Star Trek User Interface
Star Trek User InterfaceStarTrek ships move with accelerations far greater than any human could experience in real time. They fire weapons and follow trajectories that are far more complex than a human could specify in real time. They encounter phenomena that no human could readily conceptualize. So presuming they are actually manned by humans it's plain there are a lot of odd elements of UI design involved:
StarTrek's computer InteractionDesign sucks. There is no other word for it, it sucks. Go watch a real science-fiction show like Earth: Final Conflict, and you'll see what interaction design is supposed to produce.
As just a single example, holographically-projected controls beat saying things out loud in any of the following situations:
As an example, it might seem perfectly reasonable to a programmer to shut off the lights by saying "computer, lights off" even though an interaction designer would call you a dumbass too stupid to figure out that 1) anyone who does that is waking themself up, 2) if someone wants lights at, say, 10%, they have to put a lot of mental effort into an utterly trivial operation, 3) you're forcing people to reprogram the computer to interpret "lights off" as, say, "lights 10%" so now people have to REPROGRAM the computer just because you didn't provide them with a useful control.
Earth: Final Conflict
Don't recall the interaction design in Earth: Final Conflict; examples? Some comments above talk about "holographs" with tactile feedback, so pretending that was possible, the question is: that allows instantly reconfigurable controls/displays. Then what? You know that the first users will use them to project a mouse. ;-) -- Anon
The controls in EFC were really something:
Star Trek is only a television show. Nothing has to make sense. If it doesn't, that reflects a lack of imagination on the part of the show's creators.
Star Trek is only a television show. So if you can't make it make sense, that reflects a lack of imagination on the part of you.
From StarTrekSystems:
It's interesting how they've reverted back to pre-DOS days as far as file structure and security are concerned. Anyone can access anyone's files and they're all named cryptically like 'Riker program 1'. Privacy must not have been a big concern.
A nice theory, unfortunately contradicted by the facts. Dax used Worf's calisthenics program despite his not wanting anyone else ever using it (too hard for weaklings). Also, if the computer does privilege checking, then why is it that it doesn't even know who's asking to run a program? Because names like Riker-1 can't be understood in any other context. Finally, in what way does it make sense to name your programs 1, 2, 3, et cetera instead of "shady porno with Troi" or something equally descriptive?
This is just the "group permissions" setting that Unix has always used.
I disagree; "group permissions" explains absolutely nothing. (Besides, Unix permissions have been obsolete for decades.) To reiterate, names like Riker-1 can't be understood in any context other than a flat global namespace and/or that the computer can't tell who's requesting the operation (which is highly unlikely).
Come on, people, let's face the facts: the Enterprise's OS is ITS, and people in the 24th century finally figured out that having "security" in the OS will only cause people to leave yellow notes with passwords on the holodeck doors.
As an aside, automated privilege checking, directory searches and namespace management only serves to disempower people. Having an AI do all your thinking for you isn't exactly conducive to the intellect.
It can be very conducive to giving a presentation on the holodeck. Much better than saying "Computer, please run program slash-enterprise-slash-users-slash-riker-slash-certaindeath-slash-demo-slash..." followed with a response of "Path not found, please retry". I don't see how having a computer find my files for me is de-powering me, but maybe I'm already too intellectually impoverished. I'd be glad to name every file "My File" as long as the computer can figure out which one I mean, and provides methods to search for particular contents or patterns (which I assume the StarTrek computers can do).
And maybe true Klingons choose not to dishonor themselves by protecting their personal files with access control lists, instead relying upon others to honor their privacy out of respect or fear.
Much in the same way bikers leave their helmets on their seats. No-one is foolish enough to steal them, who would want to risk getting caught?
Have you considered that having to specify /home/userName/ is already obsolete (and actually it's an artifact of Unix not being object oriented)? So you'd be saying "computer, run certain death demo". Also AI routines tend to increase the inputs to the computer so that people can speak more naturally. For example, it is more natural to say "the certain death demo" than "certain death demo". And even more natural to say "the latest certain death demo". Incidentally, access control lists were obsolete decades ago.
Um, CDPATH. CDPATH is your friend. Nothing's more object oriented than unix - it's the shells that ain't. Over the years many people have invented and reinvented OO shells. But they all wind up morphing into SmallTalk, and no one wants to use that.
In any case, AIs aren't telepathic and never will be so hoping they'll remedy all those brain-dead user interfaces we currently have is all in vain. Having to ask the computer to find your files for you is disempowering in the same sense as having to ask it to turn off the damned lights. Unless you're handicapped, you want the switches in the right place, where you can reach for them easily, and not do away with the switches entirely (but even handicapped people seem to prefer having switches). Trading a world where your actions don't accomplish what you want, for a world where others do what you want but your own actions accomplish nothing is a bad trade. Living in an aphysical state, physically disconnected from the world around you is a nightmare and would likely drive people insane. You may be eager to relinquish your power but it would be better to work on improving user interfaces; to fix the real problem instead of papering over it with cosmetics.
The point of all this is that the Enterprise's AI system sucks and beyond being worse than useless, it's also highly unnatural to boot.
[The holographic doctor on Voyager complained several times that people failed to "turn him off" when they left. Seems that you do have to hit the "light switch" on the way out. ;-> ]
I think the workstations used two IO io areas. One of them displays static information proper to that workstation, with maybe a few rotating modes. The other one listens to things everyone says (and points that huge core computer's AI powers at the alien creep on the viewports, too), and delivers feedback on potential high-level abilities. That's why after CaptainHornHair sez, "vent warp plasma from the starboard nacelle while the main deflector dish emits a verteron beam with an inverse harmonic", there's already a button on the panel to do it. Otherwise characters would respond to these commands like they do on SciFi shows in near-term future - by banging on an alphanumeric pad for a while, just like us.
