Star trek panels.... Are they well thought through?

[BrownShatner]

The thing to remember about LCARS was that at the time it was developed the "windows" paradigm hadn't really taken hold. (yes, yes, I know the Mac was up and flying by then) Most PC users were still confronted with dos based programs with rudimentary graphical interfaces. Wordperfect and Lotus 123 both used basic black backgrounds with solid color interfaces. the idea of button graphics painted to look 3d was not really out there yet. So, LCARS is an extrapolation of what we were used to then. Black backgrounds with primary colors. To make it look "futuristic" the designers rounded all the corners and tried to apply a workflow methodology to the layouts.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way.

One big reason LCARS looked so futuristic is that it employed smooth curves and typography, as opposed to the 'pixelated' look of computers at the time. Interfaces using smooth alpha-blended curves weren't fully realized on actual devices until this decade. (e.g. things like the iPhone.)

Had they used real computer technology, the look would have become quickly dated and "Atari" like. As it was, LCARS has held up pretty well visually to modern eyes.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I actually preferred the system used in Ironman by Tony. Most controls were on touch surfaces seperate from the display surface with the control surfaces still being interactively changing with the use required of them.

But then, Iron Man was made just last year, whereas TNG is has already passed its twentieth anniversary.

 

[Manticore]

I actually preferred the system used in Ironman by Tony. Most controls were on touch surfaces seperate from the display surface with the control surfaces still being interactively changing with the use required of them.

But then, Iron Man was made just last year, whereas TNG is has already passed its twentieth anniversary.

And in 20 years, I'm sure that it'll look horribly clunky and outdated.

Such is the nature of trying to predict the course of technology in the future, especially computer technology, and most especially the aesthetics thereof.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Aesthetics don't mean crap when you're talking military hardware (or software).

I'd rather not the Enterprise's computers have MacOS-style wallpaper or flashy bits designed merely to distract the human eye. That's not real futurism - that's jingling car keys in front of a child's eyes.

 

[Manticore]

Aesthetics don't mean crap when you're talking military hardware (or software).

I'd rather not the Enterprise's computers have MacOS-style wallpaper or flashy bits designed merely to distract the human eye. That's not real futurism - that's jingling car keys in front of a child's eyes.

While aesthetics don't matter when dealing with military hardware, they most certainly do with a movie--that's pretty much all that they are after all. And purely functional designs in a movie are still an aesthetic when they aren't actually...y'know...functional.

That aside, I was talking about how the interfaces will look in twenty years, and I'm sure that our projections forward from now will looks as silly and outdated to us 20 years into the future as TNG's LCARs do to us now.

...Actually, Enterprise's and XI's interfaces do look rather ridiculous now.

 

[FalTorPan]

The LCARS-style Okudagrams look very cool for television episodes and feature films, especially considering that they were designed in 1987 (1986, if you include the Enterprise-A's graphics from Star Trek IV).

It looks nice, in a recognizable sort of way, and it might be 'cool'. But it's not usable at all in the real world -- and the places where it is usable, you'd be better off designing something from scratch.

I agree. Having said that, I'm not criticizing the people who created them, because (1) I'm not convinced that the graphics were ever intended to be effective UI designs in real-world scenarios, and (2) it has taken more than 20 years, many iterative cycles, and countless millions of dollars to develop today's most effective UI concepts.

LCARS 24, I applaud your work in making a real-world, functional interface from TNG-style LCARS graphics. I don't think the LCARS style makes an effective or highly usable interface, but you've shown that something functional can be made from that style.

 

[Captain Al]

Regardless of whether LCARS can work in our "real" world, the concept of it worked in the TV shows. It was an interface system none of us had ever seen before, and the bright colors and big text was pleasing on the TV screen. It had a futuristic look to it and can even lend itself some functionality in the non-TV world, as demonstrated by LCARS 24 who created a working interface that only requires a cheap laptop and distributes it for free (for a nominal donation). I see no problem with any of that.

Will we ever see a real-world LCARS interface that would take the place of Windows? Perhaps not now, but who knows what the future will bring?


Regarding the technology seen in TOS, I came up with a theory a few years ago that I'll re-share here.

I believe that the buttons, panels, etc. seen on the E's bridge in TOS is designed--militaristically--based on how computers might have evolved in two hundred years. The personnel on the Bridge (not the actors, but the characters themselves) know exactly what buttons to push that do whatever they're supposed to do.

IOW, the Bridge crew is trained to use those systems; they don't need labels or 20th century keyboards or mice. A button pushed produces a sound, a harsh beep or tone that tells the operator that the command has been made. The crew is so used to this equipment that they barely need to look at it. Watch Spock operate the controls while looking away. He knows his science station.

The same goes for other stations in the ship. Pushing the buttons in certain sequences will achieve the same results that the later LCARS screens will accomplish. The overall design of TOS was Form Follows Function. Contrast that with TNG era where Function Follows Form creating a more aesthetically pleasing ship.

I also think that one reason for the different buttons and other strange-looking controls on the TOS Bridge is in case an enemy took over the ship. While the Bridge is laid out in a logical manner, its controls might be difficult to figure out by an enemy who has never seen them before. In TNG, walk up to any LCARS panel and you might just be able to run the whole ship.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Some photoanalysis has shown that some of the buttons on those consoles were labeled after all. The backlighting and the lousy resolution of the typical television set at the time washed out that level of detail.

