> Our futuristic starship control panel should be a custom-manufactured physical interface instead of a cheap glass panel I disagree. Modern aviation has been

> Our futuristic starship control panel should be a custom-manufactured physical interface instead of a cheap glass panel I disagree. Modern aviation has been moving away from physical controls and towards generic screens. The last gen of fighter aircraft (The F/A-18, later block F-16s, the F-22) have a collection of generic screens with context sensitive buttons on the side for control. The F-35 takes this a step further and has a single large screen (which is also apparently a touch screen). In something as complex as an aircraft (or a starship), there are hundreds (or thousands) of different controls. Look at the cockpit of an older aircraft (e.g. a Boeing 747) as an example. Most of the controls in a cockpit are used in certain situations, you don't need to control the landing gear or the brakes when you're at 30,000 feet. By using generic displays, the relevant controls for the current situation can be shown. Yes, it is more difficult to operate the controls by feel, but this is less of a worry in aviation, where you're usually several thousand feet from anything else, than it is in a car, for example. So of course, it's all about the expected situation, you wouldn't want a little touch screen that you swipe for the safety on an assault rifle, for instance, because you need to be able to do it by feel in various situations. But a swipe unlock is perfectly acceptable for a phone.