Slashdot Mirror


Computer Interaction in Science Fiction Movies

MidVicious writes "From futuristic 'Punch Cards' to Voice Recognition HoloDeck Interfaces, human/computer interactions have always mirrored the base concepts of our emerging technologies. An article from a Saarland University CS Seminar highlights Hollywood history with UI, ranging from the moderately feasible (Total Recall's television/scenery display wall) to the often ridiculous (Swordfish's 6-flat screen monitor setup complete with 3-D virus-hacking environment). An interesting read, especially considering some of the technology is on its way to becoming a reality."

4 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Lex says... by harp2812 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Sad thing is, I actually went and installed it after seeing the movie...

    http://www.sgi.com/fun/freeware/3d_navigator.html

    Slow as hell, and not nearly as cool as I thought it'd be though. :(

    --
    I've found that nurturing one's Zen nature is vital to dealing with technology. Violence is pretty damn useful too.
  2. Re:Alien by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Star Trek has predicted other aspects of communication/information well enough, I don't see why predicting useful GUIs would be out of character for the series. Aside from the obvious cell phone = communicator, we also saw Uhura's bluetooth earbud, and between MRIs, spectrometers, and NASA's NUGGET (Neutron/Gamma Ray Geologic Tomography) we are working our way to a proper tricorder.

    --
    We are all just people.
  3. Re:3-D interface in X-Men by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think the X-Men display features any color, so this is probably doable today.

    I would almost feel sorry for anyone who went through the trouble of building one, without running fiber optics up each pin. The color part should be easy compared to the hydraulics part.

    --
    We are all just people.
  4. Re:Mouse? by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    See, the thing about menu driven interfaces is they are serious compromises. They trade cost (many buttons and the space they take up) for layers on a single interface (a screen.) When operating critical machinery, you can't be navigating menus. For instance, if cap'n starboy says "shields up", you can't say, "sorry, I didn't get them up in time because I was in the turbolift interface." You need to press a button that puts the shields up, and *right now.* Likewise for any number of critical functions.

    I can give you a practical modern example. I own a Denon 7.1 channel surround system. It's really pretty decent quality, and it is the main system for our theater. If you want to do anything besides change sources or volume, you'll be navigating menus. Sometimes... lots of menus. It's a pain in the butt, and it is slow. This thing cost me about two grand.

    In my library, I have a Marantz 2325, circa 1975 or so. This has every control and status display on a button, knob, or dial. There are only two multi-purpose things on it. Consequently, it is a lot easier to run - everything is always in the same place, and the things you use often you learn where are almost immediately - and it is a whole lot faster to operate. Want to turn up the bass? Reach for the bass control. Want just bass on the left speaker? Inner concentric ring of the bass control. And so on, for almost every function on the unit. It's not perfect - FM muting level is on the rear, and the Dolby levels take over the FM signal strength meter when you want to look at them, but man is it a lot easier and more comfortable to operate than the Denon. But accounting for inflation, the retail on this was about five grand. Those buttons and knobs are very costly. It isn't just advances in electronics that make that relative price drop!

    The Denon actually has a lot more functionality. But getting at it is tough. Practically speaking, that actually means that mostly, I don't get at it at all.

    Coming back to a computer interface for a spacecraft or a watercraft or any war machine, I can see them going back to buttons regardless of the ability to fold functionality into a graphic interface, because with a button, a well trained person goes right to the function and time may be of the essence in any one of a number of situations, including some that may not have been foreseen by the system designers. Buttons cost more in terms of real estate, but then again, they can give you more in terms of outright survival.

    Buttons are faster than speech, too, even if there is no latency. Takes about 40 ms to hit a button. You can't talk that fast. It's just that simple. Now, if they ever manage to make a mind to machine interface, we'll be on new ground, but until then... buttons ftw. :-)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.