The point remains, however, that all of those stations were specifically designed for their relative purposes, i.e., you couldn't run the helm from the life support station or run a sensor scan from the engineering console. By the time of TNG, it was decided that a more multifunction design was desired, so we got flat panels with independently configurable LCARS displays. Now, you could operate the helm from a PADD in Ten Forward, if you had the right clearance.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Or operate the photon controls from the shitter.

Just reconfigure the panel back to normal after you're done. Common courtesy and all.

 

[Bill Morris]

Plus it was cheaper to build sets with LCARS paper sheets instead of plastic buttions lit from below. And it solved the problem of personal injury and/or damage to the buttons when someone got knocked against a panel, not to mention what they called on Saturday Night Live "the Pepsi Syndrome" (nuclear meltdown caused by spilling a certain carbonated drink on a control panel).

 

[Captain Robert April]

Can you picture Chekov moaning about how he could've had a V-8 as he struggles to regain control of the ship after a really nasty short circuit?

 

[Maurice]

Plus it was cheaper to build sets with LCARS paper sheets instead of plastic buttions lit from below. And it solved the problem of personal injury and/or damage to the buttons when someone got knocked against a panel, not to mention what they called on Saturday Night Live "the Pepsi Syndrome" (nuclear meltdown caused by spilling a certain carbonated drink on a control panel).

Unfortunately, they carried the backlit artwork into many many alien cultures, which made all the interfaces feel like they came out of the same factory, which, in a sense, they did.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Those touch screens were just all the rage in the 24th Century. By the 25th, they'll be back to toggle switches and dials.

 

[FalTorPan]

Those touch screens were just all the rage in the 24th Century. By the 25th, they'll be back to toggle switches and dials.

Nah. Hand cranks. Definitely hand cranks.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Stone knobs. Hole in in the bottom of the ship for helmsman and navigator to provide propulsion. Dinosaur-powered technology.

 

[scarydesign]

This looks like an old thread and may have lost followers, however I wanted to post a message nonetheless. I found this thread by accident and was very interested to read the opinions shared. My company is in the process of designing "touch" input panels that for all intents and purposes are straight out of Star Trek. These are glass (or plastic) panels that can have any kind of graphic printed on the reverse side of the glass, backlit (total, individual "keys" or a combination of both). There is a serial interface that allows the panel to connect to any microcontroller system to allow input to the system. The panels are really designed for system integrators for use in their products. These are not the same as "resistive touch screens" used on computer monitors. One could, if they like, have one that looks and "works" exactly as shown on ST:NG for instance. The first system has up to 24 keys. With a few physical limitations, almost any size/ key count is possible. Typical uses are (for instance) replacement key pads for digital readouts (DRO) on machining equipment like milling machines. Because these are "dead front" they can be washed down with no effects. They are designed for mechanical key replacement. Joining into the conversation here, I think the "glass touch panels" were implemented to look not only "futuristic" but to allow the set builders relief from having to have hundreds of switches (and associated lights) on the sets.

 

[sojourner]

^How is your product better than most modern cellphones? My android phone lets me customize a large range of buttons or apps to show on the homescreen, supports multi-touch and is transportable. Why not go the step further with your product and make a bluetooth unit to replace the manual buttons, then write apps that will work on any cellphone to control whatever the device is. Easier to add new features, one phone could control various machines. Better safety in that the user does not need to always be close to the big industrial machine. much easier to rugged-ize the bluetooth unit. Obviously if a cellphone screen is not big enough to show the required controls, an Ipad or Android tablet would be better suited.

 

[scarydesign]

^How is your product better than most modern cellphones? My android phone lets me customize a large range of buttons or apps to show on the homescreen, supports multi-touch and is transportable. Why not go the step further with your product and make a bluetooth unit to replace the manual buttons, then write apps that will work on any cellphone to control whatever the device is. Easier to add new features, one phone could control various machines. Better safety in that the user does not need to always be close to the big industrial machine. much easier to rugged-ize the bluetooth unit. Obviously if a cellphone screen is not big enough to show the required controls, an Ipad or Android tablet would be better suited.

What you propose may be fine for some applications, but not machine control. I don't think this is the place to get into a prolonged technical discussion; however I will say that no RF technology is particularly appropriate for, for instance, machine control (Bluetooth in particular; I would NOT want to have the same problems communicating with a critical machine controller that I have simply keeping my Bluetooth headphones connected to my computer). I design these systems for a living and nothing beats a hard wire straight into the system being "controlled". Non-critical apps (seeing if you've left the lights on at home and "possibly" being able to turn them off) from an Ipad or Android is as about as far as I would go with any of the RF technologies available on the commercial market (military is another story). If perhaps an entirely separate band were available that was immune to interference (re the "Farnsworth" on Warehouse 13), perhaps...

 

[sojourner]

^Actually, I thought you came here precisely for a technical discussion. Re: RF technology, fair enough.

The LCARS system in star trek are not static displays. They are basically touch screen computers. The limits of special effects at the time could leave one to believe they are static, but that was not the intent.

 

[indolover]

It could depend on a number of things:

- All LCARS displays per ship/starbase have a set function/interface, for ease of use. So if you know x key would do y function, then this is easier to remember and easier in a crisis.

- In that era, touch screen may be the standard interface. Mice would be too cumbersome in that scenario. If the Dominion attack you, or a Borg cube is on an intercept, why fiddle around with a mouse? It's inappropriate in a crisis situation.

- I reckon that mice will get obsolete one day. The key is to get the processing power to have touch-screen interfaces as standard.