SPY PHOTOS at AICN

[number6]

I'm not going to speculate about what technology will be like 100-300 years into the future. Who's to say that some kind of tactile interface would preclude only levers and not touch screens? In my field touchscreens are becoming more common and more efficient. Touchscreens coexist with buttons and levers. It's more or less an established fact of life and it will only become moreso in my lifetime.
I think it's arrogant presumption to simply assume and insist that something that is (or isn't) common place in today's military simply has to be the way it is in the future of Star Trek. I, for one, hope that we can get beyond current technology and have something a little sleeker and functional to work with 100+ years from now. Look at how much modern transportation technology and telecommunications tech has progressed in the last 100 years? I would hope that we would progress even more that far into the future.


It's not about taking cheap shots. I think it's not only presumptuous but insulting to have someone constantly lecture me in a patronizing and condescending manner about how it's going to be and dogmatically insist that his way is the only way. It. Is. Fiction. Lighten up, Francis.

 

[pookha]

[
Touch pads are great for certain situations... because they are CHEAP and because they are space-efficient. But my point about the abject failure of "flat keyboards" for computers is undeniable. Yes, you can use touch-screens for kiosks... but you'll never see the same technology used in aircraft MFD panels!

can you be sure of that in 20 years, fifty years.
as the technology improves wouldnt that also increase the level of reliablity.

this is the quibble i have with your arguement.

and even now switches can fail out right or short circuit.

 

[FordSVT]

I'd point out that, while not "canon", the TNG Tech Manual states that the LCARS touch panels provide a tactile feedback to the user and are fully configurable, something that would be much less flexible with fixed switches and buttons. This is reinforced by descriptions from several Trek novels I've read. While the set props were obviously static, back-lit cut-outs, they were not intended to be by the designers. That's not an argument against the point, the dilithium chamber doesn't really mix M/AM either.

Sort of negates some of Cary L Brown's points yes?

Why, yes, that's exactly why all of our mission-critical hardware in aviation uses touch-pads for the controls...

Oh, right, I forgot... they don't. They don't for exactly the reasons I stated. Nothing I said was "negated."

Touch pads are great for certain situations... because they are CHEAP and because they are space-efficient. But my point about the abject failure of "flat keyboards" for computers is undeniable. Yes, you can use touch-screens for kiosks... but you'll never see the same technology used in aircraft MFD panels.

It's not a huge problem for you to have to stare at the screen at the airport checkin line and touch the screen repeatedly 'til the marginally-functional light-matrix grid on top of that display actually registers that your finger was there. You have the TIME to deal with the limitations of technology.

It's CHEAP. Do you HONESTLY think that the airlines chose it because it's "better technology" or that its more "error-free?" Nope, they chose it because it's inexpensive to buy and inexpensive to maintain. And they don't care if you (the traveler) have to struggle a tiny bit more in order to accomplish the same thing on that which you might accomplish a little more effectively with a physical control pad. And you, as the traveller, can afford to spend that extra little bit of concentration in order to make it work.

A fighter pilot, a space shuttle pilot... ANYONE who's involved in activities which require split-second error-free actions... is not going to want to use something like a touch-panel.

C'mon, guys... I know that a few of you (#6?) just wanna take cheap shots at me because I'm not in your club, but seriously... try to address the issues I've raised if you're going to try to argue against my points. I never denied that touch panels are in use, or that they're going to go away. Only that in situations where accuracy or reaction time are important, they have proven to be abject failures. Their advantage is solely that they're dirt-cheap. And that's not a MINOR advantage in the modern world.

But I'd sure hope that the Enterprise's control panels wouldn't be build by the lowest bidder without regard for their usability!

Why do you insist on imposing the 21st century limitations of a technology to a fictional 24th century? By extension, why do you think such technologies remain stagnant, even though even today's touch screen technology is 10X more accurate and usable and available in far more applications than a couple of decades ago?

And why are you so belligerent when talking about such trivial things? You actually seem to be getting upset and you keep saying that you are in fact right, when all we are saying is that you could be wrong in 300 years. You've done the same thing in the ST11 forum.

It's a TV show man!

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Why do you insist on imposing the 21st century limitations of a technology to a fictional 24th century

Because it's a fictional story told to audiences living in the real world of today? Because the basic mechanics of why things work and why they don't, in terms of ERGONOMICS, is unlikely to change unless someone redesigns the human body and the human brain (essentially making whatever you have no longer recognizably human)? Because logic isn't time-based, and because technology isn't about coming up with entirely new ideas (everything new is simply an outgrowth or extension of what's already known)?

