> scooters are
>>>>>>> nowadays one of the most visible incarnations).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can be an invalid without being a disabled person.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you be an invalid entitled to take advantage of the concessions
>>>>> available to mobility scooter drivers, but not qualifying as whatever
>>>>> those rules define as "an invalid"?
>>>>>
>>>> You need to ask all of the multifarious service providers (e.g. TfL
>>>> will let you on the bus free without providing proof that you are
>>>> blind or unable to walk but others might not).
>>>
>>> Is that allowing you on the bus with a mobility scooter,
>>>
>> "10.1.2 Free travel. If you are a wheelchair or mobility scooter user,
>> you can travel free on any of
>> our bus services at all times."
>> [https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-conditions-of-carriage.pdf]
>>
>>> or are you trying to move the goalposts?
>>>
>> I leave that to you.
>
> You are doing a pretty good job yourself.
>
> I'm going to try to wrap this up by suggesting they mean "legitimate
> user of a mobility scooter", and ask what you think that qualification is.
>
> Meanwhile, are you suggesting that a completely fit and healthy person
> can get a free ride on a bus, as long as they find someone to push them
> in a wheelchair?
>
>>>> Bear in mind also (using someone known to me as an example) that
>>>> mobility aids can be a preventative measure against a person with
>>>> degenerative conditions reaching the state of being registered
>>>> disabled.
>>>
>>> Probably so, but how does that intersect with the concessions given to
>>> riders of mobility scooters?
>>>
>> I refer you back to your question above and the responses to it (i.e.
>> you seem to have moved to a different goal). The word "invalid"
>> (except in the sense of "not valid") does not appear in TfL's CoC. I
>> have a colleague with multiple conditions who from time to time needs
>> to use a wheelchair/scooter who fails to meet the requirements for
>> higher rate disability benefits (one of the measures used by LAs for
>> automatic granting of travel comcessions) but IMU meets the definition
>> of a "disabled person" per s.146(d) Transport Act 2000 as that
>> specifies no distance over which a person "has a substantial and
>> long-term adverse effect on his ability to walk," or the nature of the
>> place where that activity is exercised (e.g. Flat ground v. stairs).
>
> We are getting there slowly. Are TfL more lenient than s146, and to what
> extent?
>
>> Roughly speaking, if you are disabled (not blind)
>
> What about the deaf, or persons with 'Learning difficulties' etc.
>
>> and walk in the front door of a TfL bus you have to show a Freedom
>> Pass/ENCTS card; if you enter the rear door on wheels then you don't
>> need to show anything. TfL's CoC seem to be crafted to put relevant
>> people on trust and avoid crew/passenger time being wasted by arguing
>> about matters that could need evidence from a medical practitioner to
>> decide.
>
> There already exists a certification scheme - the Blue Badge (albeit for
> other scenarios).
>

Blue Badge is limited - it does not cover, for example as used above,
deaf people or those with learning difficulties. What "certification
scheme" covers these disabled people (as per Equality Act 2010 sect 6(1))?

--
Colin

Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/12/2021 12:21, Recliner wrote:
>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 13/12/2021 16:35, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <t9s9rgts5sfakjo1d78082i3c5il3c1cve@4ax.com>, at 18:55:52 on
>>>> Sat, 11 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 13:08:24 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WhatsApp has an API, which can be used to send a message to any number
>>>>>>> registered with WhatsApp even if it isn't already known to you. So it
>>>>>>> can be integrated into an online retail environment in a way which
>>>>>>> allows a customer to supply their phone number and the system to then
>>>>>>> send a message via WhatsApp to that number. From a business
>>>>>>> perspective,
>>>>>>> this is a very useful means of communicating with customers as
>>>>>>> sending a
>>>>>>> WhatsApp message is free, unlike SMS. Plus, of course, you can send
>>>>>>> attachments, which you can't easily do with SMS. Abd unlike email and
>>>>>>> SMS, WhatsApp has a delivery feedback mechanism built in so you know if
>>>>>>> your message has reached the recipient.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The downside, at the moment, is that access to the API is strictly
>>>>>>> controlled (which it has to be, in order to prevent spammers using it),
>>>>>>> and there are several hoops to jump through in order to get a Business
>>>>>>> WhatsApp Account and be eligible for the API. So there are not, yet,
>>>>>>> many organisations using it. But, in the long run, I expect it to
>>>>>>> become
>>>>>>> one of the primary means whereby businesses communicate with customers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The real problem is tying your retail delivery system into a third party
>>>>>> owned proprietary system, owned by an outfit with ever diminishing
>>>>>> public
>>>>>> and political trust.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is that if you are selling a product which can be delivered
>>>>> digitally, then it makes sense, from a customer service perspective, to
>>>>> offer multiple means of delivery. Even assuming that the primary means
>>>>> remains email (which is likely, at least for the foreseeable future), it
>>>>> would be a useful add-on for ticket vendors to be able to have an extra,
>>>>> optional field on the order page which says something like "Enter your
>>>>> phone number here to get the ticket sent to you via WhatsApp". That
>>>>> doesn't override, or replace, the email delivery mechanism, but it would
>>>>> be useful for a large number of customers. If WhatsApp ever goes out of
>>>>> fashion, or is supplanted by a different IM system, then alternatives
>>>>> which offer a similar API facility could be implemented instead of, or
>>>>> even alongside, WhatsApp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Offering WhatsApp as an optional delivery mechanism is no more tying you
>>>>> in to anything than offering traditional postal delivery of a printed
>>>>> ticket ties you in to Royal Mail, or offering TVM printing ties you in
>>>>> the machinery. On the contrary, the more different delivery mechanisms
>>>>> you can offer, the less you and your customers are reliant on any single
>>>>> one of them.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be happy if a train company with a train ticket booking app, could
>>>> be arsed to send the tickets to that App's existing ticket wallet.
>>>> Apparently Greater Anglia can't.
>>>
>>> That is a major problem. The railway companies are seemingly incapable
>>> of agreeing on a simple, universal and reliable system that will
>>> function everywhere throughout the network. Instead, a lot of TOCs seem
>>> to want their own, often incompatible, Apps.
>>> And can we expect DfT to produce something simple, universal and
>>> comprehensible to non-tech users ? I doubt it.
>>
>> Not the DfT, but GBR. But probably not any time soon.
>>
>
> Yes - but will GBR be anything more than a puppet, with the treasury
> pulling the strings (via DfT) ?
>
>
It can’t be anything other than a puppet as it has no other source of
income.

