10 ms·

Well, it worked on Star Trek. Then again, that was addressed in a Voyager episode when Tom Paris designs the helm in their new runabout with old fashioned butto

Well, it worked on Star Trek. Then again, that was addressed in a Voyager episode when Tom Paris designs the helm in their new runabout with old fashioned buttons and switches because he wanted to actually feel the controls much to Tuvok's dismay. Though, on a serious note, I work in industrial automation and user interfaces, aka HMI's have been touch oriented for quite some time. It was and still is common to see graphical elements which emulate the look of physical buttons used on machinery. This was done to help operators navigate touch screens who were used to panels full of buttons, knobs, and switches. Recently I rebuilt a machine that was half analog and half digital controls to all digital control. I first started with a full touch interface with provisions for knobs and buttons. During testing operators hated, and I mean HATED the touch screen when it came to virtual potentiometers (one operator got up and walked away saying "this screen is a fucking piece of shit"). I installed encoder knobs to emulate potentiometers and it was a success. Everyone was happy. Some things just can't be done with a screen. You need physical things to interact with.

Izkata 7y ago
Star Trek's bridge controls can be reconfigured, but there's a standard static configuration that doesn't change while they're in use. This is also referenced at a different point in Voyager when Tuvok is annoyed by how Tom Paris uses a nonstandard configuration. So that at least reduces the need for constant visual contact.
- archon 7y ago
  There's another Voyager episode in which Tuvok is temporarily blinded and he tells the computer to turn on the tactile interface so he can work on a computer console. So even 25 years ago before everyone had a touchscreen in their pockets, it was obvious that touch screens wouldn't be great for all situations.
  - ringshall 7y ago
    And of course there’s the comment in ‘All good things’ by Dr. Crusher when she says she can’t believe how they got by with 2D controls in the old days, and how the current holographic controls were much easier to use. So, Star Fleet made the same transition as the US Navy, from a touchscreen to 3D tactile controls.
- TomK32 7y ago
  It's it true that the whole bridge section can be separated and replaced from the saucer, which of course can also be separated from that thing with the engines?
  - amiga-workbench 7y ago
    The bridge modules can be fairly easily swapped out in drydock, but I don't believe that can be done while underway. The Galaxy class was the first class of ship with a saucer separation system that could be re-attached while in flight. I believe the Constitution class did have the ability to separate its saucer, but that was accomplished with explosive bolts and it couldn't re-attach without being in drydock.
    - animal531 7y ago
      Right, before they mainly used it as an escape vehicle in case of warp nacelle or containment issues.
      - amiga-workbench 7y ago
        Yeah, the warp core ejection systems always seem to conveniently fail. You would want to dump the entire engineering section and haul ass if you were sitting on an antimatter bomb.
        cannonedhamster 7y ago
        There were also physical backups in case the automated ejection system didn't work. There was always a physical backup to any touch interface that was critical to system operations.
    - magduf 7y ago
      That galaxy-class saucer separation thing was honestly not a great idea, and it was somewhat annoying when they used it in the episodes. The problem with it is that only the "stardrive" section has warp capability, so what good is it to be able to separate except for using the saucer as a last-resort escape pod in case of warp engine failure? The saucer is simply too slow to go anywhere in a reasonable amount of time without a warp engine: at sublight speeds, it would take years just to get to the closest star system. This is probably one of the most annoying things about Star Trek: they completely ignored speed-of-light issues like this too often. Using "warp drive" as a plot device to get the characters from system to system in a week or less at FTL speeds is fine, but if you're going to do that, don't fall back on sublight "impulse drive" as something that's actually useful for anything except getting into and out of orbit.
- amiga-workbench 7y ago
