3 ms·

I think with future technology designers almost always overshoot on capabilities and undershoot with UX. The former is very easy to get pie-in-the-sky about and

I think with future technology designers almost always overshoot on capabilities and undershoot with UX. The former is very easy to get pie-in-the-sky about and ignore limitations, while the latter you often only can improve with experience. Honestly even if you are designing couch cushions I think it is hard to hit 'different' and 'looks good on camera' without dipping into 'wildly impractical'. If you consider a TNG tricorder, it is a magical device with 600 different functions, but to use it looks more awkward than even a 1st gen iphone. Definitely designed for the camera's eye first.

Kye 1y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to do semi-holographic interfaces like we eventually see in most sci-fi from the 2000s and on. Those tricorders make a lot more sense if you pretend there's a holographic readout hovering above it. TOS era tricorders had a small TV in them and big chunky buttons you could see poor Ensign Ricky fiddling with before falling into the lava pit. LCARS just didn't work well with the tiny little displays of TNG tricorders.