Late 23rd Century Control Panel UI

[DSG2k]

Soooo . . . I've basically been utterly p0rning out on control panels for a little while, with about 800 of my 2500 images being Star Trek control panels, heavily leaning on the 3-D bridge models at Roddenberry.x.io.

These are an amazing resource, even if they slip Futura onto TOS control panels and displays where Gorton and another typeface were actually used. It's made me realize that I really dig the original TMP consoles in a way I never did before.

That said, for Star Trek IV's introduction of the Enterprise-A, the console structure was retained but the actual control panels were replaced with O.G. Mk. I Okudagrams. For nomenclature's sake, I refer to this as the 2280 standard versus the TMP 2270 standard:

The 2280 standard is the blue/white oval button type, and it features green monochrome dynamic display areas. There are various other unique aspects to this style, such as the buttons that occur on the borders separating different areas . . . I tend to assume those are mode switch buttons, but that's mere supposition.

For Star Trek V, the bridge was re-done completely, and now featured large black panels reminiscent of the original Excelsior bridge from Star Trek III, but with a much different interface style I refer to as the 2290 standard (though obviously appearing at least slightly earlier):

Most of the white coloration is gone in favor of a strong blue-green palette. Almost gone completely are oval-shaped buttons, with somewhat boring rounded squares (squircles ... literally the real word for that) supplanting them.

I'd assumed that the blue/white oval style went away fairly quickly, but was surprised to realize that the Stargazer, NCC-2893, which featured the movie helm console, was complete with some remaining blue/white oval controls.

Even on a dimly lit rounded prism bridge console that Data used to pull up the final log on some godawful UI, the control panel itself was a reuse of the ST4 style.

As far as I recall, the earliest appearance of the 2290 standard is actually 2278 with the Bozeman, but I prefer to think that's a little too early. That said, I'm still working on a little survey of the timeline of late-TMP era control panels showing up in Trek, e.g. the Hathaway, Bozeman, et cetera. It's also interesting to me that the Enterprise-C featured a weird return of the ovals, apparently silkscreened on its lower console surface, even after ST5 had changed the game. I'm not sure why that is.

All that said, it seems that the original Okudagrams and the late-TMP-era version must have existed for awhile side-by-side. Certainly there wasn't a lot of change of Starfleet UI for decades, and while most ships seemed to get the 2290 standard it appears that it wasn't swapped out on some ships that apparently never got much in the way of upgrades, like the Stargazer.

(Personally, I actually prefer the ovoid 2280 standard, but I find that both rather nerfed the information available to the user compared to what came before. The TMP control panels gave information by color and button shape, whereas the later touchscreen stuff with its limited palette was basically monochromatic by comparison.)

Thoughts?

 

[Blip]

It's worth noting that STIV also featured some transitional background graphics on the Saratoga bridge consoles, both in terms of style and color, and likewise Spacedock control too had some briefly appear.

If you check out @Redgeneral 's archive site there are some photos in there, as I recall - though admittedly you have to zoom in, squint, and then compare to the existing TWOK era consoles to tell the difference!

EDIT: ah, actually no I think only some surviving examples of the Spacedock graphics are in there. Trekcore will have caps of the Saratoga interior, with existing graphics interspersed with new transitional ones and some initial "touch sensitive" interfaces.

 

[Blip]

(at a guess, some of the older controls getting switched out for touch interfaces on the Saratoga was because of wear and tear... The new panels do appear to generally strive to be similar to what was there before)

 

[DSG2k]

Yep, reference to the Saratoga's Okuda bits got dropped in the edit. It's part of why I didn't feel bad labeling the ST4 bridge style as the 2280 standard, since it (or elements of it) apparently predated ST4 to some extent.

The reason I dropped it in the edit is that I didn't want to go into yet another digression (I already had so many). See, even the Saratoga's Okudagrams are better than the Enterprise-A's Okudagrams . . . they're in color, to match the rest of the 2270 style bridge.

 

[blssdwlf]

It seems like there were lots of experimentation going on in Star Fleet during that time as the Enterprise-A in "The Undiscovered Country" mixed back in physical switches and sliders along with the touchscreen displays. Perhaps for a while the all-glass-instrumentation proved unreliable resulting in older controls for a while until the kinks were worked out?

 

[Blip]

Yep, reference to the Saratoga's Okuda bits got dropped in the edit. It's part of why I didn't feel bad labeling the ST4 bridge style as the 2280 standard, since it (or elements of it) apparently predated ST4 to some extent.