  Also in theory controls for any system can be transferred to any console on the ship, I can think of one episode where Seven transferred helm, tactical and ops down to an engineering console.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    That was part of the problem on the USS McCain: there were so many different modes of control that the crew lost track of the state of the system.
    - amiga-workbench 7y ago
      I'd be really interested to see how the UI handled signposting for those handed-off functions, because I don't think the idea is inherently unwieldy, it just needs a good clear implementation.
starsinspace 7y ago
> Well, it worked on Star Trek. IIRC the official explanation from the makers of Star Trek is that the displays look like simple touch screens, but they are actually overlaid with structured force fields, so for the users it feels like a physical button press.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  tbf this could be achievable with Apple's virtual click tech. Would like to see how that'd work in practice.
  - beached_whale 7y ago
    I assume, that actions like turning/twisting do not work well on touch screens. you can do sliders but for somethings that may not give the correct control. I can probably turn a knob at finer increments than I can slide my finger on the screen.
    - ddingus 7y ago
      It is all about haptic feedback, and low latency between action and outcome. You can twist virtually with good precision. But, what is much harder is the feel, state of the knob, particularly when it is released and then gripped again. Mechanically, the structure of the knob can take some energy input, and it serves as a mechanical pivot, or fulcrum, depending on how people use a knob. Without all those physical things, people lack the complex frames of reference needed for fine, "thought is action" type control.
      - Tharkun 7y ago
        > You can twist virtually with good precision. But, what is much harder is the feel.. This is especially true in environments where gloves are worn.
      - mannykannot 7y ago
        In addition, the essential ship controls must work in rough weather, so you want something you can grasp to keep your hand steady. So long as airplanes have human pilots, I do not suppose the physical stick, rudder pedals and throttles are going away.
CamperBob2 7y ago
I installed encoder knobs to emulate potentiometers There's really no need to force this decision to go in either direction. Ever since I first heard of capacitive multitouch, going back to the timeframe before the first iPhone announcement, I've been waiting for someone to build 'stick-on' encoder knobs that the touchscreen controller can read. These would simply take the form of a knob with a metal leaf or other polygonal electrode in its base, whose rotation could be sensed by code similar to that used to implement crappy 'virtual potentiometers' on existing touchscreens. The fixed part of the knob base would be epoxied or otherwise bonded directly to the screen surface, or perhaps held in place with some sort of frame. Doesn't seem to have happened yet despite being an incredibly obvious (and inexpensive!) thing to do. Seems like the MIDI community would be all over something like this, even if no one else considered it worthwhile.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- eropple 7y ago
  This reminds me of the Surface Dial. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-dial/925r551sktgn https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-dial/925r551sktgn Being able to set the dial on the screen and just turn it is a really good-feeling workflow, though likely not for something as mission-critical as the article is describing.
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    What I had in mind would cost closer to $0.99 than $99.00, though. (Well, OK, $9.99.) The Surface Dial was a relatively complex Bluetooth device; it didn't work through the touchscreen itself, except to the extent that the touchscreen somehow knew that a Surface Dial was resting on it.
    - zaat 7y ago
      According to the spec it uses the touchscreen, or at least some touchscreens: >On-screen detection: Touch digitizer reports the onscreen location through a capacitive pattern (Studio only) https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-dial/925r551sktgn?activetab=pivot%3aoverviewtab https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-dial/925r551sktgn?...
ethbro 7y ago
It's not surprising that for brains evolved to deal with a physical world, physical controls feel more natural. You can add all the haptic and UI flair you want in, but it's not going to make my nerves tingle in the way my brain expects.
flukus 7y ago
