Ikudograms necessary?

[Steel]

I hear about how it would be so much better to have physical buttons than a touch screen, but how do we know that it is actually feasible to have buttons for evey operation?

Looking at the inside of the space shuttle cockpit the thing is crammed with buttons, and that does about a thousanth of what a starship has to do.

Also, while it might be that now personell want physical buttons, will that still be the case in 50 years time? While most of the older people i know are comfortable with buttons to adjust stuff, all the younger people prefer to use computer input.

It could be possible to have physical buttons placed on a display that changed with context, but would that have any real advantage?

[Patrick Degan]

Suppose your display/control screen goes out on you?

[Bounty]

First off, the man's called 'Okuda'.

Suppose your display/control screen goes out on you?

Bingo. The GUI interface adds another layer of complexity to your control system, once that a lever or dial doesn't have. Trek is lucky that the touchscreen panels are usually the last thing to fail on a ship. That said, losing a single panel would not be a *massive* disaster, since other panels can be set to take over it's functions, but it will cost a few precious seconds in an emergency.

On complexity: you need to remember that the Shuttle's cockpit has to monitor and control pretty much every single system on-board, whereas on a starship, those functions would be distributed between various engineering stations and the bridge only needs to deal with a minimum number of controls. TOS made this explicit by showing that the few buttons used for phaser control are backed up by a fully-manned station belowdecks.

In short, Starfleet seems to be willing to trade some reliability for uniform design and customizability. The trade-off has worked for them, so far.

[Uraniun235]

I bet the Okudagrams were really cheap to produce.

Suppose your display/control screen goes out on you?

The Shuttle has gone to a 'glass cockpit' in recent years... granted, it's not as total as an entirely touchpanel control system, but doesn't that still make them rather dependent on the displays not failing?

[Patrick Degan]

I bet the Okudagrams were really cheap to produce.

Just print them on transparancies and stick them on a customised light table: voila —instant starship control panels.

[Batman]

The configurability of Okudagram style touchpad displays may be useful in certain situations (like a modern day GUI) where flexibility is important but they're terrible for vital bridge stations.
For starters, there's no tactile feedback. You have to look at the controls to see what you're doing and even then you can't really know wether the button considers itself pressed or not (hence probably the beeping to give at least some feedback). A flipped switch is a flipped switch.
And that's assuming the display is actually configured YOUR way in the first place. The Big E is hit in the shuttlebay so naturally a bridge console explodes. Lt. (JG) Expandable, who manned the Tactical station (Worf's on DS9), is a casualty and is replaced by Ensign Deadmanwalking who upon being finally ordered to return fire-can't find the fire button immediately because guess what, the Lt was a southpaw and had all the important buttons on the LEFT side of the console. Oops.
If the physical fire switch is in the lower left corner of the panel it ALWAYS is in the lower left corner of the panel.
And that assumes the display doesn't quit outright or goes boinkers (ever seen a modern GUI go batshit insane)? Okudagrams may have their place but that place is not vital bridge stations.

[General Zod]

The configurability of Okudagram style touchpad displays may be useful in certain situations (like a modern day GUI) where flexibility is important but they're terrible for vital bridge stations.
For starters, there's no tactile feedback. You have to look at the controls to see what you're doing and even then you can't really know wether the button considers itself pressed or not (hence probably the beeping to give at least some feedback). A flipped switch is a flipped switch.
And that's assuming the display is actually configured YOUR way in the first place. The Big E is hit in the shuttlebay so naturally a bridge console explodes. Lt. (JG) Expandable, who manned the Tactical station (Worf's on DS9), is a casualty and is replaced by Ensign Deadmanwalking who upon being finally ordered to return fire-can't find the fire button immediately because guess what, the Lt was a southpaw and had all the important buttons on the LEFT side of the console. Oops.
If the physical fire switch is in the lower left corner of the panel it ALWAYS is in the lower left corner of the panel.
And that assumes the display doesn't quit outright or goes boinkers (ever seen a modern GUI go batshit insane)? Okudagrams may have their place but that place is not vital bridge stations.

While they're customizable, when has it ever been shown they deviate from standard configurations outside of different starships? I can't seem to recall anything specific beyond alternate universe Enterprises where Worf wasn't familiar with the layout, or anyone else for that matter.

[Batman]

While they're customizable, when has it ever been shown they deviate from standard configurations outside of different starships? I can't seem to recall anything specific beyond alternate universe Enterprises where Worf wasn't familiar with the layout, or anyone else for that matter.

Throughout all of TNG, if you look closely enough. There are a number of scenes where the button Worf uses to fire phasers CANNOT be in the same location it was on OTHER occasions. The OOU reason is of course that camera angles meant the button had to be elsewhere else you couldn't see him push it but that means the console is apparently reconfigurable at will at least to some extent. And even if they're standardized that leaves the other problems.