We don't reinvent reality every so often. We do discover little niches of reality which we haven't seen before, but as a very general rule, these bits of information don't negate the things we already know. Yes, we may discover something like "subspace" or "rapid nadion effects" or learn how to manipulate gravity... in fact, I think it's inevitable that we will... but that will not, for example, change the fact that we live in a real world with real physics that are already well-understood and will not change.

Science is less about revolutions than it is about evolutions.

The basics of ergonomics aren't likely to change any time soon. If you can work a control panel purely by feel (as I'm doing as I type this), you are going to be far more efficient than if you have to look for each key before pressing it. If you are concerned about the potentially severe consequences of making mistakes ("Oops, sorry, I didn't MEAN to eject my warp core just then... damned touchpad control screen!") then having something that requires a bit of physical effort... ie, a stiff button, knob, switch or dial... but is still able to be operated purely by sense of touch... will always be preferable.

What we can do with our limited human perceptions... touch, taste, smell, vision, hearing... limits how we can interface with our machinery. Unless you want to argue that in the 23rd or 24th century we'll have effectively "borgified" ourselves (which may be what actually happens, but is NOT what happens in the Trek future we're discussing).

By extension, why do you think such technologies remain stagnant, even though even today's touch screen technology is 10X more accurate and usable and available in far more applications than a couple of decades ago?

You're totally missing the point... and it seems you're missing it to be obtuse rather than because you don't get it.

So let me spell it out in totally unambigous and unmistakable terms.

IF YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL IT, IT IS LESS USEFUL THAN IF YOU CAN OPERATE IT WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT.

IF YOU CAN EASILY MAKE A MISTAKE... ESPECIALLY A CRITICAL ONE AT A CRITICAL TIME... IT IS LESS USEFUL THAN A DEVICE WHICH PRECLUDES THAT.

Touch pad fail on both of those counts.

Can you create a "forcefield button" which can be felt just like a real button, or a self-reconforming "joystick" which alters its shape and functionality to meet the needs of the moment? Sure... but those aren't TOUCHSCREENS, are they? They're buttons, and knobs, and levers, and sticks... and we're back to the argument I'm making, which is that TOUCHPADS (flat panels where the buttons are simply displayed, or even just printed, without any tactile interaction) is less effective as a control scheme and less reliable and accurate. The reason it's used as much as it is, is because it's CHEAPER.

Make it "forcefield configurable button panels" and we're not talking about a touchscreen anymore. You're projecting "physical" buttons which are essentially the same thing I'm arguing in favor of.

And why are you so belligerent when talking about such trivial things? You actually seem to be getting upset and you keep saying that you are in fact right, when all we are saying is that you could be wrong in 300 years. You've done the same thing in the ST11 forum.

It's a TV show man!

I'm not beligerent. I'm the one who'se been directly, personally attacked.

The only thing I said that MIGHT be taken as "hostile"... and then, only by someone who clearly is the one who DOESN'T get the point you just tried to make... was when I pointed out that the arguments in favor of "touchpads being more advanced than physical controls" is based upon, not REALITY, or upon any logical argument, but rather upon a PRODUCTION COST-CUTTING MEASURE FOR A TV SHOW.

The "Okudagram controls" on TNG were masterful because they gave displays that looked good for nearly no money. Do some work in Adobe Illustrator, print it off onto transparency material, stick it between a couple of sheets of plexiglass... and voila, instant (and dirt-cheap) control panel!"

Because they were seen so universally throughout TNG-era shows, some folks seem to have concluded that they're BETTER, that they represent more advanced technology, that physical controls are "archaic." But that's not true... not at all.

I full expect to see "touch controls" used for the foreseeable future. I've designed control pads using this technology, and it's entirely appropriate for, say, a microwave, or a washing machine. But I'd never put something like this into the cockpit of a car, because the driver NEEDS to be watching the road and not the radio's display screen if he decides to change channels! So you create controls which meet the constraints I've stated... tactile identification and significant force required to operate to avoid mis-operation.

I NEVER expect to see the flight-control elements of helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft, or of spacecraft for that matter, to be touch-panels. But I can easily see touch-panels used in non-mission-critical applications throughout both (say, a touch-panel "in-flight entertainment" device on the back of the seat in front of you in the passenger section).

This is not HOSTILITY. I'm the one being attacked, PERSONALLY, by people who are being PERSONALLY HOSTILE. Show me anyplace where I've personally attacked anyone in this thread. Seriously... Show me where I said "well, screw you FordSVT, you're an idiot and don't know what you're talking about." I haven't said that, because I haven't MEANT that. I haven't attacked ANYONE. There's been ZERO BELLIGERENCE on my side of the conversation.

