4 ms·

> with a huge emphasis on design It's still a mystery to me whether this country had actual industrial design in the Soviet era—I guess it should've had econom

by aasasd 6y ago

> with a huge emphasis on design It's still a mystery to me whether this country had actual industrial design in the Soviet era—I guess it should've had economic research at least. But Soviet industrial looks were mostly regarded as ‘ugly but functional’ by the folks. IMO it's only now that pre-digital hardware looks appealing, through the nostalgia for ‘simpler times’. What with onscreen controls emulating bulky knobs, buttons and displays of e.g. hifi equipment and 80s' synths.

thanatropism 6y ago
Counterpoint: the Lomo LC-A.
einr 6y ago
https://www.inexhibit.com/case-studies/project-sphinx-when-the-ussr-tried-to-change-the-computer/ https://www.inexhibit.com/case-studies/project-sphinx-when-t...
- aasasd 6y ago
  Seen that, yeah. Alas it has an obvious flair of a ‘photoshop design’ with no connection to any engineering work. The ortholinear keyboard would be notable, if again it had any basis in reality aside from the ‘йцукенг’ Cyrillic layout—which however has punctuation cast away beyond reach.
aasasd 6y ago
A typo: that should've been ‘ergonomic research’.
analognoise 6y ago
I've heard the US Navy is going away from screens; they were a bad idea, cause a lot of confusion and they're reverting back to analog switchgear because of the tactile feedback. Ugly but functional might be the way of the future!
- aasasd 6y ago
  Touchscreens are just evil in any sort of physically involved environment, e.g. a car or even a kitchen stove. You can have ‘good-looking and functional’ (with physical controls too), but touchscreens in such a setup are rather ‘good-looking and dysfunctional’. Game controllers are the perfect example of ergonomically-tuned physical controls with sleek looks. And afaik the US military uses Xbox controllers in drone control or something like that.
  - hoseja 6y ago
    I'm just hoping this won't bite the Crew Dragon in the ass one day.
  - romwell 6y ago
    I hope one day we'll have shape-changing touchscreens which can grow physical buttons that can be pressed, and that could be operated without looking. Something like a braille-capable touchscreen would already be a great improvement (concept art: [1][2]) This is technically 2.5D, and 3D would be even better (imagine a screen which can grow a joystick!). While 3D-shape-shifting screens don't seem to exist even in SciFi, 2.5D displays are already being worked on, and would be a huge step up. [1] https://www.yankodesign.com/2017/01/26/touchscreen-how-about-braillescreen/ https://www.yankodesign.com/2017/01/26/touchscreen-how-about... [2] https://www.popsci.com/new-touch-screen-design-could-display-in-braille/ https://www.popsci.com/new-touch-screen-design-could-display...
- paleogizmo 6y ago
  I recall that there were some pretty long threads here after the US warship hitting some commercial vessel. The big issue wasn't using a screen but that the designers had taken advantage of having screens to create a multi-functional interface so one station could serve different functions, or functions could be moved between stations. Flexible, but confusing. I think the move is not to analog control, but back to single-purpose controls. Also, even if mechanical controls replace touchscreens, I'm sure that there will still be an optical encoder and field bus behind everything.
cosmodisk 6y ago
There was no design,as a subject, in Soviet Union. It all fell under industrial engineering blanket and the looks were just a part of the entire process to get a working product. Architecture, however,was somewhat unique in this aspect,as there was more expressiveness in some works(non residential only,though).
- barrkel 6y ago
  I don't think there's any such thing as "no design" (though I understand you to mean the academic subject). All design evokes something. Colours, font, margin and spacing, edges and borders - it all evokes some things that came before it more than others, and the relationship with the human body and its feeling of agoraphobia and claustrophobia, kinematics - whether controls are pointy or smooth, hard or soft, stiff or slick or springy, continuous or with detents - it all adds up to an aesthetic. You can't help but have design. You know when things don't "feel" right. When something feels flimsy instead of solid; when it's haphazard instead of regular. And when the design is exceptionally poor, chaotic, that too is a design - a kind of mad, insane design, or primitive and naive, unskilled - it always evokes something.
  - cosmodisk 6y ago
    I meant it as an academic subject. In terms of colour,shape,form, function,and other,so called design properties, were well understood, however not always applied, especially in consumer products.
- aasasd 6y ago
  > the looks were just a part of the entire process to get a working product Well, that would be enough for ‘industrial design’ as a discipline—the question is whether ‘the product does not cause suffering from looking at it and touching it’ was considered a part of the criteria for ‘working’.
- alde 6y ago
  This is not true. There was a whole institute doing industrial design: the Soviet Scientific Research Institute of Industrial Aesthetics [1]. That institute was also publishing a monthly "Technical Aesthetics" magazine from 1964 to 1992. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VNIITE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VNIITE
paleogizmo 6y ago
I was going to say something similar. The panels do look nice but don't seem much different than those of the West pre-digital era. I seem to recall that the nuclear ice breakers were a point of pride for the USSR, so it's likely that the panels received an above-average level of attention and are atypical. I don't think that the appeal is just nostalgia though. Modern control rooms and equipment racks just don't have the pretty-looking hardware that the older ones do. Control rooms usually have big displays with network diagrams on them that aren't sexy anymore, along with a bunch of workstations. Equipment racks usually are dominated by LCDs and membrane switches that look a bit chintzy, no big pushbuttons in chromed bezels anymore.