On 14/12/2021 14:53, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <spa2fs$5m9$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:25:32 on Tue, 14 Dec
> 2021, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>> TfW introduced their new apps with m-tickets nine days ago and their
>>>>> integrated new website which will push tickets to your app within the
>>>>> time it takes to pick up your phone.  So not all the ToCs are removing
>>>>> m-tickets.
>>>>
>>>> Genuine question: are those tickets transferable to a different phone?
>>>>
>>>> I'd try that out, as well as the auto-push to the wallet, if I didn't
>>>> have to set up a fresh account. Well, not this week, anyway.
>>>
>>> I don't have any active tickets at the moment to check but I believe you
>>> can use them on different devices up until the point you activate them.
>>
>> From the TfW website
>>
>> An mTicket is a ticket contained within a mobile phone app that
>> displays as
>> a barcode.
>>
>> It must be activated prior to use and is available to be purchased for
>> most
>> journeys through the TfW website and App.
>
> Sounds OK. Some TOCs are hopelessly confused about the terminology, and
> even use both expressions is the same breath.  TfW look fine.
>
>> An eTicket is an electronic ticket that includes a barcode sent as a
>> PDF in
>> an e-mail.
>
> It's more about the "pointer" nature than the delivery mechanism, or
> indeed the type of pointer. Just an eight-or-some such code would
> normally be sufficient. That's all you need for TOD, after all, and
> obviously points to a central database so they can print the paper
> tickets out for you.
>
>> The eTicket can be saved to a mobile phone or printed out but is only
>> valid
>> for single use
>
> That's true of all tickets (apart from seasons/rovers) so what are they
> getting at?
>
>> and only available on some TfW Advance tickets.
>
> Do they mean "only ever available for advance tickets, and then, only a
> subset of them; specifically also, only TfW AP tickets, not other TOC's
> AP tickets"

I've used the app for gWr, WMT, and XC fares and services. It just
offered me an advance fare from Newton Abbot to Penzance so it does do
"foreign" tickets as well. I used the old app for a Leeds to Manchester
advance as well.

>
> or: "you'll find a subset of TfW AP tickets can't be delivered like
> this, but all the rest can".
>
>> ======
>>
>> From this it seems reasonable to infer that TfW doesn’t have the
>> infrastructure to cope with e-tickets, and this might simply due to poor
>> availability of real time communications in some parts of Wales, or just
>> poor capital investment. They can cope with Advances as e-tickets as they
>> are effectively self composting, as you can only use them on a specific
>> train.
>
> I think you are conflating composting with anti-cloning. Obviously two
> people sat in the same seat is somewhat self-policing.
>

In message <sp7sjr$knq$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:59 on Mon, 13 Dec
2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sp7qaj$6n7$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:56 on Mon, 13 Dec
>> 2021, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <sov2qn$eb4$6@dont-email.me>, at 08:23:51 on Fri, 10 Dec
>>>> 2021, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 09/12/2021 19:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <soo710$nau$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:52:32 on Tue, 7 Dec
>>>>>> 2021, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  If rail tickets were the only ecommerce product I ever bought, it
>>>>>>>> might,  just, be acceptable. But given that I buy from perhaps a
>>>>>>>> hundred, it's a  bit rich for whatever ATOC/Fat-Controller is called
>>>>>>>> this week to expect  me to bend over backwards for *their*
>>>>>>>>convenience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Far better, if we got back to the hear of this thread, they could
>>>>>>>> be bothered to keep their ticket machines operational, or provide
>>>>>>>> PERTIS machines, so passengers weren't forced to buy at the last
>>>>>>>> minute using their mobile, stood in the rain in the station car
>>>>>>>> park, on pain of a £100 fine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to get yourself organised, oh, and an umbrella. Personally
>>>>>>> if it is pouring with rail I'd do the on-line ordering before I got
>>>>>>> out of the car.
>>>>
>>>>>> But I don't know the TVM is broken until I get to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't stop you going back to the car to get out f the rain or even
>>>>> sheltering under the station canopy while you order the ticket. No need
>>>>> to stand in the rain.
>>>>
>>>> The car is parked at least a hundred yards away, the station has no
>>>> canopy, and the train is due in five minutes (which would be plenty of
>>>> time to buy a ticket from a working TVM).
>>>
>>> Won’t you get wet using the TVM?
>>
>> Yes, but only for about twenty seconds.
>
>No, you’ll get wet for the 5 minutes you’re waiting for the train. Next.

The time interval in question is when one puts down the umbrella,
because I don't have three arms.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sp7sjr$knq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:59 on Mon, 13 Dec
2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sovdt9$qpk$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:32:57 on Fri, 10 Dec
>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <sotnpl$664$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:09:25 on Thu, 9 Dec 2021,
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <soo710$nau$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:52:32 on Tue, 7 Dec 2021,
>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If rail tickets were the only ecommerce product I ever bought, it
>>>>>>>> might, just, be acceptable. But given that I buy from perhaps a
>>>>>>>> hundred, it's a bit rich for whatever ATOC/Fat-Controller is called
>>>>>>>> this week to expect me to bend over backwards for *their* convenience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Far better, if we got back to the hear of this thread, they could be
>>>>>>>> bothered to keep their ticket machines operational, or provide PERTIS
>>>>>>>> machines, so passengers weren't forced to buy at the last minute using
>>>>>>>> their mobile, stood in the rain in the station car park, on pain of a
>>>>>>>> £100 fine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to get yourself organised, oh, and an umbrella. Personally if
>>>>>>> it is pouring with rail I'd do the on-line ordering before I got out of
>>>>>>> the car.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I don't know the TVM is broken until I get to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you buy your tickets at home/in the car it really doesn’t
>>>>>matter if the
>>>>> TVM is working or not.
>>>>
>>>> Only if the flow actually *has* e-tickets available.
>>>>
>>>> But you've lost track of the reason for this debate: it's the
>>>> circumstances that you arrive at the station to find that the TVM you
>>>> wanted to buy a paper ticket from is broken, and next to it is a big
>>>> hectoring sign all abut £100 fines for travelling without a ticket.
>>>>
>>>> With one of the most common rail tickets I buy being £1.90, it's really
>>>> not proportionate to be ordering them in advance from home.
>>>>
>>>> What would be your reaction when boarding a bus if the driver said
>>>> "sorry, my ticket machine is broken, you must go back home and buy a
>>>> ticket there first". (And of course the next bus isn't until an hour
>>>> later).
>>>
>>> Do you have any evidence that that’s what the TOC’s response would be if
>>> you boarded the train without a ticket because the TVM was broken?
>>
>> It's not an equivalent situation…
>
>So why on earth did you bring it up?