[brianeyci]

Worf explicitly klingscreams at someone for reconfiguring the console. "I need to be able to see everything at once!" or something along those lines. Evidently much of the ability of a tactical officer lies in whether he configures the display properly .

[Skylon]

The Shuttle has gone to a 'glass cockpit' in recent years... granted, it's not as total as an entirely touchpanel control system, but doesn't that still make them rather dependent on the displays not failing?

Dunno. I read awhile back that apparently during a simulation run, the shuttle simulator's eight-ball (or some other insturment) got locked. This caused havoc with the guidance system, and would have killed the crew had it been a real flight. The engineers then checked if it was something that could happen with the actual shuttles and found out it could indeed. This didn't completely sell the glass-cockpit, but likely helped.

Real reason though was likely due to difficulty getting older parts from vendors who no longer produced the stuff, except for the shuttle.

Back to Star Trek, maybe this is why the Ent-A, which had all okudagrams in ST V, was sporting some buttons and switches in ST VI. Starfleet decided it needed a backup capability in case the touch-screens failed?

[Uraniun235]

Dunno. I read awhile back that apparently during a simulation run, the shuttle simulator's eight-ball (or some other insturment) got locked. This caused havoc with the guidance system, and would have killed the crew had it been a real flight. The engineers then checked if it was something that could happen with the actual shuttles and found out it could indeed. This didn't completely sell the glass-cockpit, but likely helped.

Are you referring to gimbal lock or to some other failure?

[Bounty]

Back to Star Trek, maybe this is why the Ent-A, which had all okudagrams in ST V, was sporting some buttons and switches in ST VI. Starfleet decided it needed a backup capability in case the touch-screens failed?

The STV Enterprise didn't work properly. I guess they were fitted with LCARS V1.0 or something and Starfleet decided to switch back to buttons until they got the technology working right.
That, and the director liked buttons.

Lt. (JG) Expandable, who manned the Tactical station (Worf's on DS9), is a casualty and is replaced by Ensign Deadmanwalking who upon being finally ordered to return fire-can't find the fire button immediately because guess what, the Lt was a southpaw and had all the important buttons on the LEFT side of the console. Oops.

That might be a problem, had it ever happened in 40 years of televised Trek. Fact is, every time we see someone take over a station in an emergency they can work with it. Evidently it isn't the huge issue you think it is.

[Uraniun235]

In Parallels, when Worf jumps to another parallel universe and suddenly finds himself in combat, he finds that the controls are totally different and he can't figure out how to raise the shields.

[General Zod]

In Parallels, when Worf jumps to another parallel universe and suddenly finds himself in combat, he finds that the controls are totally different and he can't figure out how to raise the shields.

I think that one can be written off as the parallel universe using non standardized/different standard control layouts.

[The Silence and I]

In Parallels, when Worf jumps to another parallel universe and suddenly finds himself in combat, he finds that the controls are totally different and he can't figure out how to raise the shields.

I think that one can be written off as the parallel universe using non standardized/different standard control layouts.

Indeed, the console itself had been visibly altered with boxy additions and stuff. It was clearly different in more than minor details.

By the way, I don't know if they are used in Star trek but wouldn't user defined profiles alleviate these control issues? So if deadmanwalking goes to the console he can quickly enter a short code identifying him and loading his previously customized layout?

[Zac Naloen]

By the way, I don't know if they are used in Star trek but wouldn't user defined profiles alleviate these control issues? So if deadmanwalking goes to the console he can quickly enter a short code identifying him and loading his previously customized layout?

I seem to recall several times people running up to a console mid-battle, tapping a few buttons in the corner and then getting on with it. Perhaps they already do?

[Batman]

Lt. (JG) Expandable, who manned the Tactical station (Worf's on DS9), is a casualty and is replaced by Ensign Deadmanwalking who upon being finally ordered to return fire-can't find the fire button immediately because guess what, the Lt was a southpaw and had all the important buttons on the LEFT side of the console. Oops.

That might be a problem, had it ever happened in 40 years of televised Trek.

...over half of which didn't have Okudagrams as they didn't appear until TNG.

Fact is, every time we see someone take over a station in an emergency they can work with it. Evidently it isn't the huge issue you think it is.

They can work with it. Can they do so without having to take a few moments to get their bearings or, as Zac and the Silence pointed out, reconfigure to their layout?
I'm not saying that a new user will be utterly stymied, but they'll have to, or at least risk having to, take time they might not have to learn/rearrange the layout of the console. A problem that does not exist with the classic physical controls setup.

[General Zod]

They can work with it. Can they do so without having to take a few moments to get their bearings or, as Zac and the Silence pointed out, reconfigure to their layout?
I'm not saying that a new user will be utterly stymied, but they'll have to, or at least risk having to, take time they might not have to learn/rearrange the layout of the console. A problem that does not exist with the classic physical controls setup.