The reason I dropped it in the edit is that I didn't want to go into yet another digression (I already had so many). See, even the Saratoga's Okudagrams are better than the Enterprise-A's Okudagrams . . . they're in color, to match the rest of the 2270 style bridge.

TBH I also feel that this look works far, far better as a direct descendent of what we got in TOS, than the often dated looking interfaces of TMP-TSFS. My own headcanon all but does away with those

It seems like there were lots of experimentation going on in Star Fleet during that time as the Enterprise-A in "The Undiscovered Country" mixed back in physical switches and sliders along with the touchscreen displays. Perhaps for a while the all-glass-instrumentation proved unreliable resulting in older controls for a while until the kinks were worked out?

I agree that there was probably quite a bit of transitional / incremental change in the fleet from the mid 2280s to mid 2290s, with vessels implementing changes to varying degrees based on their refit cycles. After that a definitive style was then deployed fleetwide with all the bugs ironed out, and used for the next 20-30yrs.

I also suspect that the s1 TNG style of most LCARS had already been in play for roughly a decade or so prior to EAF, with a Okudagram-LCARS transitional interface in use before that, circa 2340-2350. If the Ent-C didn't evidence any sign of it, well that's because she was due for her first major refit until she was sadly obliterated.

 

[DSG2k]

It seems like there were lots of experimentation going on in Star Fleet during that time as the Enterprise-A in "The Undiscovered Country" mixed back in physical switches and sliders along with the touchscreen displays. Perhaps for a while the all-glass-instrumentation proved unreliable resulting in older controls for a while until the kinks were worked out?

Just like now, there is a push to make everything a touch screen even as there is pushback against it. Touchscreens look great and are simple to manufacture but the loss of tactile interface -- physical buttons and dedicated controls -- doesn't work as well for us. We lose a source of sensory feedback that enables eye-free operation of controls and 'muscle memory'.

I tend to imagine that LCARS panels allowed for at least some tactile overlay insofar as texture . . . perhaps the early versions here did not, thus inspiring a return of buttons before the problem got worked out? Of course, I would prefer not to think that all of these modern issues were having to be addressed all over again in the future, not to mention the notion that all the kinks were not necessarily worked out before deployment.

(Not to mention, I've also noted previously that updating the TOS control panels with gee-whiz-ism for modern audiences is as simple as making them as reconfigurable as LCARS by having the buttons basically be live 3-D prints of controls . . . that is to say, you hit a button to switch modes and unnecessary buttons appear to molecularly disassemble into the console and new buttons show up, not by matter-energy replication but just nanotech.

Boom, those TOS plastic switches and jelly bean physical buttons now look like space magic even when just sitting there.)

The TMP bridges (the 2270 standard) did feature some buttons and switches alongside what seemed to be touchscreen controls . . . that's part of the reason why I like that look.

 

[Blip]

I too prefer a mix of physical and touch controls for that era - though the graphics in TMP largely do not make much logical sense (nor appeal aesthetically) to me.

 

[DSG2k]

TBH I also feel that this look works far, far better as a direct descendent of what we got in TOS, than the often dated looking interfaces of TMP-TSFS. My own headcanon all but does away with those

The bottom half of that is the TMP interface . . . and the more I've gazed at it (as part of my background-cycling program and screensaver), the more I've appreciated it. If anything, it looks more advanced and realistic to me than Okudagrams.

Note, for instance, how different buttons and controls have different shapes and colors compared to having a vast field of blue-green squircles. I don't think that's sloppy or accidental . . . there's potential information there.

Take a look, for instance, at a marvelous article at interactionmagic.com where the author gives a great primer on user interfaces and avoidable pitfalls, including this gem of an image:

Touchscreens can technically provide variations in size, shape, color, and position, but they'll all have to have eyes laid on them to confirm where you are and what you're pressing unless you get a little bit of texture shift on a special sci-fi touchscreen. Ideally, as with typing, you shouldn't have to lay eyes on the controls for most needs.

If texture isn't a thing, then -- if all you get is a field of blue-green squircles of identical size -- you've abandoned everything but position.

I submit that the TMP interfaces are vastly superior. Indeed, even just having separated smaller panels instead of one big glass board gives you touch-based positional information.