Because "go home and buy a ticket" is what the station signage is in
effect saying. And with rail tickets generally cheaper than bus tickets
in East Cambs, they are more likely to be used as a substitute for buses
than in some other parts of the country.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:19:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <sp1urd$f9q$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:34:21 on Sat, 11 Dec
>2021, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>On 11/12/2021 07:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <sp01g1$1nah$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 17:07:13 on Fri, 10 Dec
>>>2021, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:13:07 +0000
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <csk4rghk31luqbj54d6mbr93pge8ssj7jd@4ax.com>, at 19:09:15 on
>>>>> Thu, 9 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 17:20:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <ub84rg1q1cu4uqd19rfbjrsvs6u3u98a1u@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>15:38:03 on
>>>>>>> Thu, 9 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, my use case seems to be similar to yours (multiple email
>>>>>>>>accounts
>>>>>>>> from different sources, several of which are high volume), so my
>>>>>>>> experience seems to me to be relevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But how often do you read a hundred emails a day via Gmail on your
>>>>>>> phone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not very often, because my job is very office based so I rarely need to
>>>>>> read large numbers of emails while out and about. Most of them can wait
>>>>>> until I get back. But I don't have any real difficulty reading
>>>>>>them when
>>>>>> I do need to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is what Spark claims to be better at, but it's still a
>>>>>>>compromise
>>>>>>> when the train company is insisting on using 1992 technology to
>>>>>>>deliver
>>>>>>> train tickets, when there are numerous far better more modern
>>>>>>>ways to do
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Email is, at least, reasonably universal. I'm not a huge fan of having
>>>>>> to install a different app for every service I use. Maybe TOCs could
>>>>>> offer ticket delivery via WhatsApp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something less century than PDF, anyway.
>>>>
>>>> PDFs work everywhere.
>
>>> Sadly not, you need a PDF viewer installed, and often the one
>>>shoving itself to the head of the queue is Adobe, and they demand you
>>>"sign in with your Facebook password". No thanks.
>>
>>It's not a demand, it's an option. Stop using apocalyptic language and
>>read what is actually written and you might find life gets a lot
>>simpler.
>
>I didn't see a button marked "carry on as a guest/without signing in".

I've just installed Acrobat reader on my phone to see for myself what it
does. And what it does, the first time you use it, is prompt you to sign
in using one of four options: Google, Facebook, Apple or a pre-existing
Adobe ID (the latter being somewhat hidden away at the bottom,
presumably because few people have it). If you instead tap the 'X' at
the top right of the pop-up sign-in dialog to close it, it goes away.
And never comes back again. If, having subsequently declined to sign in
at the first (and only) prompt, you later want to, you need to
explicitly navigate to the sign-in screen.

That seems to me to be reasonable enough. It is, to be sure, relying on
typical user inertia to tap one of the three main sign-in options and
thus create an account (if they don't have one already). Some may
consider that sneaky, but this kind of inertia marketing is well
established and, providing it isn't costing you money, it's hard to get
too worked up about it[1]. And the app does follow the now-standard
convention of using an 'X' in a box in the corner of a dialog to dismiss
it, so there is a clear, standard means of skipping the sign-in screen.

Now that I've got it, I quite like the Acrobat app. Even without being
signed in or paying for premium features, it seems a bit more
full-featured than the default Google PDF reader, or alternatives such
as Firefox, Dropbox or Edge (which are the other options on my phone).

[1] Bearing in mind that anything which is free to use is still costing
someone else real money to build and support, so if you're not paying
for it with money yourself, paying for it with data seems to me to be a
perfectly legitimate transaction.

Mark

In message <sp7s9s$eee$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:27:40 on Mon, 13 Dec
2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sov2hd$eb4$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:18:53 on Fri, 10 Dec
>> 2021, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 10/12/2021 07:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <sotp1a$epk$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:30:33 on Thu, 9 Dec
>>>> 2021, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>>>> On 09/12/2021 17:57, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/12/2021 17:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <sosu8e$7ob$3@dont-email.me>, at 12:53:34 on Thu, 9 Dec
>>>>>>> 2021, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 09/12/2021 11:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <soq8ge$qfh$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:30:06 on Wed, 8
>>>>>>>>> Dec 2021,  Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On 08/12/2021 11:45, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 11:14:01 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>>>>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course the two CoOps near me are operated by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> organisations, so we need two different cards etc etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting - we also have competing CoOps near us.
>>>>>>>>>  Not very co-operative, is it!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  It's funny, I had no idea there were competing Co-Ops.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Historically, they started as separate Co-Ops for each town (or
>>>>>>>>>> district) in Northern England, commencing in Rochdale. There was
>>>>>>>>>> a "coming together" in, I think, the later years of the 20th
>>>>>>>>>> Century,  but a further separation in more recent years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Ours are I think "Central England" vs the larger countrywide
>>>>>>>>> one based  in Manchester.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Talking of which, back in the day there were many CoOp Building
>>>>>>>>> Societies, but it wasn't well known that most were one-branch
>>>>>>>>> affairs, which gave customers a false sense of security. After a
>>>>>>>>> couple of the frailer ones went broke, and no-one to bail them
>>>>>>>>> out, a regulator forced  them all to merge, to form a new
>>>>>>>>>organisation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  What name did they pick? Ironically the same as the Consumer
>>>>>>>>> Affairs programme which exposed the issue: Nationwide.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That was a long time ago! I thought the name was older than the
>>>>>>>> programme.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think so. For whatever reason I used to watch it nearly
>>>>>>> every  day, and this sequence of events played out.
>>>>
>>>>>>  I used to work on it, the downside of that is you don't actually
>>>>>> take  much notice of the content. Also more than likely that I
>>>>>> didn't work on  that episode.
>>>>>
>>>>> Off-topic even for us, but do you know how the digital clock behind the
>>>>> Nationwide presenters was operated?  It always showed the right time
>>>>> but, in years of careful watching, I never saw its Solari style digits
>>>>> flip over to the next minute on-screen, which struck me as curious.
>>>>> flip digits as [obrail] Solari board

>>>> A school-friend of mine worked for BBC engineering, and was "in
>>>> charge of digital clocks", so I might ask him. His pride and joy was
>>>> the Ceefax clock, which was locked to Rugby (and completely custom
>>>> built).
>>>> I keep meaning to study the BBC Breakfast (etc) clocks in more
>>>> detail to see how far off they are, especially as one of their Covid
>>>> geeks has a digital clock on the wall behind him. I have two adjacent
>>>> TVs, one on Freesat, the other on Freeview, and they are about two
>>>> seconds apart.
>>>
>>> One has the signal travelling a lot further than the other. Add in he
>>> digital delays on each tx chain (and rx chain) and you are going to get
>>> noticeable variations between nominally the same stations.
>>
>> Doesn't superficially explain why the terrestrial version is lagging
>> the satellite (although the explanation has to be the terrestrial
>> transmitter is getting a satellite feed, and is adding in a decode/
>> recode delay). It's about two seconds.
>
>Are they the same model of TV/decoder? Do they have a PVR function that
>might be intercepting the signal before displaying it? I’m not familiar
>with digital TV or audio broadcasting but I do just about enough about
>media streaming to be dangerous.

Different brands, and it's the satellite one which has the PVR function
built in (but annoyingly, requires an external USB HDD, and won't
recognise an external thumb drive[1]). But I do have a "separates"
Freeview PVR plugged into the terrestrial one, so later I'll see what
the timings are on that, compared to the Freesat.