The federation also had to design interfaces to be universal and not assume bipedal humanoids with two hands and an oposable thumb, modern engineers have much narrower requirements.
- lallysingh 7y ago
  They had to design them to fit within the production budget.
TomK32 7y ago
Last year I had great fun trying out a new know that a local industrial company KEBA is working on/producing. The whole know is configureable. It can do resistances of any strength and direction, make the output run fast if you turn it fasst and then finetune slowly like you did on old radio. You can make it turn just one way or both, or limit it to part of the 360 degrees. You can give it that click feel to separate the 360 degrees into 10 positions, or even 11! video in german https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJjp-P9jZCk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJjp-P9jZCk
Aser 7y ago
I totally agree that a combination of physical controls and touchscreen is the way to go. However there are ways to improve the design for touchscreen. Virtual knobs in my experience are pretty difficult to use on a screen, however sliders work reasonably well in their place. Most industrial touchscreens I've seen are resistive which makes them much more difficult to use, especially for dragging motions, so that may be compounding the problem. Capacitive screens are generally much easier to use.
- dsego 7y ago
  I would love to see ghost touches messing up the industrial touchscreen and wreaking havoc on the machinery.
  - the_seraphim 7y ago
    or firing missiles on a friendly ship on a US destroyer...
- Shorel 7y ago
  I have a Kobo Glo HD with what I think is one or more IR sensors for the touchscreen. It is very sensitive, even a fly walking on the screen will activate it. I bought an origami cover for the reader, so it can be put at an angle on the desk. The combination of both mean that I need to turn it off, otherwise it would randomly switch pages when it is in my pocket. I miss my first Kindle with its physical page turning buttons.
CodeCube 7y ago
The more I get into synthesizers, the more I want analog controls (knobs, sliders, buttons, VC cable inputs!)
magduf 7y ago
>Well, it worked on Star Trek. Then again, that was addressed in a Voyager episode when Tom Paris designs the helm in their new runabout with old fashioned buttons and switches because he wanted to actually feel the controls much to Tuvok's dismay. I didn't watch Voyager much, and never saw that episode, but this is extremely disappointing. The ST:TNG Technical Manual (which came out before VOY) clearly addressed this issue, way way back in the early 90s. You can actually feel touchscreen controls, because they have miniature force fields/tractor beams that provide the same tactile sensation you get with mechanical controls. Didn't the writers of VOY ever read the TNG Tech Manual? It's of course even more disappointing that a sci-fi TV show in the 80s/90s was able to address this important HMI issue in a book meant just for geeky fans, yet 25 years later people in the industry still don't get it. Of course, we don't have tractor beams or force fields to implement what they wrote about in the tech manual, but it does show the show's technical consultants were thinking about and aware of this issue back then, 15 years before slate-style smartphones were even invented, and that maybe we should not be using touchscreens for certain controls until we do have force fields or some other workaround. >and I mean HATED the touch screen when it came to virtual potentiometers (one operator got up and walked away saying "this screen is a fucking piece of shit") That operator was correct. Virtual potentiometers on a touchscreen are a horrible idea and miserable to use.
- saidajigumi 7y ago
  Didn't the writers of VOY ever read the TNG Tech Manual? Nope, in fact they were expressly prohibited from writing about the technology. In the scripts, instead of doing their built-world-homework and writing that coherently into the story, they just had to put "[TECH]" in to the scripts. Then the technical consistency editors came along and filled that stuff in. Not even kidding. This led to some of the really disastrous (IMO) early scenes in Voyager such as one where two characters (Cpt. Janeway and B'Elanna, iirc) are bonding while solving an crisis technical issue... and the dialogue is a total hash because it was "co-written" using a completely insane method.
- MisterTea 7y ago
  Did not know about the technical manual, just ordered a copy.
modsiw 7y ago
Are you the reason why my office water dispenser has a touch screen?
Kaibeezy 7y ago
What about the shiny metal throttle? http://propsummit.com/upload/408/tt4.jpg http://propsummit.com/upload/408/tt4.jpg

