Of interfaces, and Days Made of Glass

[G Sanz]

Unnecessary features in safety-critical systems are a no-no ... Menus are avoided (or at least minimised) in glass cockpit systems for much the same reason.

This is very true, especially for regulated and safety conscious industries.

An anecdote I heard about a talk with one of the guys who was in charge of UI/UX for cockpits in jet planes: when they asked the airline industry what they wanted to see changed in the cockpit and their suggestion was to change as little as possible so that pilots wouldn't need additional training to use the plane. They knew it was safe today and didn't want the extra complication, and it was fine if was all new and fancy under-the-hood so long as it looked and felt like the same old plane they always flew.

I think this is useful flavor for Traveller in that no matter how far in the future you are the UI/UX in cockpits on spaceships is probably gonna feel a bit old-school to the characters because rewiring cockpits is expensive, and people are pretty conservative about making sweeping changes to systems they trust their lives to.

Granted IRL this story is changing a bit with the increasing use of electronic flight bags/tablets and other portables in cockpits.

 

[whartung]

Granted IRL this story is changing a bit with the increasing use of electronic flight bags/tablets and other portables in cockpits.

As I understand, not that I'm a student of it, these devices are mostly replacing manuals and the old tyme flight computer tools. Not so much anything with control of the aircraft.

 

[Spenser TR]

With tablets, it's mostly about wayfinding and getting various bits of information on sites of interest along your course - airfiends, FBOs, hazards, and so on. Speaking from the point of general aviation - lots of rules/regs at odds with using them, yet they see lots of use because they're affordable, usable, all around handy, and they fit in a flight bag.

 

[G Sanz]

As I understand, not that I'm a student of it, these devices are mostly replacing manuals and the old tyme flight computer tools. Not so much anything with control of the aircraft.

With tablets, it's mostly about wayfinding and getting various bits of information on sites of interest along your course - airfiends, FBOs, hazards, and so on. Speaking from the point of general aviation - lots of rules/regs at odds with using them, yet they see lots of use because they're affordable, usable, all around handy, and they fit in a flight bag.

Yup that's been my impression as well.

As I understand it the primary business case seems to be more about going paperless, or automatically loading flight plans from the EFB into the flight computer to cut down on manual typing.

I think once people get comfortable with that tech you might start seeing more advanced versions appear with different sorts of advisory features, but I don't think your going to see the primary flight controls go all apple on us any time soon.

 

[aramis]

As I understand, not that I'm a student of it, these devices are mostly replacing manuals and the old tyme flight computer tools. Not so much anything with control of the aircraft.

The manual flight computer (a circular slide rule) is no longer required to be carried; in my lifetime, it went from required to be used for all calculations (1980's) to required to be carried as backup to a handheld flight calculator and required on the written test (late 80's) to no longer being required at all.


The glass cockpits ARE changing the way things work as far as how information is presented to pilots. the few I've seen, the airspeed, turn, and artificial horizon are on one screen in front of both aircrew; several displays can be paged, and the emergency alarms display notices next to the horizon, which can quickly be pulled up on the muti-function displays.

THE #1 Cause of aircraft incidents is information overload.

 

[Spenser TR]

Definitely, designing to avoid cognitive overload should always be key in the UX person/team's mind. This makes sense in any mission critical application like a cockpit, biz critical like a product page or checkout flow, or even just something designed for enjoyment. There are different stakes at each of these "levels," but one of the fundamental ideas of good design is reducing the load - finding that balance between what is necessary, and what can be handled given the context. You can make more in-depth offerings available by using progressive revelation, designed for those who want/need it.

A serious part of any high-end User Experience architect's work is change agency. Part of this is designing with people/users in mind who are used to "the old way," with a balance towards introducing new functionality and making the changes as easy to digest as possible. Another part of the change agency ( at least in the sciences and engineering, where I'm currently focusing on ) is handling the idiosyncrasy of having one large group of people who are nearing retirement age, generally tech-averse, who have serious institutional knowledge in their heads. Then there are the young upstarts, the recently hired who expect and are at ease with serious agility and complexity in their tech and interfaces... who need the info in the heads of the people who print out emails and specs and keep them in binders. Different environments - the military, general aviation, investment houses, retail concerns, hospital/medical, all have slightly different takes on the above.

Like of us might, I wonder how this would go in the world of the far future. The Corning videos have some smart thinking, and some silliness. But they're pretty good at getting the brain going about how things might go, or how they definitely shouldn't.

 

[whartung]

THE #1 Cause of aircraft incidents is information overload.

Really?

This is a problem?

 

[nobby-w]

Really?

This is a problem?

No more than this ...