Rocky Horror Castle Monitors

Probably the most boring of the interfaces in the story (from an interaction design perspective, rather than an ethical one), these are monochrome monitors showing feeds from hidden, closed-circuit television cameras in places around the castle—including places you’d expect to be private.

Screenshot from the movie showing Magenta and Riff Raff looking in on Janet in her room.

Magenta and Riff Raff watch Janet’s bedroom from the laboratory.

Screenshot from the movie showing a monitor with Janet and Rocky in the lab.

Magenta and Columbia watch the laboratory feed from a castle room.

Screenshot from the movie showing Riff Raff delivering the news that Rocky has broken his chains and vanished.

Riff Raff lets Frank-N-Furter know that Rocky has escaped via the monitor in Brad’s room.

Screenshot from the movie showing Riff Raff discovering Dr. Scott outside the castle via the laboratory monitor. The lever is vertical.

Dr. Scott appears at the front of the castle as seen from the laboratory monitor.

The monitors are unusual for being octagonal, but this looks like a frame on a 4:3 television, standard for the mid-1970s. Note that the show that made this treatment much more famous was Battlestar Galactica, which would air 3 years after this movie’s release. (Another potential influence?)

I’ve got to keep control

What on these interfaces can they control? Look above and you’ll see that the monitor in Magenta and Columbia’s room has a single dial in the upper right. We never see it in use.

The one interface we do see in use is the arm to the right of the monitor in the laboratory. It reminds of me of a slot machine arm, but when we see Janet and Riff Raff operate it, they manually pull it down and return it to the upright position. So it lacks the spring-return behavior of slot machine arms. And as we’ll see with the Sonic Oscillator in the vivification post, there are levers on this panel that stay in place. No, it seems to be a loose, positional lever, and the raised and lowered positions do…something…but it’s unclear what.

Such arms would most befit two states, because the extents of the range are easy for a user to achieve. But there are more than two states, even if we just look at the functions in the film.

  1. How to turn it off and on? (We see the laboratory monitor off and on.)
  2. How to change the channel to view other feeds? (The laboratory monitor shows both Janet’s bedroom and the front door feed.)

If this was a real-world interface, we’d additionally want to know…

  1. How to control the volume?
  2. How to control the gain? (For a brighter or darker image, as needed)
  3. How does the camera signal that it is on and recording?
  4. If the cameras can be aimed, how?

I’m sure there are more I’m not thinking of. Two inputs is not enough. It’s easy to imagine the lever delivering a floating point value between 0 and 1, like a volume control, but that doesn’t map to the discrete functions needed for the simplest functions of off/on and channel selection.

50 Ways to Love Your Lever

It’s possible that the arm position is not binary up-or-down but continuous, with angles mapped to meanings, and held positions setting the boundaries of input. Like, pull it 3° and hold for a second and that puts the system in the select-new-channel state. Or maybe each of the Transsexual keyboard keys is mapped to individual angles, like A = 85–90°, B = 80–84°, and so on. The user would have to move it to the right angle and hold it there for a second for that character to be sent to the processor before returning it to 90° as an “ENTER” function. This has historical precedent in the Dial Telegraph by Louis Francois Clement Breguet in the mid-1800s. Pictured below is the sending mechanism for such a system, which gives an idea about how it worked.

An image of the Dial Telegraph as described in the text.

Dial telegraph by Louis Francois Clement Breguet

But note that the usability in the telegraph is provided by a printed guide below the lever that shows what regions map to what letters, so it’s easy to position and confirm that the arm is in the right spot before pressing the commit control. It would be a terrible experience to try and use this without guides or feedback. It would require too much precision and be very error prone.

With no markings on or near the arm, I can’t backworld this into any semblance of sense or usability. Especially since Janet seems to have no problem using it when she encounters the device.

Before anyone comes at me with, “Maybe Transylvanians have more precision and memory and…”, remember we design for humans, and must evaluate interfaces from that POV.

Orientation

I never felt the lever in action, of course, and the prop is almost certainly long since destroyed, but another side note is that… if the lever doesn’t snap in place at the top, and doesn’t have a spring to hold it there, it’s error prone for it to be oriented vertically. Someone could bump it and cause it to fall down, causing some kind of mischief. If it has to be a loose lever, a horizontal orientation of the control would help remove gravity as a complicating factor.

Differentiation of the set of controls is a next concern, and as you’ll read in a later post, I quite like the horizontal orientation of the Triple Contact Electro Magnet lever, which is mounted to the panel just below. Having two horizontal controls, one on top of the other, isn’t great differentiation, even when the control is tightly chunked with its actuator. If it was sticking with this vertical lever for differentiation, then a spring-return lever would make more sense. n.b. It wouldn’t solve the missing controls problem.

A hint of agency?

There is a curious moment when Dr. Scott first appears on the laboratory monitor. The shot is close up on the monitor, so it’s hard to tell if it was due to some action a character took, but the screen goes from staticky to the channel showing Dr. Scott. Many modern systems do that—think of how Zoom automatically switches to the camera showing the current speaker—but it would take a person doing vigilant technical direction back in 1975.

Screenshot from the movie showing Riff Raff discovering Dr. Scott outside the castle via the laboratory monitor. He is speaking and returning the lever to its vertical position.