Oh, and I think you're a bit confused... when you said that "you've done the same thing in the ST-XI forum?"

 

[Balthier the Great]

Well, I think it depends mostly on the function that you want the touch screen for. I think for things like steering the ship, it's much more intuitive to use a joypad or a steering wheel. It's more precise to move your hand in a direction and have the ship go there.

Where touchpad really shine is when you have a more dynamic system -- lots of differnt menus all accessed from the same workstation. So it would work well for automated fixes in engineering perhaps, but I wouldn't want to control my ship that way. It might also be a good way to remotely access a probe.

For a system that doesn't change often good old buttons just work better, especially when you have something that you hope you never have to use. It should be almost impossible to accidentally launch a nuke or eject the warp core. I'd make that a physical button that's housed under a locked box that needs a key to open. That way, you don't eject the core without being damned sure about it.

 

[Gepard]

And why are you so belligerent when talking about such trivial things? You actually seem to be getting upset and you keep saying that you are in fact right, when all we are saying is that you could be wrong in 300 years. You've done the same thing in the ST11 forum.

It's a TV show man!

I'm not beligerent. I'm the one who'se been directly, personally attacked.

The only thing I said that MIGHT be taken as "hostile"... and then, only by someone who clearly is the one who DOESN'T get the point you just tried to make... was when I pointed out that the arguments in favor of "touchpads being more advanced than physical controls" is based upon, not REALITY, or upon any logical argument, but rather upon a PRODUCTION COST-CUTTING MEASURE FOR A TV SHOW.
....
This is not HOSTILITY. I'm the one being attacked, PERSONALLY, by people who are being PERSONALLY HOSTILE. Show me anyplace where I've personally attacked anyone in this thread. Seriously... Show me where I said "well, screw you FordSVT, you're an idiot and don't know what you're talking about." I haven't said that, because I haven't MEANT that. I haven't attacked ANYONE. There's been ZERO BELLIGERENCE on my side of the conversation.

Ow. All those pointy capital letters jabbed me in the eye.

 

[M'Sharak]

And why are you so belligerent when talking about such trivial things? You actually seem to be getting upset and you keep saying that you are in fact right, when all we are saying is that you could be wrong in 300 years. You've done the same thing in the ST11 forum.

It's a TV show man!

I'm not beligerent. I'm the one who'se been directly, personally attacked.

The only thing I said that MIGHT be taken as "hostile"... and then, only by someone who clearly is the one who DOESN'T get the point you just tried to make... was when I pointed out that the arguments in favor of "touchpads being more advanced than physical controls" is based upon, not REALITY, or upon any logical argument, but rather upon a PRODUCTION COST-CUTTING MEASURE FOR A TV SHOW.
....
This is not HOSTILITY. I'm the one being attacked, PERSONALLY, by people who are being PERSONALLY HOSTILE. Show me anyplace where I've personally attacked anyone in this thread. Seriously... Show me where I said "well, screw you FordSVT, you're an idiot and don't know what you're talking about." I haven't said that, because I haven't MEANT that. I haven't attacked ANYONE. There's been ZERO BELLIGERENCE on my side of the conversation.

Ow. All those pointy capital letters jabbed me in the eye.

Gep Malakai does have a point there, Cary.

While I'd stop short of labeling it belligerent, the regular use of ALL CAPS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS USED FOR ENTIRE SENTENCES, tends to come off as a bit shouty and should probably be avoided; it may be that which is leading to a perception of hostility. Italics, underline, or the occasional use of boldface should be adequate for most cases where emphasis of words or phrases is required.

Also, the arguments you've been making the last few pages hold up quite well by themselves, and I see no need to weaken them by making claims of being personally attacked, nor of engaging in condescension and charges of obtusity. Your points are fine. It is not, however, required that everyone agree with you, nor should a failure to agree be interpreted as an attack; they just don't agree.

Continue the discussion, but remember that it's an intellectual exercise, and not something which needs to be taken personally.

Note:

Cary may have been waxing slightly hyperbolic when he talked about a club he thought he wasn't in, but he was right about the cheap shot. That can stop now, thanks.

 

[pookha]

[The basics of ergonomics aren't likely to change any time soon. If you can work a control panel purely by feel (as I'm doing as I type this), you are going to be far more efficient than if you have to look for each key before pressing it. If you are concerned about the potentially severe consequences of making mistakes ("Oops, sorry, I didn't MEAN to eject my warp core just then... damned touchpad control screen!") then having something that requires a bit of physical effort... ie, a stiff button, knob, switch or dial... but is still able to be operated purely by sense of touch... will always be preferable.?

but didnt you memorize the location of the different keys?
i mean the touch of the keys dont tell the meaning of each unless it is braile.

and it might be wise to look at the switch for ejecting the core instead of just blindly doing it.
the swtich next to it may feel the same.