Izkata 7y ago

Star Trek's bridge controls can be reconfigured, but there's a standard static configuration that doesn't change while they're in use. This is also referenced at a different point in Voyager when Tuvok is annoyed by how Tom Paris uses a nonstandard configuration. So that at least reduces the need for constant visual contact.

archon 7y ago
There's another Voyager episode in which Tuvok is temporarily blinded and he tells the computer to turn on the tactile interface so he can work on a computer console. So even 25 years ago before everyone had a touchscreen in their pockets, it was obvious that touch screens wouldn't be great for all situations.
- ringshall 7y ago
  And of course there’s the comment in ‘All good things’ by Dr. Crusher when she says she can’t believe how they got by with 2D controls in the old days, and how the current holographic controls were much easier to use. So, Star Fleet made the same transition as the US Navy, from a touchscreen to 3D tactile controls.
TomK32 7y ago
It's it true that the whole bridge section can be separated and replaced from the saucer, which of course can also be separated from that thing with the engines?
- amiga-workbench 7y ago
  The bridge modules can be fairly easily swapped out in drydock, but I don't believe that can be done while underway. The Galaxy class was the first class of ship with a saucer separation system that could be re-attached while in flight. I believe the Constitution class did have the ability to separate its saucer, but that was accomplished with explosive bolts and it couldn't re-attach without being in drydock.
  - animal531 7y ago
    Right, before they mainly used it as an escape vehicle in case of warp nacelle or containment issues.
    - amiga-workbench 7y ago
      Yeah, the warp core ejection systems always seem to conveniently fail. You would want to dump the entire engineering section and haul ass if you were sitting on an antimatter bomb.
      - cannonedhamster 7y ago
        There were also physical backups in case the automated ejection system didn't work. There was always a physical backup to any touch interface that was critical to system operations.
  - magduf 7y ago
    That galaxy-class saucer separation thing was honestly not a great idea, and it was somewhat annoying when they used it in the episodes. The problem with it is that only the "stardrive" section has warp capability, so what good is it to be able to separate except for using the saucer as a last-resort escape pod in case of warp engine failure? The saucer is simply too slow to go anywhere in a reasonable amount of time without a warp engine: at sublight speeds, it would take years just to get to the closest star system. This is probably one of the most annoying things about Star Trek: they completely ignored speed-of-light issues like this too often. Using "warp drive" as a plot device to get the characters from system to system in a week or less at FTL speeds is fine, but if you're going to do that, don't fall back on sublight "impulse drive" as something that's actually useful for anything except getting into and out of orbit.
amiga-workbench 7y ago
Also in theory controls for any system can be transferred to any console on the ship, I can think of one episode where Seven transferred helm, tactical and ops down to an engineering console.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  That was part of the problem on the USS McCain: there were so many different modes of control that the crew lost track of the state of the system.
  - amiga-workbench 7y ago
    I'd be really interested to see how the UI handled signposting for those handed-off functions, because I don't think the idea is inherently unwieldy, it just needs a good clear implementation.

starsinspace 7y ago

> Well, it worked on Star Trek. IIRC the official explanation from the makers of Star Trek is that the displays look like simple touch screens, but they are actually overlaid with structured force fields, so for the users it feels like a physical button press.

cameronbrown 7y ago
tbf this could be achievable with Apple's virtual click tech. Would like to see how that'd work in practice.
- beached_whale 7y ago
  I assume, that actions like turning/twisting do not work well on touch screens. you can do sliders but for somethings that may not give the correct control. I can probably turn a knob at finer increments than I can slide my finger on the screen.
  - ddingus 7y ago
    It is all about haptic feedback, and low latency between action and outcome. You can twist virtually with good precision. But, what is much harder is the feel, state of the knob, particularly when it is released and then gripped again. Mechanically, the structure of the knob can take some energy input, and it serves as a mechanical pivot, or fulcrum, depending on how people use a knob. Without all those physical things, people lack the complex frames of reference needed for fine, "thought is action" type control.
    - Tharkun 7y ago
      > You can twist virtually with good precision. But, what is much harder is the feel.. This is especially true in environments where gloves are worn.
    - mannykannot 7y ago
      In addition, the essential ship controls must work in rough weather, so you want something you can grasp to keep your hand steady. So long as airplanes have human pilots, I do not suppose the physical stick, rudder pedals and throttles are going away.

CamperBob2 7y ago

I installed encoder knobs to emulate potentiometers There's really no need to force this decision to go in either direction. Ever since I first heard of capacitive multitouch, going back to the timeframe before the first iPhone announcement, I've been waiting for someone to build 'stick-on' encoder knobs that the touchscreen controller can read. These would simply take the form of a knob with a metal leaf or other polygonal electrode in its base, whose rotation could be sensed by code similar to that used to implement crappy 'virtual potentiometers' on existing touchscreens. The fixed part of the knob base would be epoxied or otherwise bonded directly to the screen surface, or perhaps held in place with some sort of frame. Doesn't seem to have happened yet despite being an incredibly obvious (and inexpensive!) thing to do. Seems like the MIDI community would be all over something like this, even if no one else considered it worthwhile.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
eropple 7y ago
This reminds me of the Surface Dial. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-dial/925r551sktgn https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-dial/925r551sktgn Being able to set the dial on the screen and just turn it is a really good-feeling workflow, though likely not for something as mission-critical as the article is describing.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  What I had in mind would cost closer to $0.99 than $99.00, though. (Well, OK, $9.99.) The Surface Dial was a relatively complex Bluetooth device; it didn't work through the touchscreen itself, except to the extent that the touchscreen somehow knew that a Surface Dial was resting on it.
  - zaat 7y ago
    According to the spec it uses the touchscreen, or at least some touchscreens: >On-screen detection: Touch digitizer reports the onscreen location through a capacitive pattern (Studio only) https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-dial/925r551sktgn?activetab=pivot%3aoverviewtab https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-dial/925r551sktgn?...

ethbro 7y ago

It's not surprising that for brains evolved to deal with a physical world, physical controls feel more natural. You can add all the haptic and UI flair you want in, but it's not going to make my nerves tingle in the way my brain expects.

flukus 7y ago

The federation also had to design interfaces to be universal and not assume bipedal humanoids with two hands and an oposable thumb, modern engineers have much narrower requirements.

lallysingh 7y ago
They had to design them to fit within the production budget.