by aasasd 6y ago

thanatropism 6y ago

Counterpoint: the Lomo LC-A.

einr 6y ago

https://www.inexhibit.com/case-studies/project-sphinx-when-the-ussr-tried-to-change-the-computer/ https://www.inexhibit.com/case-studies/project-sphinx-when-t...

aasasd 6y ago
Seen that, yeah. Alas it has an obvious flair of a ‘photoshop design’ with no connection to any engineering work. The ortholinear keyboard would be notable, if again it had any basis in reality aside from the ‘йцукенг’ Cyrillic layout—which however has punctuation cast away beyond reach.

aasasd 6y ago

A typo: that should've been ‘ergonomic research’.

analognoise 6y ago

I've heard the US Navy is going away from screens; they were a bad idea, cause a lot of confusion and they're reverting back to analog switchgear because of the tactile feedback. Ugly but functional might be the way of the future!

aasasd 6y ago
Touchscreens are just evil in any sort of physically involved environment, e.g. a car or even a kitchen stove. You can have ‘good-looking and functional’ (with physical controls too), but touchscreens in such a setup are rather ‘good-looking and dysfunctional’. Game controllers are the perfect example of ergonomically-tuned physical controls with sleek looks. And afaik the US military uses Xbox controllers in drone control or something like that.
- hoseja 6y ago
  I'm just hoping this won't bite the Crew Dragon in the ass one day.
- romwell 6y ago
  I hope one day we'll have shape-changing touchscreens which can grow physical buttons that can be pressed, and that could be operated without looking. Something like a braille-capable touchscreen would already be a great improvement (concept art: [1][2]) This is technically 2.5D, and 3D would be even better (imagine a screen which can grow a joystick!). While 3D-shape-shifting screens don't seem to exist even in SciFi, 2.5D displays are already being worked on, and would be a huge step up. [1] https://www.yankodesign.com/2017/01/26/touchscreen-how-about-braillescreen/ https://www.yankodesign.com/2017/01/26/touchscreen-how-about... [2] https://www.popsci.com/new-touch-screen-design-could-display-in-braille/ https://www.popsci.com/new-touch-screen-design-could-display...
paleogizmo 6y ago
I recall that there were some pretty long threads here after the US warship hitting some commercial vessel. The big issue wasn't using a screen but that the designers had taken advantage of having screens to create a multi-functional interface so one station could serve different functions, or functions could be moved between stations. Flexible, but confusing. I think the move is not to analog control, but back to single-purpose controls. Also, even if mechanical controls replace touchscreens, I'm sure that there will still be an optical encoder and field bus behind everything.

cosmodisk 6y ago

There was no design,as a subject, in Soviet Union. It all fell under industrial engineering blanket and the looks were just a part of the entire process to get a working product. Architecture, however,was somewhat unique in this aspect,as there was more expressiveness in some works(non residential only,though).

barrkel 6y ago
I don't think there's any such thing as "no design" (though I understand you to mean the academic subject). All design evokes something. Colours, font, margin and spacing, edges and borders - it all evokes some things that came before it more than others, and the relationship with the human body and its feeling of agoraphobia and claustrophobia, kinematics - whether controls are pointy or smooth, hard or soft, stiff or slick or springy, continuous or with detents - it all adds up to an aesthetic. You can't help but have design. You know when things don't "feel" right. When something feels flimsy instead of solid; when it's haphazard instead of regular. And when the design is exceptionally poor, chaotic, that too is a design - a kind of mad, insane design, or primitive and naive, unskilled - it always evokes something.
- cosmodisk 6y ago
  I meant it as an academic subject. In terms of colour,shape,form, function,and other,so called design properties, were well understood, however not always applied, especially in consumer products.
aasasd 6y ago
> the looks were just a part of the entire process to get a working product Well, that would be enough for ‘industrial design’ as a discipline—the question is whether ‘the product does not cause suffering from looking at it and touching it’ was considered a part of the criteria for ‘working’.
alde 6y ago
This is not true. There was a whole institute doing industrial design: the Soviet Scientific Research Institute of Industrial Aesthetics [1]. That institute was also publishing a monthly "Technical Aesthetics" magazine from 1964 to 1992. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VNIITE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VNIITE

paleogizmo 6y ago

I was going to say something similar. The panels do look nice but don't seem much different than those of the West pre-digital era. I seem to recall that the nuclear ice breakers were a point of pride for the USSR, so it's likely that the panels received an above-average level of attention and are atypical. I don't think that the appeal is just nostalgia though. Modern control rooms and equipment racks just don't have the pretty-looking hardware that the older ones do. Control rooms usually have big displays with network diagrams on them that aren't sexy anymore, along with a bunch of workstations. Equipment racks usually are dominated by LCDs and membrane switches that look a bit chintzy, no big pushbuttons in chromed bezels anymore.