 

[RAMA]

I'd point out that, while not "canon", the TNG Tech Manual states that the LCARS touch panels provide a tactile feedback to the user and are fully configurable, something that would be much less flexible with fixed switches and buttons. This is reinforced by descriptions from several Trek novels I've read. While the set props were obviously static, back-lit cut-outs, they were not intended to be by the designers. That's not an argument against the point, the dilithium chamber doesn't really mix M/AM either.

Sort of negates some of Cary L Brown's points yes?

Why, yes, that's exactly why all of our mission-critical hardware in aviation uses touch-pads for the controls...

Oh, right, I forgot... they don't. They don't for exactly the reasons I stated. Nothing I said was "negated."

Touch pads are great for certain situations... because they are CHEAP and because they are space-efficient. But my point about the abject failure of "flat keyboards" for computers is undeniable. Yes, you can use touch-screens for kiosks... but you'll never see the same technology used in aircraft MFD panels.

It's not a huge problem for you to have to stare at the screen at the airport checkin line and touch the screen repeatedly 'til the marginally-functional light-matrix grid on top of that display actually registers that your finger was there. You have the TIME to deal with the limitations of technology.

It's CHEAP. Do you HONESTLY think that the airlines chose it because it's "better technology" or that its more "error-free?" Nope, they chose it because it's inexpensive to buy and inexpensive to maintain. And they don't care if you (the traveler) have to struggle a tiny bit more in order to accomplish the same thing on that which you might accomplish a little more effectively with a physical control pad. And you, as the traveller, can afford to spend that extra little bit of concentration in order to make it work.

A fighter pilot, a space shuttle pilot... ANYONE who's involved in activities which require split-second error-free actions... is not going to want to use something like a touch-panel.

C'mon, guys... I know that a few of you (#6?) just wanna take cheap shots at me because I'm not in your club, but seriously... try to address the issues I've raised if you're going to try to argue against my points. I never denied that touch panels are in use, or that they're going to go away. Only that in situations where accuracy or reaction time are important, they have proven to be abject failures. Their advantage is solely that they're dirt-cheap. And that's not a MINOR advantage in the modern world.

But I'd sure hope that the Enterprise's control panels wouldn't be build by the lowest bidder without regard for their usability!

Both the F-22 AND the F-35 use some touch screen displays. I believe the F-35 even more so than the F-22....

"Our F-22s took a huge first step toward becoming net-enabled in JEFX08. The pilots were sending and receiving information such as command and control messaging, imagery, airspace updates, and free text messages using a cockpit touch-screen color display," said Mark Jefferson, director of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Horizontal Integration. "They stayed pretty busy conducting offensive counter air and destruction of enemy air defenses air dominance missions as well as dynamic targeting attacks with F-16s and non-traditional ISR collection events during the exercise, while also simultaneously piping classified sensor data to the CAOC."



Kaiser Electronics' history with the Air Force and Lockheed Martin was crucial, Mr. Harris says.
"I think a big attraction was the ability to control costs by being able to build displays for both fighters," Mr. Harris says.
Though details are classified, in general the dashboard display -- called a Touch Screen Graphical User Interface -- will involve seven screens of varying sizes providing information on terrain, weather conditions, potential targets and the locations of air and land-based enemies. Information would be available with the touch of a finger.

 

[RAMA]

Why do you insist on imposing the 21st century limitations of a technology to a fictional 24th century

Because it's a fictional story told to audiences living in the real world of today? Because the basic mechanics of why things work and why they don't, in terms of ERGONOMICS, is unlikely to change unless someone redesigns the human body and the human brain (essentially making whatever you have no longer recognizably human)? Because logic isn't time-based, and because technology isn't about coming up with entirely new ideas (everything new is simply an outgrowth or extension of what's already known)?

We don't reinvent reality every so often. We do discover little niches of reality which we haven't seen before, but as a very general rule, these bits of information don't negate the things we already know. Yes, we may discover something like "subspace" or "rapid nadion effects" or learn how to manipulate gravity... in fact, I think it's inevitable that we will... but that will not, for example, change the fact that we live in a real world with real physics that are already well-understood and will not change.

Science is less about revolutions than it is about evolutions.