TomK32 7y ago

Last year I had great fun trying out a new know that a local industrial company KEBA is working on/producing. The whole know is configureable. It can do resistances of any strength and direction, make the output run fast if you turn it fasst and then finetune slowly like you did on old radio. You can make it turn just one way or both, or limit it to part of the 360 degrees. You can give it that click feel to separate the 360 degrees into 10 positions, or even 11! video in german https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJjp-P9jZCk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJjp-P9jZCk

Aser 7y ago

I totally agree that a combination of physical controls and touchscreen is the way to go. However there are ways to improve the design for touchscreen. Virtual knobs in my experience are pretty difficult to use on a screen, however sliders work reasonably well in their place. Most industrial touchscreens I've seen are resistive which makes them much more difficult to use, especially for dragging motions, so that may be compounding the problem. Capacitive screens are generally much easier to use.

dsego 7y ago
I would love to see ghost touches messing up the industrial touchscreen and wreaking havoc on the machinery.
- the_seraphim 7y ago
  or firing missiles on a friendly ship on a US destroyer...
Shorel 7y ago
I have a Kobo Glo HD with what I think is one or more IR sensors for the touchscreen. It is very sensitive, even a fly walking on the screen will activate it. I bought an origami cover for the reader, so it can be put at an angle on the desk. The combination of both mean that I need to turn it off, otherwise it would randomly switch pages when it is in my pocket. I miss my first Kindle with its physical page turning buttons.

CodeCube 7y ago

The more I get into synthesizers, the more I want analog controls (knobs, sliders, buttons, VC cable inputs!)

magduf 7y ago

>Well, it worked on Star Trek. Then again, that was addressed in a Voyager episode when Tom Paris designs the helm in their new runabout with old fashioned buttons and switches because he wanted to actually feel the controls much to Tuvok's dismay. I didn't watch Voyager much, and never saw that episode, but this is extremely disappointing. The ST:TNG Technical Manual (which came out before VOY) clearly addressed this issue, way way back in the early 90s. You can actually feel touchscreen controls, because they have miniature force fields/tractor beams that provide the same tactile sensation you get with mechanical controls. Didn't the writers of VOY ever read the TNG Tech Manual? It's of course even more disappointing that a sci-fi TV show in the 80s/90s was able to address this important HMI issue in a book meant just for geeky fans, yet 25 years later people in the industry still don't get it. Of course, we don't have tractor beams or force fields to implement what they wrote about in the tech manual, but it does show the show's technical consultants were thinking about and aware of this issue back then, 15 years before slate-style smartphones were even invented, and that maybe we should not be using touchscreens for certain controls until we do have force fields or some other workaround. >and I mean HATED the touch screen when it came to virtual potentiometers (one operator got up and walked away saying "this screen is a fucking piece of shit") That operator was correct. Virtual potentiometers on a touchscreen are a horrible idea and miserable to use.

saidajigumi 7y ago
Didn't the writers of VOY ever read the TNG Tech Manual? Nope, in fact they were expressly prohibited from writing about the technology. In the scripts, instead of doing their built-world-homework and writing that coherently into the story, they just had to put "[TECH]" in to the scripts. Then the technical consistency editors came along and filled that stuff in. Not even kidding. This led to some of the really disastrous (IMO) early scenes in Voyager such as one where two characters (Cpt. Janeway and B'Elanna, iirc) are bonding while solving an crisis technical issue... and the dialogue is a total hash because it was "co-written" using a completely insane method.
MisterTea 7y ago
Did not know about the technical manual, just ordered a copy.

modsiw 7y ago

Are you the reason why my office water dispenser has a touch screen?

Kaibeezy 7y ago

What about the shiny metal throttle? http://propsummit.com/upload/408/tt4.jpg http://propsummit.com/upload/408/tt4.jpg