In the case of any modern high critical system it would make sense to enter a security code to be able to use it. In the case of TNG, perhaps this is the equivalent? You tap in a quick code to let the computer know you're an authorized user and it brings up your own personal configuration once it verifies you.

[Ted C]

Ensign Deadmanwalking... can't find the fire button immediately because guess what, the Lt was a southpaw and had all the important buttons on the LEFT side of the console. Oops.

We actually saw a situation much like this occur in TNG "Parallels".

During one of Worf's sudden timestream hops, he found himself standing at the tactical console while a Bajoran vessel attacked the Enterprise. Worf was unable to return fire because the panel wasn't configured the way he expected it to be, and Riker had to jump to his place to take over.

[Ted C]

While they're customizable, when has it ever been shown they deviate from standard configurations outside of different starships? I can't seem to recall anything specific beyond alternate universe Enterprises where Worf wasn't familiar with the layout, or anyone else for that matter.

In TNG "A Matter of Honor", the alien exchange officer -- Ensign Mendon -- commented on the efficiency of Wesley's customized console setup at the Ops station.

[Batman]

They can work with it. Can they do so without having to take a few moments to get their bearings or, as Zac and the Silence pointed out, reconfigure to their layout?
I'm not saying that a new user will be utterly stymied, but they'll have to, or at least risk having to, take time they might not have to learn/rearrange the layout of the console. A problem that does not exist with the classic physical controls setup.

In the case of any modern high critical system it would make sense to enter a security code to be able to use it. In the case of TNG, perhaps this is the equivalent? You tap in a quick code to let the computer know you're an authorized user and it brings up your own personal configuration once it verifies you.

Perfectly sensible setup for non-critical stations, or at least for stations where time is not likely to be of the essence in case of personell switches.
Bad idea for Tactical or Helm were you might not have time to reconfigure in the middle of a battle.
@Ted C WRT Parallels: Already adressed further up. As that was from a different universe even if they use standardized layouts their standard might have been different. The same could have happened with ye olde switches & buttons consoles.

[Ted C]

The "Parallels" incident might be explained by the existence of a biometric or combadge-based identification system built into the consoles. The console would automatically reconfigure to the preferred setup of its current user, thus explaining why Riker was able to immediately takeover tactical without a problem. Worf was stumped because his alternate-universe self used a different configuration, but the computer didn't recognize him as a different user.

In "Hero Worship", Picard did say that it would be impossible for an unauthorized user to affect the ship accidentally by touching a console.

Still, that's extra complication in the system. If either the automatic reconfiguration or the user recognition system goes out, the console could be useless in an emergency.

[General Zod]

They can work with it. Can they do so without having to take a few moments to get their bearings or, as Zac and the Silence pointed out, reconfigure to their layout?
I'm not saying that a new user will be utterly stymied, but they'll have to, or at least risk having to, take time they might not have to learn/rearrange the layout of the console. A problem that does not exist with the classic physical controls setup.

In the case of any modern high critical system it would make sense to enter a security code to be able to use it. In the case of TNG, perhaps this is the equivalent? You tap in a quick code to let the computer know you're an authorized user and it brings up your own personal configuration once it verifies you.

Perfectly sensible setup for non-critical stations, or at least for stations where time is not likely to be of the essence in case of personell switches.
Bad idea for Tactical or Helm were you might not have time to reconfigure in the middle of a battle.
@Ted C WRT Parallels: Already adressed further up. As that was from a different universe even if they use standardized layouts their standard might have been different. The same could have happened with ye olde switches & buttons consoles.

Perhaps some systems such as ops are standardized as to prevent such confusion, then? And Worf wasn't able to find it because the Starfleet of that universe uses a different layout?

[Lancer]

That's pretty reasonable. Think of how akward it would be to use a computer if you were suddenly bumped into a universe where DVORAK was the standard keyboard layout rather than QWERTY.

[The Silence and I]

...over half of which didn't have Okudagrams as they didn't appear until TNG.

TNG + DS9 + VOY = 21 years of Okudagrams. Also at least four movies feature these and I believe some of the Shatner movies do as well. Compare with TOS + ENT = 7 years of pre Okudagrams.

You were saying?

They can work with it. Can they do so without having to take a few moments to get their bearings or, as Zac and the Silence pointed out, reconfigure to their layout?

There is a time delay, yes. If user profiles are used (and it seems like they are) then this time is very small. To be honest, I expect you would consider it the height of stupidity if critical control consoles didn't have some kind of access code required to prevent just anyone from accessing the bridge functions. Entering such a code takes a small amount of time, and can very easily double as the code needed to load the user profile.

I'm not saying that a new user will be utterly stymied, but they'll have to, or at least risk having to, take time they might not have to learn/rearrange the layout of the console. A problem that does not exist with the classic physical controls setup.

Or they could have user profiles loaded after the user enters his/her identification code, which should be required to allow access to the console anyway.