I work in the control room for an electrical generation system an this isn't the case at all for us.
Each desk has 12 ~30 inch monitors, and each monitor has a similar degree of information density, from monitors of system frequency, voltages, power flows etc. around the network, also financial / market information. There's a mix of diagrams, tabular data, maps, plots.
Most displays show live data, but are not setup to be interacted with normally.
I think the truth is probably due to:
1) the same with all enterprise software, the folks who end up using the displays have token-to-no input into the purchasing or design decisions. Actually now I think of it, check out the interfaces marketed to electronic music composers (generally individuals or small studios):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOq8R55xMyo
2) While I bet operators would select Tronish UI given the choice, they don't _need_ it because ultimately (with enough experience) the model of the system sits in your head, and the interface simply gives cues.
> the model of the system sits in your head, and the interface simply gives cues.
This is a huge part of any interface that's heavily used. Once you're used to it, the interface is invisible; information is automatically parsed into a mental model, and commands are issued with minimal conscious awareness of actual keys pressed and clicks made. This is also why Emacs and vim users regard their editor as intuitive or good UI:)
I work in this industry and there are a lot of bad UI choices all around. The picture of the California board looks like a good example and uncluttered. They have the budget out there to do that.
It doesn't have to be this way. There are standards for high performance HMI design where nothing is colored in unless it is an alarm condition.
I usually have to end up designing things the "bad way" because of customer expectation/demand. Some guy designed a screen back in 1989 and that became what they expect.
CAISO's big board is reasonably uncluttered. PJM's has too much small stuff. [1] But everybody probably uses mostly the screens at their own position.
One can get carried away. Here's the control room for Moscow United's power control room. This is just for the Moscow area, not a regional grid control room like the others.[2] This is the as-built version. The original plan [3] looked like a set for a Bond movie, including a suspended oval glass conference room overlooking the big board. That was from Russia's oligarch era.
I don't know anything about control room but I'm generally interested in building information-dense dashboards. Was your electronic music example supposed to show a good example of a display that is developed-based-on-user-feedback?
Reducing the size of your front door CAN indeed make it harder for thieves to steal your couch. For one thing, it will not stop them from entering, but it can make it difficult enough for them to get the couch out that they select a different target
Pure speculation, but I think heat dissipation is probably the more important bottleneck of spaceship design -- no convective cooling, so you potentially want more surface area to increase radiation.
I think aerodynamics (both lift to weight and streamlining) are the reason for the compact design of aircraft and submarines (also perhaps reducing the profile for military vehicles).
Weight maybe an issue for maneuvering in combat, but there's tons of structural material literally floating around in space, so I'd wager that base material cost would not a limiting constraint.
+1
I think this provides an excellent theoretical framework to think about types of people in a corporation, the fundamental objective of the corporation, and seems to explain many behavior of others.
OTOH, I still think this is just a framework and may not have any connection to actual reality.
You're reinforcing this point by with even "stronger opinions" but you're avoiding the fundamental issue:
"There's a difference between a person having an unconventional idea, e.g. for a business, and an unconventional theory, which they claim has a sound scientific basis."
Unlike a business proposal, no degree of bizarre circumstance or incredible luck can transform the underlying operation of the brain.
Ironically, you're using a human bias (pushing an analogy outside it's original domain) to argue about human bias. I'm pretty sure 99% of folks involved in this debate are well aware behavioural psychology and the like, so you can spare the "fuck you up" histrionics.
Is your question, do writers and mathematicians also speak of elegance and aesthetic in their work? Do writers engage and practice free writing and side-projects to hone their skills, beside whatever they have to do to pay the bills?
Expand your world man, there's so much more out there.
Obviously elegance, aesthetics, and a desire for personal improvement are common factors between these professions. But I've spent a lot of time with writers, scientists, and mathematicians, and I've very rarely heard any of them analogize the process of improving at their work to carpentry or other skilled physical labor. But I hear this analogy from programmers all the time. Programmers talk about sharpening their saw instead of talking about writing another draft, even though to my mind programming is much closer to writing than it is to carpentry. That's what I wonder about.
If you're brash and "break things" and overall the situation turn out for the worst, if you're a kid, people will tutt and mutter and aww shucks who should have been supervising those rough edges on the young whipper snapper.
If you make the exactly the same mistake in a more senior positions / with grey hair, people will bring your qualifications into question - and I suspect those with political interests will try and leverage the failure against you.
The intuitive cynic in me sees a combination of 1b and 2 explaining this:
1b: Many people barely know the name of, let alone trust their neighbours these days. They are turning to the neighbour out of necessity, rather than old-fashioned good will.
2: Perception of hi-tech security, or rather perception of making an effort at security. Just like the gahzillion dollars spent of on body scanners that don't do very much for air plane safety, certainly not in proportion to their cost.
It's hardly the first first-world product that satisfies a want rather than a need.
Each desk has 12 ~30 inch monitors, and each monitor has a similar degree of information density, from monitors of system frequency, voltages, power flows etc. around the network, also financial / market information. There's a mix of diagrams, tabular data, maps, plots.
Two of the monitors are devoted to a geographic view with weather data, locations of field staff etc. Check out the similar setup from this California control room: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2016/06/17/calif...
Most displays show live data, but are not setup to be interacted with normally.
I think the truth is probably due to: 1) the same with all enterprise software, the folks who end up using the displays have token-to-no input into the purchasing or design decisions. Actually now I think of it, check out the interfaces marketed to electronic music composers (generally individuals or small studios): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOq8R55xMyo
2) While I bet operators would select Tronish UI given the choice, they don't _need_ it because ultimately (with enough experience) the model of the system sits in your head, and the interface simply gives cues.