I have thoroughly tested the Polycom Phonebook provisioning feature in V8 it's very very good but I have a couple of additional enhancement requests:
At present the extensions added to the system are automatically added to the 000000000000-directory.xml file. After responding to my previous thread, 3CX are going to integrate the ability to stipulate if the extension gets added automatically or not (thanks guys!), but in addition to this feature it would be useful if you could also allow the administrator the ability to turn off extensions being assigned a speed dial position.
Even better would be the ability to specify a speed dial position and even better would be the ability to do it on a phone by phone basis.
Allow me to elaborate:
As far as I can see, as things stand each extension added to the system gets a speed dial location based on alphabetical order based on first name. This means that if I provision an IP330, along with its own extn showing on the phone screen, above it, it will show a speed dial entry for the first user in the corp directory, likewise if I configure an IP550, the 3 buttons directly below the users extn show the first 3 entries in the corp directory as speed dials, the same for a IP650 but with 5 speed dials for the first 5 entries. This is not desired behaviour.
I would like the ability to specify on a phone by phone basis which speed dials are provisioned (if any at all).
For example: Sales teams with IP550s would get their first speed dial button configured as *20*+Sales Ring Group extn to give them a single button press to answer their colleagues ringing phones.
It would also be nice if we could enter a phone number for speed dial in a free form number format via the web interface rather than choosing from a drop down list (like with BLFs). That way we can do things like configure the CEO's wifes mobile phone as a speed dial automatically for his/her phone.
Is this possible - I would imagine that it's very similar to whats already in place for BLF functionality for Polycoms so hopefully shouldnt be too difficult to implement?
Paul