[1] I've looked into this at some length, and it's apparently a
deliberate "feature". I've even tried re-flashing the thumb drive to
emulate an HDD - it's all about a "hot removable or not" bit on the
interface - to no avail.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sp7uc4$nkk$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:00 on Mon, 13 Dec
2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>>>> I keep meaning to study the BBC Breakfast (etc) clocks in more
>>>>> detail to see how far off they are, especially as one of their Covid
>>>>> geeks has a digital clock on the wall behind him. I have two adjacent
>>>>> TVs, one on Freesat, the other on Freeview, and they are about two
>>>>> seconds apart.
>>>>
>>>> One has the signal travelling a lot further than the other. Add in he
>>>> digital delays on each tx chain (and rx chain) and you are going to get
>>>> noticeable variations between nominally the same stations.
>>>
>>> Doesn't superficially explain why the terrestrial version is lagging
>>> the satellite (although the explanation has to be the terrestrial
>>> transmitter is getting a satellite feed, and is adding in a decode/
>>> recode delay). It's about two seconds.
>>
>> Are they the same model of TV/decoder? Do they have a PVR function that
>> might be intercepting the signal before displaying it? I’m not familiar
>> with digital TV or audio broadcasting but I do just about enough about
>> media streaming to be dangerous.
>
>Let’s try that again: I do know just about enough about media streaming to
>be dangerous.

My impression is that the TV programme has to be explicitly
de-multiplexed from the satellite receiver at the relay station, and
then re-multiplexed with other channels before terrestrial transmission.
Hence the delay of about two seconds.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sp7t2k$tbf$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:40:52 on Mon, 13 Dec
2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>> It seems more than a little ironic that you’re complaining about other
>>> people using 1992 technology when part of your complaint is that you’re
>>> effectively limited to even older technology.
>>
>> What's older about a smartphone and an Android app?
>
>Your claim that they are basically emulating a pager, a technology
>developed in the 1950s.

That's a limitation in the extraordinarily basic Exchange email viewer
supplied on the phone. While it's possible to open and reply to emails,
it's more trouble than it's worth except in an emergency. So it's simply
acting as a pager to have me go run 'proper' Outlook (which is also
pretty basic compared to my personal email client) on a PC.

>>>> I have no control over the phone, or the apps I'm allowed to use.
>>>
>>> Well, there’s your trouble.
>>
>> We are where we are. And I won't be the only passenger in the same
>> circumstances.
>
>Which just about makes you unique in present company.

A very different set of people to the general public.

>>>> My other (personal) phone would be pinging constantly if all my email
>>>> was directed towards it. On a rough estimate I have perhaps 500k in my
>>>> email-iverse over the last ten years, so that's 50k a year, 200 per
>>>> working day.
>>>>
>>>> On top of all the alerts for other things (Facebook postings in threads
>>>> I'm interested in, Tweets from people I follow, etc etc) it would be
>>>> wall to wall.
>>>
>>> Then configure the alert settings, for goodness’ sake!
>>
>> The alerts arise from swamping the phone with superfluous emails. I'm
>> not aware of a way that Android allows the user to fine-tune alerts by
>> filtering the stuff inside apps. Rather than saying "this app has
>> received this one of many things, you are now alerted".
>
>My phone has considerable customisation of notifications. It’s in the
>settings section for Apps & notifications and there’s more in other places.
> I’m on Android 10.

My phone alerts me every time it loses (and regains) GSM signal. Given
how patchy O2 service is here, it's pretty annoying. I have tried for
ages to turn this of, and nothing seems to budge it.

My wife two-ago phone had the exact same problem, and we never managed
to fix that either.

>> Are you suggesting that I can set something in Android that only alerts
>> me to emails arriving in gmail, that are from a specific shortlist of
>> senders?
>
>I don’t know. It’s not a feature set I use.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sp7uc4$nkk$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:00 on Mon, 13 Dec
> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>>>> I keep meaning to study the BBC Breakfast (etc) clocks in more
>>>>>> detail to see how far off they are, especially as one of their Covid
>>>>>> geeks has a digital clock on the wall behind him. I have two adjacent
>>>>>> TVs, one on Freesat, the other on Freeview, and they are about two
>>>>>> seconds apart.
>>>>>
>>>>> One has the signal travelling a lot further than the other. Add in he
>>>>> digital delays on each tx chain (and rx chain) and you are going to get
>>>>> noticeable variations between nominally the same stations.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't superficially explain why the terrestrial version is lagging
>>>> the satellite (although the explanation has to be the terrestrial
>>>> transmitter is getting a satellite feed, and is adding in a decode/
>>>> recode delay). It's about two seconds.
>>>
>>> Are they the same model of TV/decoder? Do they have a PVR function that
>>> might be intercepting the signal before displaying it? I’m not familiar
>>> with digital TV or audio broadcasting but I do just about enough about
>>> media streaming to be dangerous.
>>
>> Let’s try that again: I do know just about enough about media streaming to
>> be dangerous.
>
> My impression is that the TV programme has to be explicitly
> de-multiplexed from the satellite receiver at the relay station, and
> then re-multiplexed with other channels before terrestrial transmission.
> Hence the delay of about two seconds.

Nope. In the UK multiplexes are assembled centrally to allow for the gains
you get from statistical multiplexing and the cost of a decent on the fly
compressor. Sat feeds to far flung transmitter stations are from a
different satellite feed (and a different satellite position I think) to
the normal domestic ones and are the fully assembled multiplex. Some of the
emergency stations erected in the wake of the Billsdale main transmitter
fire are being fed this way.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:16:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <puahrghpk13hqjvcqr1k6j9mqmat6rq3s5@4ax.com>, at 14:42:38 on
>Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:

>>I don't mean that. I mean that using a phone over which you have no
>>control puts you in a very small minority. Almost all travellers who use
>>any form of electronic ticketing will do so on a phone that they own, or
>>at least have admin rights over.
>
>OK, so an alternative set of goalposts, I'll play.
>
>Your contention is that business users with work phones will normally
>have admin rights over them - pardon me while I tiptoe over all these IT
>department dead bodies.

How many people travel on trains using electronic tickets delivered to a
company mobile phone? And, of those people, how many of them are using a
phone supplied by a company with an IT department which forces them to
use a particular combination of non-standard email app and PDF reader
app which makes it difficult or impossible to get tickets delivered to
that phone by email?

The last time I had a company phone, it was a bog-standard iPhone
maintained by the IT department. Everything was Apple default apps. But,
y'know, that's fine. I'm not an Apple fanboi; I prefer Android on a
phone. But there was nothing that I needed to do on that phone that I
couldn't do. Apple Mail worked fine with the company email system. Apple
Mail opens PDFs natively, it doesn't even need to open an external app
to view them. So it would have been fine for electronic ticketing, if
I'd ever used it for that.