I also suspect that the s1 TNG style of most LCARS had already been in play for roughly a decade or so prior to EAF, with a Okudagram-LCARS transitional interface in use before that, circa 2340-2350. If the Ent-C didn't evidence any sign of it, well that's because she was due for her first major refit until she was sadly obliterated.

The update situation is inconsistent. The Hathaway was a decommissioned ship (decommission date unknown as far as I'm aware) yet had a rounded prism console that featured LCARS on the right half and a 2290-standard tactical display on the left when displaying the Kumeh Maneuver. Meanwhile, the Stargazer (despite having a higher NCC and having been in active service nine years before TNG1) didn't seem to have updated controls at all.

Perhaps the issue with the 2280 Standard was that, for whatever reason, it couldn't be updated without console hardware swap? But, that would leave the various ships with 2290-standard blue-green squircles in the TNG era a mystery.

 

[B.J.]

I tend to imagine that LCARS panels allowed for at least some tactile overlay insofar as texture

We pretty much did get confirmation of that in VOY Year of Hell where Tuvok goes blind.

 

[blssdwlf]

The update situation is inconsistent. The Hathaway was a decommissioned ship (decommission date unknown as far as I'm aware) yet had a rounded prism console that featured LCARS on the right half and a 2290-standard tactical display on the left when displaying the Kumeh Maneuver. Meanwhile, the Stargazer (despite having a higher NCC and having been in active service nine years before TNG1) didn't seem to have updated controls at all.

IIRC, Riker's crew had 48 hours to get Hathaway ready for the wargame so it is possible that they could have brought over some modern LCARS to integrate with the older systems. Also Hathaway could've had some newer items added before decommissioning and stripping of parts...

 

[DSG2k]

It was also marked as the tactical console, so I guess it's possible some sort of "Wargame OS" was hacked in at some point . . . though presumably not before the 48 hours, since there were three dusty blankets covering three bridge items . . . the XO chair, the Communications rounded prism console, and that one.

 

[Blip]

Coulda uploaded that via the main computer core or any number of other locations tbf; there's no reason it has to be done on the bridge

 

[DSG2k]

Coulda uploaded that via the main computer core or any number of other locations tbf; there's no reason it has to be done on the bridge

While that should be true, there seems to have been some difficulty insofar as upgrading console appearance. Off the top of my head, the Raven was the first vessel observed with her too-modern rendition of LCARS, suggesting it should date back to 2347 and was thus a 15 year old user interface by the time of the Enterprise-D's construction. While it was seen to have been retrofitted onto various vessels that were much older, the Stargazer and other ships that hadn't been updated (though I need to review this idea for other members of the set) is interesting.

 

[Unicron]

I'm in the same mixed boat myself, when it comes to touchscreens vs physical keyboards. As a kid watching TNG growing up (along with TOS and every later Trek series), I always liked the 80s-future control panels on the D. But I feel like physical controls have advantages as well, because you can train muscle memory on a QWERTY keyboard and make it far easier to type quickly. Tactile control is an essential aspect of human function, and being able to feel a physical control (especially in an emergency) can be really useful.

 

[DSG2k]

I'm in the same mixed boat myself, when it comes to touchscreens vs physical keyboards. As a kid watching TNG growing up (along with TOS and every later Trek series), I always liked the 80s-future control panels on the D. But I feel like physical controls have advantages as well, because you can train muscle memory on a QWERTY keyboard and make it far easier to type quickly. Tactile control is an essential aspect of human function, and being able to feel a physical control (especially in an emergency) can be really useful.

This was my thinking 100% until today. While it's still my thinking, generally, there is the disturbing possibility of improper use of muscle memory. To be sure, anyone can have a mental glitch moment, but I (a non-pilot) have had moments of, for example, typing the wrong machine's password into another machine, or repeating some repetitive motion like a mouse move and click but at the wrong moment, missing a turn because I'm on 'autopilot' and going some normal path instead of the intended one, et cetera.

However, the current news from India is that one of the pilots of Air India flight AI171 executed a fuel cutoff procedure. Airplanes (other than the new Boom supersonic aircraft) are absolutely loaded with physical controls, still. In the case of the 787, fuel cutoff involves pulling a switch/knob up/out, moving it down to the cutoff position, then releasing it . . . typically an end-of-flight move. It's not possible to just bump it to 'off' if it is locked into the 'on' position, and there are additional metal wings to the side to further prevent bumping anyway. Logs indicate one of the pilots cut off both engines' fuel within a second of each other just as the aircraft rotated its nose upward for takeoff, causing both engines to shut down. The other pilot reportedly asked him why he'd cut off the fuel, and the other fellow said he hadn't done it.

