![]() |
A simpler phone? - Printable Version +- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com) +-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Thread: A simpler phone? (/showthread.php?tid=232065) |
Re: A simpler phone? - Robert M - 09-09-2019 MrBigstuff, In looking at the phones in Ombligo's link and similar models including flip phones, it seems to me for an adult who needs a barebones, basic, easy to use phoneI'd choose the Lightphone over all of them. The interface of the lightphone looks like the easiest of the bunch for usability and navigation. And, yes, even a basic candybar or flip phone can be difficult for many adults, especially senior citizens. The huge fatal flaw in The Light Phone is the price. At $350 plus shipping and handling, it's _way_ too expensive. If I wanted a barebones, basic phone, I'd in all likelihood choose one of its competitors just on price alone. I can't imagine many senior citizens buying it either. Maybe a member of the family might buy it for them but that's about it. Robert Re: A simpler phone? - hal - 09-09-2019 mrbigstuff wrote: no it isn't - I'm going nuts trying to find a phone that my mom can operate. Any flip phone is confusing in their own ways to mom. I seriously might get her an old rotary phone - she knows how to operate THAT. You mean to say that she can't flip it open and dial a number? Because it really is as easy as that. In fact, you can program those phones for her so that long-pressing a particular button will dial a programmed number, something that I miss tremendously on a "smartphone." sometimes she can - sometimes she forgets which button to push to 'send' the call. Sometimes she stares at an array of buttons and just gives up. With an old rotary phone, you pick it up, listen for a dial tone, if you heard one, you start dialing. This is still the 'easiest' phone to operate. 'long pressing' a number might work if you remember that long pressing does something that short pressing doesn't AND you remember the what the button was programmed to do. We do things like this and write up VERY specific instructions - she losses them. I'm seeing challenges that I never though could happen. Re: A simpler phone? - mrbigstuff - 09-09-2019 Ah, I see, there are some cognitive issues. For those situations,I am guessing a super simple handset other than a "screen" phone would be best. I'd skip the rotary phone and at least go for "touch tone." Re: A simpler phone? - Robert M - 09-09-2019 Mrbig, Maybe for Hal's mom but not in the case of many people. Sometimes, they just want a basic phone that works. No bells and whistles. Just super easy to navigate, configure and use. I remember the days when I had phones like the ones in Ombligo's links and even they were unnecessarily complex and annoying to use at times. Robert Re: A simpler phone? - mrlynn - 09-09-2019 Can she operate an old standard desktop landline phone with buttons? If so, she could probably handle the Jitterbug or other similar basic cell phones. If not, a rotary land-line phone may be the best option. Also an alert button she can wear on her wrist or as a necklace may be called for. /Mr Lynn Re: A simpler phone? - mrbigstuff - 09-09-2019 Can one even use a rotary phone now? But a push button phone should work well (remember getting a bill for "touch tone" service? What a load.) Re: A simpler phone? - mrlynn - 09-10-2019 mrbigstuff wrote: If you still have a POTS copper line, the rotary phone should work—I think. Our 'land line' was incorporated into RCN's digital modem, and dialing doesn't work. (td) /Mr Lynn Re: A simpler phone? - hal - 09-10-2019 mrlynn wrote: She has a jitterbug and can make calls (it has a 'dial tone!'), but she can not operate the other functions such as the address book. And getting all 10 digits correct when dialing is a bit of a challenge. Re: A simpler phone? - hal - 09-10-2019 I'm pretty sure that rotary does not work any more anywhere. Re: A simpler phone? - mrlynn - 09-10-2019 hal wrote: Not even on existing POTS copper lines? /Mr Lynn |