Mark

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sp227c$g5s$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:31:56 on Sat, 11 Dec
> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <soveff$uuq$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:42:39 on Fri, 10 Dec
>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <soknoi$atl$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:13:38 on Mon, 6 Dec 2021,
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <soer6a$iu7$4@dont-email.me>, at 04:35:22 on Sat, 4 Dec 2021,
>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <so3i39$h47$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:52:41 on Mon, 29 Nov
>>>>>>>>> 2021, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How did we manage in years gone by, before such things as
>>>>>>>>>> penalty fares
>>>>>>>>>> were invented?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In London and SE by being happy to let people pay at their destination.
>>>>>>>>> Whatever TfL was called that week even had "excess fares" windows
>>>>>>>>> expressly for that purpose.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They still exist in many places, including Paddington,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even on the Bakerloo Line?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reading and Bristol Temple Meads.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose Reading is partly TfL these days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ps I've actually given up wondering when the Elizabeth Line will open.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, the Reading part is already open. The central London section is
>>>>>> currently expected to open next spring, but through services from the west
>>>>>> will be later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's physically complete, with the software almost ready, and now
>>>>>> it's a case of rehearsing lots of operational scenarios (ie, dealing with
>>>>>> various different problems, faults, evacuations, etc) and bedding down the
>>>>>> trial operations. Some of the NR stations are still incomplete, but that
>>>>>> won't delay the opening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Latest update: https://youtu.be/WXZ2BEthYEc
>>>>>
>>>>> I made a special effort to be on the first [public] Thameslink train
>>>>> through the core. They were handing out commemorate cup-cakes, although
>>>>> something less perishable might have been welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there's an equivalent train through the Crossrail Core, I'll probably
>>>>> try to be there. But it's far less clear if that milestone should be
>>>>> Paddington-Abbey_Wood, or a service that's through from further west.
>>>>
>>>> The latter will be months later than the former, so will probably attract
>>>> much less razzamataz.
>>>>
>>>> But be warned that the first public train might be very early in the
>>>> morning, as with the Battersea extension. There may be a VIP-only official
>>>> opening train the previous day, possibly with HM in the cab. Perhaps that
>>>> train will do what the initial public trains don't, and run through from
>>>> west to east.
>>>
>>> The first *public* train is what counts (if it's early in the morning so
>>> be it, but that wasn't what happened at Thameslink and it was
>>> mid-morning).
>>
>> Yes, that was unusual. Remember, I was on the same train, which I wouldn't
>> have been at 5am.
>
> Where did you get on - I boarded at Cambridge. Would have to look up the
> tickets, but probably around 10am.

I travelled in the other direction, East Croydon to Finsbury Park.

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157693123465884>

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <mkahrg5l9rlm3c0lnsra68rrmgl94v5s0d@4ax.com>, at 14:34:32 on
> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
> remarked:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:47:44 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <oo89rg11citi141b21k2nufu0s0qn3dgbh@4ax.com>, at 13:17:54 on
>>> Sat, 11 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>> remarked:
>>>
>>>> What Android does do, by default, unless you tell it not to, is present
>>>> you with a choice of app to launch in order to view PDFs from within an
>>>> email. That can be irritating, but you can override that by setting a
>>>> permanent file association with the app of your choice.
>>>
>>> I've scoured the settings of my email app, and can't find that.
>>
>> It's not going to be part of the email app settings. It's part of the OS
>> settings, but, as on Windows, an app can the right to open a particular
>> filetype by getting you to accept its defaults when you install it. If
>> tapping on a PDF is always launching Adobe Acrobat, rather than giving
>> you a choice of apps, the it's likely that Acrobat did that on install.
>> The simplest solution is to uninstall Acrobat and then, if you do need
>> it, reinstall it but carefully make sure not to accept the defaults when
>> you do.
>
> I've done that the other day (seemed like a sensible precaution) but it
> never asked anything.
>
>> Otherwise, app file associations can be changed in the Android
>> settings, but it's a fairly convoluted process.
>
> Ten minutes later! OK, have ejected Adobe as the default, and now I can
> choose "Drive PDF Viewer", not an app I've come across previously.
>
> Another five minutes later... apparently part of "Google Drive", which
> goes on to reveal it's not been used in over a year.

Yes, that's one of several PDF viewers I get offered.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sp2k8l$3md$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:39:49 on Sat, 11 Dec
> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>> Are you Android users saying that the supplied web browser doesn’t support
>>>> viewing pdfs?
>>>
>>> What I'm saying is that the email app, when asked to display a PDF
>>> attachment, launches Adobe viewer, which it appears I'm not the only
>>> person unwilling to sign-in-to.
>>>
>>> I can't see a "setting" in the email app to launch a browser instead.
>>
>> I have an Android phone and use the FastMail app, which seems happy enough
>> to display PDFs without invoking any other software.
>
> Interesting. I've yet to find an offline mail client with that
> functionality.
>
>> It gives me the option of downloading attachments and I also have an
>> Adobe Acrobat Reader which I don’t ever remember configuring and it
>> certainly doesn’t ask me to log into anything. It does have an ad on
>> the front screen offering a free trial of extra features. Based on
>> experience of my desktop iMac there is another Acrobat Reader (DC?)
>> which does a keep asking you to log in, and I’ve deleted that one
>> because of that nagware characteristic; Apple’s Preview works perfectly well.
>
> Once again, I'm glad it all works for you, but pretty sure you will t
> some point in the past have signed-in to Adobe (and it's remembering
> that).

You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:16:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <puahrghpk13hqjvcqr1k6j9mqmat6rq3s5@4ax.com>, at 14:42:38 on
>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>> remarked:
>
>>> I don't mean that. I mean that using a phone over which you have no
>>> control puts you in a very small minority. Almost all travellers who use
>>> any form of electronic ticketing will do so on a phone that they own, or
>>> at least have admin rights over.
>>
>> OK, so an alternative set of goalposts, I'll play.
>>
>> Your contention is that business users with work phones will normally
>> have admin rights over them - pardon me while I tiptoe over all these IT
>> department dead bodies.
>
> How many people travel on trains using electronic tickets delivered to a
> company mobile phone? And, of those people, how many of them are using a
> phone supplied by a company with an IT department which forces them to
> use a particular combination of non-standard email app and PDF reader
> app which makes it difficult or impossible to get tickets delivered to
> that phone by email?
>
> The last time I had a company phone, it was a bog-standard iPhone
> maintained by the IT department. Everything was Apple default apps. But,
> y'know, that's fine. I'm not an Apple fanboi; I prefer Android on a
> phone. But there was nothing that I needed to do on that phone that I
> couldn't do. Apple Mail worked fine with the company email system. Apple
> Mail opens PDFs natively, it doesn't even need to open an external app
> to view them. So it would have been fine for electronic ticketing, if
> I'd ever used it for that.
>
> Mark
>

As far as I can tell, any company phone these days that is controlled by a
proper IT department is an iPhone. I guess that’s down to the fractured
nature of Android.