Consider the episode where they rescued Romulans with a flaky warp core. After ejecting the core and before it explodes Riker hits his comm badge and says, "Enterprise, extend shields!" Notice he did not address any human there...
Which explains why they're so agitated when Barclay takes over all of their jobs. They never realized they had an AI on board before because the Enterprise crew is made up of morons. This actually gives a whole new perspective to the show. It's a great theory except that it doesn't explain why Starfleet Command lets a group of morons be in charge of the fleet's flagship.
Funny, but I can't recall an instance of Starfleet Command that didn't demonstrate their moronity...
Have you considered that you might be taking this a little too seriously? It's just a TV show, not a proposed design for 24th Century computer systems.
I'm sorry, I thought that was the point of this page. It's funny how nobody ever says that Neuromancer was "just a book". Maybe it's because the book presents a vision of future technology we can aspire to instead of being embarrassed by it.
As for StarTrek being just a show, this is incorrect. Fictional technology, especially in science fiction, moulds people's expectations. We already have an enormous problem with low expectations in the software industry (ie, people have such low expectations that they put up with buggy software and insecure OSes) so it's a very BadThing when a cultural icon like StarTrek actually lowers people's expectations of technology even further.
Neuromancer is just a book. Nether Neuromancer nor StarTrek will have a significant influence on what engineers create over the next few decades/centuries. And it is disturbing that anyone desires a future where humans sit around with their neural systems hard-wired to computers. A Gibsonesque future where people can only use their computers by immersing themselves in an artificial alternate reality seems a lot more de-powering than StarTrek's voice-and-touch-screen systems.
Whether you do things in the real world or in an artificial world isn't important. What's important is who decides what you can do, and whether or not you do things yourself. For example, if your range of action is limited to rubberstamping or vetoing the AI then that's disempowering. And if the AI decides how to do everything then that's also disempowering (note that whether or not the AI is essential to the running of the ship isn't at issue, only whether the AI's running the ship is disempowering the humans). This is a real issue in current interface design where many well-meaning developers trying to empower users actually disempower them.
Isn't it interesting how the computer controls everything, and you always have to say "computer this", "computer that" even when you're alone in a room, getting ready to go to sleep and want the damned lights turned off? Maybe it only makes more sense to our primitive minds to have a switch next to the bed which you could smash with your fist.
If you have a habit of talking to yourself, you'd like the computer to no performs the actions you mutter unless you address it first. Which is another reason why the idea of having everything computer controlled and voice activated is so bad; there's not much difference between "lights off" and "computer, lights off" (if you're in the habit of talking to yourself).
And isn't it interesting that you can walk right through a door because it will open automatically, unless it's locked in which case you smash your face into it because you had no way to tell? What's interesting here is that they have closed doors at all since their function seems to be not to prevent people from entering or insulation from the outside environment (the reasons we have doors) but to visually break the scene, to create an enclosed space. And heck we don't have doors for that, we have bead curtains. One could suppose that in the 24th century, they'd use tasteful holograms for that purpose but no, they use ugly metal doors.
Contrast the useless user interface in StarTrek with the one in Earth: Final Conflict. Holograms and force fields, mmmmm. Force fields are impossible? Doh!
Folks in the future will probably have more sophisticated tastes than a culture that can buy shiny plastic robotic dogs for their children that bark as if they had any real AI at all...
Yeah, I love that Earth: Final Conflict shuttle interface. Especially since half the time the controls aren't visible until you reach for them. Sure, that means a bit of extra training to remember where all those hidden controls are, but it certainly unclutters the interface and gives you a better view. -- GavinLambert
Having the controls be invisible when no-one's in the pilot's seat and the shuttle is on the ground makes perfect sense. Are they invisible at any other times?
Yeah, I think so - the controls that are used the least are invisible until you reach for them or make the appropriate gesture. I think it's a good thing, though it's not for newbies :P -- GavinLambert
A compromise that some people are currently experimenting with is called ZoomableUserInterfaces. In that framework, the least used functions would appear very small until the user's attention was on them. Given the small size of monitors, most ZUIs quickly have things diminish to invisibility.
I think the designers for StarTrekEnterprise deserve a GoldenGlobe?.
Their challenge was really "Design sets and props that pre-date the 60's series timeline but using 21st century technology and materials."
At least the other StarTrek designers were allowed to remove items like Spock's console mounted ViewMaster and lava lamp star charts.
Sadly, the StarTrekEnterprise designers actually had to make Spock's ViewMaster look like an evolution of what they designed. Now that's design.
Uhh, well, I hardly know how to say this, but StarTrek is only a television show. -- AnonymousCoward
Sure it is. But like any other ScienceFiction book or tv series, there are ideas presented in StarTrek and elsewhere that are interesting and may be applicable in RealLife. Particularly some of the StarTrekUserInterface - hence this page. See also SuccessfulScienceFictionProphecies.
I know it's good for dramatic effect, but it always annoys me when random crew member calls the captain and says, "You gotta' come down here and see this!" Captain says, "What is it?" Peon crew member says, "You just gotta' come down here and see it!"
Just once I'd like to hear the captain say, "I'm the captain of an interstellar star ship. Tell me what's bothering you and *I'll* decide if I should come down and look at 'it.' I may be doing a dozen things now, each far more important than whatever's bothering you right now." -- JeffGrigg
I'd like to hear the captain say "Computer, show me a holographic view of whatever this peon is yammering about." There's no reason every inch of the Enterprise isn't covered by security cameras.
All those episodes, all those years, and only one UniversalTranslator -- what a UserInterface. How many UniversalRemotes? have you used during all those episodes, all those years? -- ChrisGarrod
EditText of this page
(last edited August 28, 2009)
or FindPage with title or text search