While there are several possible explanations, from suicide/terror to some mechanical defect or setting error that allowed the switch to be 'on' but not locked in to the 'on' position, allowing takeoff g-forces to turn the switches off (not sure if that's possible yet), there is the horrifying possibility that one of the pilots was intending to do something benign and normal but instead performed the wrong muscle-memory maneuver without even realizing it. If true, the only solution to that would be to move the controls further from the other systems.

I suppose such a muscle-memory error possibility isn't limited to physical controls . . . probably the same thing can happen on touchscreens, though I suspect it is a little harder. I carry two touchscreen devices, for instance, and while I do have distinct access systems (one needs a numeric code, the other a swiping pattern), I'm pretty sure I've tried to swipe or do digits on the wrong one at least a couple of times, but that's over the course of years.

Anyway, just a thought.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

However, the current news from India is that one of the pilots of Air India flight AI171 executed a fuel cutoff procedure. Airplanes (other than the new Boom supersonic aircraft) are absolutely loaded with physical controls, still. In the case of the 787, fuel cutoff involves pulling a switch/knob up/out, moving it down to the cutoff position, then releasing it . . . typically an end-of-flight move. It's not possible to just bump it to 'off' if it is locked into the 'on' position, and there are additional metal wings to the side to further prevent bumping anyway. Logs indicate one of the pilots cut off both engines' fuel within a second of each other just as the aircraft rotated its nose upward for takeoff, causing both engines to shut down. The other pilot reportedly asked him why he'd cut off the fuel, and the other fellow said he hadn't done it.

There might be some seriously bad/dangerous UX design.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/11/india/air-india-crash-report-intl-latam

The Fuel Cut-off only has 2x Protective Metal Flanges on the side, but no protective Red Covering to prevent accidental triggering from Top or bottom.

That might be a new Fleet wide UX-change that requires the Protective Red Covering to be placed on each switch.

Especially since the Fuel cut-off is right UnderNeath the engine throttle.

I can see how either the Pilot/Co-Pilot might've accidentally flipped it and not noticed.

 

[DSG2k]

That might be a new Fleet wide UX-change that requires the Protective Red Covering to be placed on each switch.

Such a cover would be in addition to the motion required to flip it . . . it's not a light-switch. You must grasp it, pull it, and only then can you move it. I'd figure if you're gonna have a muscle-memory error bad enough to grasp, pull, and shove that downward, then a cover is just an extra step.

I'm still thinking something like that should be far away from other things. I mean, yes, there's an argument for having all the engine-y controls in one spot, but if you're sticking with that idea then that one should be the absolute worst to get to.

 

[blssdwlf]

Such a cover would be in addition to the motion required to flip it . . . it's not a light-switch. You must grasp it, pull it, and only then can you move it. I'd figure if you're gonna have a muscle-memory error bad enough to grasp, pull, and shove that downward, then a cover is just an extra step.

I'm still thinking something like that should be far away from other things. I mean, yes, there's an argument for having all the engine-y controls in one spot, but if you're sticking with that idea then that one should be the absolute worst to get to.

Unless the fuel switch cutoff's safety was defective or not fully locked. Considering the cabin voices didn't outright have someone claim responsibility leaves room for a mechanical defect (like hand smacking the switches or vibration knocking them into the cutoff position) instead of pilot error.

As far as touch screens go, you can fall into a similar trap of using muscle memory and messing something up if you are ahead or behind the UI. You pressed on what your muscle remembers as X but the UI pops up Y and you select that by accident.

However in TOS those physical controls were not always simple push buttons or touch to activate as we've seen the crew treat the candy jewels like a Trackpoint or knob.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Such a cover would be in addition to the motion required to flip it . . . it's not a light-switch. You must grasp it, pull it, and only then can you move it. I'd figure if you're gonna have a muscle-memory error bad enough to grasp, pull, and shove that downward, then a cover is just an extra step.

I'm still thinking something like that should be far away from other things. I mean, yes, there's an argument for having all the engine-y controls in one spot, but if you're sticking with that idea then that one should be the absolute worst to get to.

It might be harder to get FAA approval for moving the button since that would affect training & type certification.

Having the Protective Red Cover would be the easiest thing to get approved by the FAA.

At worse that would be a STC, which is easier to get approved.