In message <spagf7$dpb$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:24:08 on Tue, 14 Dec
2021, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>On 14/12/2021 14:36, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <7j6brg14mtdkrntob51ds416s8njen8cc3@4ax.com>, at 07:09:36
>>on Sun, 12 Dec 2021, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 07:23:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <1ia5rg5tvo3okv08iei4krmdlomr02rnq6@4ax.com>, at 01:24:47 on
>>>> Fri, 10 Dec 2021, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 19:32:59 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <mk4lqgdglqpc327o7ukkp49ollpkk0mmln@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>22:54:32 on
>>>>>> Fri, 3 Dec 2021, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In theory if you aren't an invalid, you aren't supposed to use the
>>>>>>>> concessions given to invalid carriages (of which mobility
>>>>>>>>scooters are
>>>>>>>> nowadays one of the most visible incarnations).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can be an invalid without being a disabled person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you be an invalid entitled to take advantage of the concessions
>>>>>> available to mobility scooter drivers, but not qualifying as whatever
>>>>>> those rules define as "an invalid"?
>>>>>>
>>>>> You need to ask all of the multifarious service providers (e.g. TfL
>>>>> will let you on the bus free without providing proof that you are
>>>>> blind or unable to walk but others might not).
>>>>
>>>> Is that allowing you on the bus with a mobility scooter,
>>>>
>>> "10.1.2 Free travel. If you are a wheelchair or mobility scooter user,
>>> you can travel free on any of
>>> our bus services at all times."
>>> [https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-conditions-of-carriage.pdf]
>>>
>>>> or are you trying to move the goalposts?
>>>>
>>> I leave that to you.

>> You are doing a pretty good job yourself.
>> I'm going to try to wrap this up by suggesting they mean "legitimate
>>user of a mobility scooter", and ask what you think that qualification
>>is.

>> Meanwhile, are you suggesting that a completely fit and healthy
>>person can get a free ride on a bus, as long as they find someone to
>>push them in a wheelchair?
>>
>>>>> Bear in mind also (using someone known to me as an example) that
>>>>> mobility aids can be a preventative measure against a person with
>>>>> degenerative conditions reaching the state of being registered
>>>>>disabled.
>>>>
>>>> Probably so, but how does that intersect with the concessions given to
>>>> riders of mobility scooters?
>>>>
>>> I refer you back to your question above and the responses to it (i.e.
>>> you seem to have moved to a different goal). The word "invalid"
>>> (except in the sense of "not valid") does not appear in TfL's CoC. I
>>> have a colleague with multiple conditions who from time to time needs
>>> to use a wheelchair/scooter who fails to meet the requirements for
>>> higher rate disability benefits (one of the measures used by LAs for
>>> automatic granting of travel comcessions) but IMU meets the definition
>>> of a "disabled person" per s.146(d) Transport Act 2000 as that
>>> specifies no distance over which a person "has a substantial and
>>> long-term adverse effect on his ability to walk," or the nature of the
>>> place where that activity is exercised (e.g. Flat ground v. stairs).

>> We are getting there slowly. Are TfL more lenient than s146, and to
>>what extent?
>>
>>> Roughly speaking, if you are disabled (not blind)
>> What about the deaf, or persons with 'Learning difficulties' etc.
>>
>>> and walk in the front door of a TfL bus you have to show a Freedom
>>>Pass/ENCTS card; if you enter the rear door on wheels then you don't
>>>need to show anything. TfL's CoC seem to be crafted to put relevant
>>>people on trust and avoid crew/passenger time being wasted by arguing
>>>about matters that could need evidence from a medical practitioner to decide.

>> There already exists a certification scheme - the Blue Badge (albeit
>>for other scenarios).
>
>Blue Badge is limited - it does not cover, for example as used above,
>deaf people or those with learning difficulties. What "certification
>scheme" covers these disabled people (as per Equality Act 2010 sect
>6(1))?

My impression is that mobility scooters are intended for people with
mobility issues (well, mainly anyway). The blue badge is also highly
skewed towards those with mobility issues (but perhaps some other groups
too).

If I was drafting a rule to tighten up the acceptance of mobility
scooters for free on buses, I think I'd go for people with mobility
issues as recognised by the issue of a blue badge, rather than some
other definition that included the deaf [no particular reason to single
out that group, but people are probably more familiar with its
presentation than several other recognised disabilities].
--
Roland Perry

In message <qphhrg1qtuc9ihhk3hkit4acf18dju57ec@4ax.com>, at 16:49:48 on
Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:19:12 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <sp1urd$f9q$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:34:21 on Sat, 11 Dec
>>2021, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>On 11/12/2021 07:43, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <sp01g1$1nah$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 17:07:13 on Fri, 10 Dec
>>>>2021, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:13:07 +0000
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <csk4rghk31luqbj54d6mbr93pge8ssj7jd@4ax.com>, at 19:09:15 on
>>>>>> Thu, 9 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 17:20:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <ub84rg1q1cu4uqd19rfbjrsvs6u3u98a1u@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>15:38:03 on
>>>>>>>> Thu, 9 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, my use case seems to be similar to yours (multiple email
>>>>>>>>>accounts from different sources, several of which are high
>>>>>>>>>volume), so my experience seems to me to be relevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But how often do you read a hundred emails a day via Gmail on your
>>>>>>>> phone?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not very often, because my job is very office based so I rarely need to
>>>>>>> read large numbers of emails while out and about. Most of them can wait
>>>>>>> until I get back. But I don't have any real difficulty reading
>>>>>>>them when
>>>>>>> I do need to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is what Spark claims to be better at, but it's still a
>>>>>>>>compromise when the train company is insisting on using 1992
>>>>>>>> deliver train tickets, when there are numerous far better more
>>>>>>>> ways to do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email is, at least, reasonably universal. I'm not a huge fan of having
>>>>>>> to install a different app for every service I use. Maybe TOCs could
>>>>>>> offer ticket delivery via WhatsApp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something less century than PDF, anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> PDFs work everywhere.
>>
>>>> Sadly not, you need a PDF viewer installed, and often the one
>>>>shoving itself to the head of the queue is Adobe, and they demand you
>>>>"sign in with your Facebook password". No thanks.
>>>
>>>It's not a demand, it's an option. Stop using apocalyptic language and
>>>read what is actually written and you might find life gets a lot
>>>simpler.
>>
>>I didn't see a button marked "carry on as a guest/without signing in".
>
>I've just installed Acrobat reader on my phone to see for myself what it
>does. And what it does, the first time you use it, is prompt you to sign
>in using one of four options: Google, Facebook, Apple or a pre-existing
>Adobe ID (the latter being somewhat hidden away at the bottom,
>presumably because few people have it). If you instead tap the 'X' at
>the top right of the pop-up sign-in dialog to close it, it goes away.
>And never comes back again.