The basics of ergonomics aren't likely to change any time soon. If you can work a control panel purely by feel (as I'm doing as I type this), you are going to be far more efficient than if you have to look for each key before pressing it. If you are concerned about the potentially severe consequences of making mistakes ("Oops, sorry, I didn't MEAN to eject my warp core just then... damned touchpad control screen!") then having something that requires a bit of physical effort... ie, a stiff button, knob, switch or dial... but is still able to be operated purely by sense of touch... will always be preferable.

What we can do with our limited human perceptions... touch, taste, smell, vision, hearing... limits how we can interface with our machinery. Unless you want to argue that in the 23rd or 24th century we'll have effectively "borgified" ourselves (which may be what actually happens, but is NOT what happens in the Trek future we're discussing).

By extension, why do you think such technologies remain stagnant, even though even today's touch screen technology is 10X more accurate and usable and available in far more applications than a couple of decades ago?

You're totally missing the point... and it seems you're missing it to be obtuse rather than because you don't get it.

So let me spell it out in totally unambigous and unmistakable terms.

IF YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL IT, IT IS LESS USEFUL THAN IF YOU CAN OPERATE IT WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT.

IF YOU CAN EASILY MAKE A MISTAKE... ESPECIALLY A CRITICAL ONE AT A CRITICAL TIME... IT IS LESS USEFUL THAN A DEVICE WHICH PRECLUDES THAT.

Touch pad fail on both of those counts.

Can you create a "forcefield button" which can be felt just like a real button, or a self-reconforming "joystick" which alters its shape and functionality to meet the needs of the moment? Sure... but those aren't TOUCHSCREENS, are they? They're buttons, and knobs, and levers, and sticks... and we're back to the argument I'm making, which is that TOUCHPADS (flat panels where the buttons are simply displayed, or even just printed, without any tactile interaction) is less effective as a control scheme and less reliable and accurate. The reason it's used as much as it is, is because it's CHEAPER.

Make it "forcefield configurable button panels" and we're not talking about a touchscreen anymore. You're projecting "physical" buttons which are essentially the same thing I'm arguing in favor of.

And why are you so belligerent when talking about such trivial things? You actually seem to be getting upset and you keep saying that you are in fact right, when all we are saying is that you could be wrong in 300 years. You've done the same thing in the ST11 forum.

It's a TV show man!

I'm not beligerent. I'm the one who'se been directly, personally attacked.

The only thing I said that MIGHT be taken as "hostile"... and then, only by someone who clearly is the one who DOESN'T get the point you just tried to make... was when I pointed out that the arguments in favor of "touchpads being more advanced than physical controls" is based upon, not REALITY, or upon any logical argument, but rather upon a PRODUCTION COST-CUTTING MEASURE FOR A TV SHOW.

The "Okudagram controls" on TNG were masterful because they gave displays that looked good for nearly no money. Do some work in Adobe Illustrator, print it off onto transparency material, stick it between a couple of sheets of plexiglass... and voila, instant (and dirt-cheap) control panel!"

Because they were seen so universally throughout TNG-era shows, some folks seem to have concluded that they're BETTER, that they represent more advanced technology, that physical controls are "archaic." But that's not true... not at all.

I full expect to see "touch controls" used for the foreseeable future. I've designed control pads using this technology, and it's entirely appropriate for, say, a microwave, or a washing machine. But I'd never put something like this into the cockpit of a car, because the driver NEEDS to be watching the road and not the radio's display screen if he decides to change channels! So you create controls which meet the constraints I've stated... tactile identification and significant force required to operate to avoid mis-operation.

I NEVER expect to see the flight-control elements of helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft, or of spacecraft for that matter, to be touch-panels. But I can easily see touch-panels used in non-mission-critical applications throughout both (say, a touch-panel "in-flight entertainment" device on the back of the seat in front of you in the passenger section).

This is not HOSTILITY. I'm the one being attacked, PERSONALLY, by people who are being PERSONALLY HOSTILE. Show me anyplace where I've personally attacked anyone in this thread. Seriously... Show me where I said "well, screw you FordSVT, you're an idiot and don't know what you're talking about." I haven't said that, because I haven't MEANT that. I haven't attacked ANYONE. There's been ZERO BELLIGERENCE on my side of the conversation.

Oh, and I think you're a bit confused... when you said that "you've done the same thing in the ST-XI forum?"

I believe a direct quote of Gene Rddenberry in 1986 was that there would be "less electronic gingerbread" on the new Enterprise, that the old fashioned mechanical buttons and toggles would disappear in order to make it look more advanced, Okuda made it happen, and yes using cutouts was a lot cheaper than using video.

RAMA