CE, would you agree that the "Deanna Troi option" of civvies on-duty should be banned?
Pulling back to the wider topic I indicated, that said:
IMHO, a good uniform embraces a few things, not exclusively:
1. Practicality.
2. A respect for tradition.
3. Comfort/Ease of Use.
4. A certain...dashing appearance. Hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
2 may seem an unusual thing to include, but my rationale is this:
Starfleet, whatever its stated objectives, is at heart a military organization. Military units live and die (sometimes literally) on tradition - including the tradition of the uniform. (You'll notice if you look at pictures that major changes to military uniforms happen rarely; in the US, the uniform of the Army hardly changed much between the Revolution and the Civil War...Then hardly changed until World War I forced changes.) It's one reason I so...dislike most Trek uniforms: They show no respect for tradition, in addition to badly failing on other measures.
Now, more detailed:
On point 1:
Pockets. Are. Mandatory. For any uniform meant to be worn on regular duty, anyhow. Failure to include pockets fails the uniform in terms of practicality.
Similarly, nametags/namestrips. There are sometimes good reasons for removing these in certain situations, but as a rule - they're present on uniforms for good reason.
On point 2:
I'm always a fan of establishing a lineage to uniforms over time - it's really the rare uniform which doesn't descend at least in part from older uniforms. Trek fails in this immediately - just look at the difference between TOS-era and TNG-and-later uniforms. You can't tell they come from the same organization.
I don't think this means being a hostage to contemporary, RL uniforms and insignia - but a few nods here and there are not a bad thing.
On point 3:
Kind of self-explanatory. Besides the ENT uniforms, I'm not sure of any Trek uniform that's really passed this test.
On point 4:
As noted, this is hard to define. But I heartily disagree with making Trek uniforms look sexy (see the female uniforms over the series...), for example: Uniforms, in particular military uniforms, are inherently conservative things. Especially in a liberal society heavy on self-expression, they're meant to set the wearer apart from the crowd. They represent things, ideas, institutions.
That said, they shouldn't look completely staid. (If there's ever a truth, it's that a good number of people join a military because of the uniform - think about how iconic the US Marine Dress Blues are.) Little touches help, more than can be realized at first, define an appearance: Think about the difference, now that we mention it, between the vibe given off by the classic officer's cap versus the one given off by a beret. Or, for that matter, a ballcap.
...Okay, I realize I've babbled a bit long. Hopefully, this all makes sense.
Pulling back to the wider topic I indicated, that said:
IMHO, a good uniform embraces a few things, not exclusively:
1. Practicality.
2. A respect for tradition.
3. Comfort/Ease of Use.
4. A certain...dashing appearance. Hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
2 may seem an unusual thing to include, but my rationale is this:
Starfleet, whatever its stated objectives, is at heart a military organization. Military units live and die (sometimes literally) on tradition - including the tradition of the uniform. (You'll notice if you look at pictures that major changes to military uniforms happen rarely; in the US, the uniform of the Army hardly changed much between the Revolution and the Civil War...Then hardly changed until World War I forced changes.) It's one reason I so...dislike most Trek uniforms: They show no respect for tradition, in addition to badly failing on other measures.
Now, more detailed:
On point 1:
Pockets. Are. Mandatory. For any uniform meant to be worn on regular duty, anyhow. Failure to include pockets fails the uniform in terms of practicality.
Similarly, nametags/namestrips. There are sometimes good reasons for removing these in certain situations, but as a rule - they're present on uniforms for good reason.
On point 2:
I'm always a fan of establishing a lineage to uniforms over time - it's really the rare uniform which doesn't descend at least in part from older uniforms. Trek fails in this immediately - just look at the difference between TOS-era and TNG-and-later uniforms. You can't tell they come from the same organization.
I don't think this means being a hostage to contemporary, RL uniforms and insignia - but a few nods here and there are not a bad thing.
On point 3:
Kind of self-explanatory. Besides the ENT uniforms, I'm not sure of any Trek uniform that's really passed this test.
On point 4:
As noted, this is hard to define. But I heartily disagree with making Trek uniforms look sexy (see the female uniforms over the series...), for example: Uniforms, in particular military uniforms, are inherently conservative things. Especially in a liberal society heavy on self-expression, they're meant to set the wearer apart from the crowd. They represent things, ideas, institutions.
That said, they shouldn't look completely staid. (If there's ever a truth, it's that a good number of people join a military because of the uniform - think about how iconic the US Marine Dress Blues are.) Little touches help, more than can be realized at first, define an appearance: Think about the difference, now that we mention it, between the vibe given off by the classic officer's cap versus the one given off by a beret. Or, for that matter, a ballcap.
...Okay, I realize I've babbled a bit long. Hopefully, this all makes sense.