So it has been said upthread. However, my response to that was "it's not
obvious from looking at it, that the cross has that functionality,
rather than meaning close the app". But now we all know.

I must have closed the app each time using some other UI action,
otherwise this subject would never have arisen.

>If, having subsequently declined to sign in at the first (and only)
>prompt, you later want to, you need to explicitly navigate to the
>sign-in screen.
>
>That seems to me to be reasonable enough. It is, to be sure, relying on
>typical user inertia to tap one of the three main sign-in options and
>thus create an account (if they don't have one already). Some may
>consider that sneaky, but this kind of inertia marketing is well
>established and, providing it isn't costing you money, it's hard to get
>too worked up about it[1]. And the app does follow the now-standard
>convention of using an 'X' in a box in the corner of a dialog to dismiss
>it, so there is a clear, standard means of skipping the sign-in screen.

--
Roland Perry

In message <spag7o$1725$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:20:08 on Tue, 14 Dec
2021, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:37:29 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <sp9pvt$1rdg$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:00:32 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>2021, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:44:31 +0000
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <sp1vdd$u0s$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:43:57 on Sat, 11 Dec
>>>>2021, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>itself to the head of the queue is Adobe, and they demand you "sign in
>>>>>>with your Facebook password". No thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>You are aware of who owns whatsapp arn't you?
>>>>
>>>>I don't think it's Adobe. The company whose software is so wobbly they
>>>>have to issue security updates far more frequently than one would like.
>>>
>>>When you use WhatsApp you have to sign up to Facebooks T&Cs.
>>
>>So what? Although I think I joined before Facebook bought them.
>>
>>>>>Quite. Paper tickets are universal, just work and should always be an
>>option.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you should read the thread, then you'd realise the ONLY REASON
>>>>for it is to discuss the situation where paper tickets aren't available
>>>>because the TVMs are broken.
>>>
>>>If the ticket machines are broken then not buying a ticket is option #2.
>>>If there's someone on the train selling them then great, otherwise you pay at
>>>the other end. Or if there's no barriers then a free trip.
>>
>>The problem is the signs which say travelling without a ticket will get
>>you a (soon to be £100) penalty.
>
>That won't stand up in court if there was no reasonable way to buy a ticket
>and not everyone has a smartphone so just telling turn up and go pax to use the
>app won't wash either.

Will they pay my time and expenses for preparing the court case and
turning up on the day? What I would be slightly happier about, is more
information on the "Compulsory Ticket Zone" abut what evidence to
gather, or action to take, to ensure it never gets to that stage.

Like I said about a week ago, I observe passengers taking photos of the
error messages with their phones (which is tricky because they tend to
disappear rather quickly), clearly worried that they won't be believed
otherwise.
--
Roland Perry

In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sp2k8l$3md$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:39:49 on Sat, 11 Dec
>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>> Are you Android users saying that the supplied web browser
>>>>>doesn’t support
>>>>> viewing pdfs?
>>>>
>>>> What I'm saying is that the email app, when asked to display a PDF
>>>> attachment, launches Adobe viewer, which it appears I'm not the only
>>>> person unwilling to sign-in-to.
>>>>
>>>> I can't see a "setting" in the email app to launch a browser instead.
>>>
>>> I have an Android phone and use the FastMail app, which seems happy enough
>>> to display PDFs without invoking any other software.
>>
>> Interesting. I've yet to find an offline mail client with that
>> functionality.
>>
>>> It gives me the option of downloading attachments and I also have an
>>> Adobe Acrobat Reader which I don’t ever remember configuring and it
>>> certainly doesn’t ask me to log into anything. It does have an ad on
>>> the front screen offering a free trial of extra features. Based on
>>> experience of my desktop iMac there is another Acrobat Reader (DC?)
>>> which does a keep asking you to log in, and I’ve deleted that one
>>> because of that nagware characteristic; Apple’s Preview works
>>>perfectly well.
>>
>> Once again, I'm glad it all works for you, but pretty sure you will t
>> some point in the past have signed-in to Adobe (and it's remembering
>> that).
>
>You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.

That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
--
Roland Perry

In message <spaivj$1j6$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:06:59 on Tue, 14 Dec
2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sp227c$g5s$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:31:56 on Sat, 11 Dec
>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <soveff$uuq$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:42:39 on Fri, 10 Dec
>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <soknoi$atl$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:13:38 on Mon, 6 Dec 2021,
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <soer6a$iu7$4@dont-email.me>, at 04:35:22 on Sat, 4
>>>>>>>>Dec 2021,
>>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <so3i39$h47$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:52:41 on Mon, 29 Nov
>>>>>>>>>> 2021, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How did we manage in years gone by, before such things as
>>>>>>>>>>>penalty fares were invented?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In London and SE by being happy to let people pay at their
>>>>>>>>>>destination.
>>>>>>>>>> Whatever TfL was called that week even had "excess fares" windows
>>>>>>>>>> expressly for that purpose.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They still exist in many places, including Paddington,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even on the Bakerloo Line?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reading and Bristol Temple Meads.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose Reading is partly TfL these days.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ps I've actually given up wondering when the Elizabeth Line will open.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously, the Reading part is already open. The central London
>>>>>>>section is currently expected to open next spring, but through
>>>>>>>services from the west will be later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's physically complete, with the software almost
>>>>>>>ready, and now it's a case of rehearsing lots of operational
>>>>>>>scenarios (ie, dealing with various different problems, faults,
>>>>>>>evacuations, etc) and bedding down the trial operations. Some of
>>>>>>>the NR stations are still incomplete, but that won't delay the opening.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Latest update: https://youtu.be/WXZ2BEthYEc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I made a special effort to be on the first [public] Thameslink train
>>>>>> through the core. They were handing out commemorate cup-cakes, although
>>>>>> something less perishable might have been welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there's an equivalent train through the Crossrail Core, I'll probably
>>>>>> try to be there. But it's far less clear if that milestone should be
>>>>>> Paddington-Abbey_Wood, or a service that's through from further west.
>>>>>
>>>>> The latter will be months later than the former, so will probably attract
>>>>> much less razzamataz.
>>>>>
>>>>> But be warned that the first public train might be very early in the
>>>>> morning, as with the Battersea extension. There may be a VIP-only official
>>>>> opening train the previous day, possibly with HM in the cab. Perhaps that
>>>>> train will do what the initial public trains don't, and run through from
>>>>> west to east.
>>>>
>>>> The first *public* train is what counts (if it's early in the morning so
>>>> be it, but that wasn't what happened at Thameslink and it was
>>>> mid-morning).
>>>
>>> Yes, that was unusual. Remember, I was on the same train, which I wouldn't
>>> have been at 5am.
>>
>> Where did you get on - I boarded at Cambridge. Would have to look up the
>> tickets, but probably around 10am.
>
>I travelled in the other direction, East Croydon to Finsbury Park.
>
><https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157693123465884>

Wasn't that the second one through the core, or is my memory playing
tricks?
--
Roland Perry

In message <spaj3r$2m6$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:09:15 on Tue, 14 Dec
2021, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:16:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <puahrghpk13hqjvcqr1k6j9mqmat6rq3s5@4ax.com>, at 14:42:38 on
>>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>> remarked:
>>
>>>> I don't mean that. I mean that using a phone over which you have no
>>>> control puts you in a very small minority. Almost all travellers who use
>>>> any form of electronic ticketing will do so on a phone that they own, or
>>>> at least have admin rights over.
>>>
>>> OK, so an alternative set of goalposts, I'll play.
>>>
>>> Your contention is that business users with work phones will normally
>>> have admin rights over them - pardon me while I tiptoe over all these IT
>>> department dead bodies.
>>
>> How many people travel on trains using electronic tickets delivered to a
>> company mobile phone? And, of those people, how many of them are using a
>> phone supplied by a company with an IT department which forces them to
>> use a particular combination of non-standard email app and PDF reader
>> app which makes it difficult or impossible to get tickets delivered to
>> that phone by email?
>>
>> The last time I had a company phone, it was a bog-standard iPhone
>> maintained by the IT department. Everything was Apple default apps. But,
>> y'know, that's fine. I'm not an Apple fanboi; I prefer Android on a
>> phone. But there was nothing that I needed to do on that phone that I
>> couldn't do. Apple Mail worked fine with the company email system. Apple
>> Mail opens PDFs natively, it doesn't even need to open an external app
>> to view them. So it would have been fine for electronic ticketing, if
>> I'd ever used it for that.
>
>As far as I can tell, any company phone these days that is controlled by a
>proper IT department is an iPhone. I guess that’s down to the fractured
>nature of Android.

Apart from one I have experience with, who are Samsung. Which is also
due to not having a bottomless pit of money.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sp1p0l$5bm$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:54:45 on Sat, 11 Dec
2021, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <fkg6rg5n2nql0rhoc9kddc6r6f1ejhkm1m@4ax.com>, at 12:13:41 on
>> Fri, 10 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>> remarked:
>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:17:23 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 07:38:04 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <sotsl1$8hv$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:32:17 on Thu, 9 Dec 2021,
>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I?ve not been down the e-ticket buying route of late, but can?t you just
>>>>>>> buy your tickets from one TOC regardless of the TOC used? Why
>>>>>>>the need for
>>>>>>> multiple apps? The Trainline seems popular with my iPhone toting
>>>>>>> offspring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The main reason is that interoperability is limited. With the only
>>>>>> common denominator that they'll provide pickup at any TVM.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's the killer lack-of-feature for any TOC-specific app.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I travel from here to Manchester by train on an off-peak return, then
>>>>> I will use at least two, and, depending on the timings, possibly three
>>>>> or even four different TOCs. And the choice of which TOCs I use may even
>>>>> change on the way, as it did the last time I made that journey when one
>>>>> of the trains I was on was delayed and I had to make a different
>>>>> connection to the one I had been intending.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the ticket is delivered to an app, therefore, the app needs to be
>>>>> accepted as a valid ticket-presentation mechanism on every train I use
>>>>> irrespective of operator. So the apps have to be interoperable,
>>>>> otherwise they're useless for that kind of journey.
>>>>>
>>>> Having not travelled extensively of late, have we got to the point where
>>>> apps now present QR codes, and are these now accepted on most TOC trains?
>>>
>>> I don't know. A simple QR code would be the most sensible option,
>>> because that can be delivered by any mechanism and displayed on any
>>> device
>>
>> Not much use when my ITSO card hasn't got a screen!
>>
>>> (and, as a last resort, can be printed, even if you have to
>>> screenshot it to do so).
>>
>> I think some TOCs expressly forbid screenshots. As an anti-cloning
>> measure I think.
>>
>That’s the fundamental difference between m and e-tickets. It doesn’t
>matter if you clone an e-ticket. M-tickets are on their way out and were a
>technology wrong turn.

But we are where we are, and it seems very likely that TfW's brand new
app has one foot firmly in the m-ticket camp.
--
Roland Perry

In message <spahfd$lb6$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:41:16 on Tue, 14 Dec
2021, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:

>>> The eTicket can be saved to a mobile phone or printed out but is
>>>only valid for single use

>> That's true of all tickets (apart from seasons/rovers) so what are
>>they getting at?
>>
>>> and only available on some TfW Advance tickets.

>> Do they mean "only ever available for advance tickets, and then,
>>only a subset of them; specifically also, only TfW AP tickets, not
>>other TOC's AP tickets"
>
>I've used the app for gWr, WMT, and XC fares and services. It just
>offered me an advance fare from Newton Abbot to Penzance so it does do
>"foreign" tickets as well. I used the old app for a Leeds to
>Manchester advance as well.

Is the wording above a bluff? What possible motivation.
--
Roland Perry

In message <rqihrgpe827hf8d0ue00vq7omr7tk0cb0j@4ax.com>, at 17:01:16 on
Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:16:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <puahrghpk13hqjvcqr1k6j9mqmat6rq3s5@4ax.com>, at 14:42:38 on
>>Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>remarked:
>
>>>I don't mean that. I mean that using a phone over which you have no
>>>control puts you in a very small minority. Almost all travellers who use
>>>any form of electronic ticketing will do so on a phone that they own, or
>>>at least have admin rights over.
>>
>>OK, so an alternative set of goalposts, I'll play.
>>
>>Your contention is that business users with work phones will normally
>>have admin rights over them - pardon me while I tiptoe over all these IT
>>department dead bodies.
>
>How many people travel on trains using electronic tickets delivered to a
>company mobile phone?

Any with a travel department/policy which says it's easier to police
than having to send off for paper tickets.

>And, of those people, how many of them are using a phone supplied by a
>company with an IT department which forces them to use a particular
>combination of non-standard email app and PDF reader app which makes it
>difficult or impossible to get tickets delivered to that phone by email?

You'd be surprised. I expect the vast majority have a phone controlled
by the IT department. GDPR <fx: shrouds waving> and all that.

>The last time I had a company phone, it was a bog-standard iPhone
>maintained by the IT department. Everything was Apple default apps. But,
>y'know, that's fine. I'm not an Apple fanboi; I prefer Android on a
>phone. But there was nothing that I needed to do on that phone that I
>couldn't do. Apple Mail worked fine with the company email system. Apple
>Mail opens PDFs natively, it doesn't even need to open an external app
>to view them. So it would have been fine for electronic ticketing, if
>I'd ever used it for that.

Some company phones are Android.

And we are ever more drifting away from the topic which is the
dysfunctional ticketing schemes foisted on the public (all of them) in
parallel to a massive increase in the penalty fares.
--
Roland Perry