I’m unprepared to ascribe context awareness to the design of these interfaces, but it would be way ahead of its time if it did. After the close-up shot, a pulled back shot shows Riff Raff returning the lever to vertical. This implies he was there off camera pulling the lever in the first shot, but the film does not show what signal might have had him reaching for it in the first place, or what he did to select the channel where Dr. Scott was shown.

So, in the end, the monitors are a narrative interface, conveying the voyeurism and communication plot moments. Their interfaces are handwaves that enable “character sees thing” beats, and we have to leave them as such.

Maybe we’ll fare better with The Vivification Interfaces

The Cookie Console

Black_Mirror_Cookie_12.png

Virtual Greta has a console to perform her slavery duties. Matt explains what this means right after she wakes up by asking her how she likes her toast. She answers, “Slightly underdone.”

He puts slices of bread in a toaster and instructs her, “Think about how you like it, and just press the button.”

She asks, incredulously, “Which one?” and he explains, “It doesn’t matter. You already know you’re making toast. The buttons are symbolic mostly, anyway.”

She cautiously approaches the console and touches a button in the lower left corner. In response, the toaster drops the carriage lever and begins toasting.

Black_Mirror_Cookie_13

“See?” he asks, “This is your job now. You’re in charge of everything here. The temperature. The lighting. The time the alarm clock goes off in the morning. If there’s no food in the refrigerator, you’re in charge of ordering it.”

The starter console

Since we actually do know her starter tasks, I wish the default console had more control types than just the smattering of mostly-square, all-unlabeled buttons. She should have a slider for scalar variables like temperature and lighting. She should have a dial for the alarm clock. She should have a map of real Greta’s house. She should have a calendar for appointments. These would be controls that match the kinds of variables she’s likely to need from the start.

This console interface seems be quite similar to the one in Inside Out, which also seems to grow and change over time, and is intended for a virtual sentience to service a real human. It somewhat resembles Zion’s virtual control panel from The Matrix Reloaded. Would be worth a comparison sometime in the future.

inside-out-joy-600x338
Zion.PNG

The customized console

In the third scene, we see her using the console after having had some practice. When it is time to wake real Greta up, she swipes a blank console right. The console animates to life, showing a central workspace labeled AWAKEN. A toolbar of stacked icons sits to the left of the workspace. There are other unlabeled controls outside the workspace at the edge of the console.

Without looking, she selects the house icon from the toolbar, and it moves to the center of the work space. She spreads her hands to expose a house floorplan. To the right are three vertical black bars labeled SHUTTERS above and MAIN BEDROOM below. She pushes upwards along these bars, and they slowly fill with light. To the right, some text flashes ACTIVATING ALL SHUTTERS. In real Greta’s world, the shutters rise and floods the main bedroom with light.

Black_Mirror_Cookie_20.png

A few more taps gives her a volume spinner. She uses a wrist twist to slowly turn the volume up on a recording of the overture of Giaochino Rossini’s The Thieving Magpie. (Which I suspect is a nod to Clockwork Orange. Kubrick famously used it to underscore the horrible murder of Mrs. Weathers, “the cat lady.”)

Black_Mirror_Cookie_22.pngSubsequently we see her performing other tasks: Raising the floor temperature (!), starting the espresso robot, making (yes) slightly underdone toast, and managing the day’s appointments. Each interface is customized to the task.

Interface Analysis?

These interfaces are a challenge to analyze for many reasons.

Ordinarily, we have to evaluate sci-fi interfaces based on broad-based heuristics. (User feedback testing is not possible.) But these interfaces are wholly idiosyncratic to this character. Even if it was complete shite, the fact that it works for her is what is important. This interface will never be seen by anyone else. That we get to see it is narrative conceit.

Idiosyncrasy is not the only challenge. She also has a very unusual circumstance. Her option is to manage this house, or face unending, tortuous solitary confinement. (Or get sold to be cannon fodder in a war game.) The interactions she has with this console are her source of mental stimulation. That means, rather than make things efficient and easy to do—which is a respectable goal in most real-world design—when customizing her console interface, she would try to make the interfaces require as much and as interesting of work as possible while still allowing her to manage the results precisely. We see her here opening the shades with a gesture, but she could, if she wanted, open the shades by mastering difficult yoga pose.

If this sounds slightly familiar, it could be because you’ve played video games. The designers of these systems are not aiming for efficiency. After all, the interface could just be a big red button labeled “win the game.” But that’s no fun. No flow, in the Csíkszentmihályi sense. Rather these interfaces aim to make working the problem fun, fitting in the space between boredom and panic. Are game interfaces beyond critique? They are not. We just have to rethink our criteria. Ultimate efficiency is not the goal.

cb504697-b1ad-41c5-bcac-b0e3c92f7f55-1892-0000048e7d4deb3a
Still fun.

But, we also have to take into account that her fight is against boredom and that she has the power to change these interfaces. The interface designs, then, become part of how she maintains her own interest in the tasks to which she is chained. As part of her own self-care, she would change them frequently. What we see is not to be read as “the right answer” but rather, “where this interface happens to be on this day.” So, for instance, there appears to be a lot of “noise” in the interfaces, with unlabeled black squares littered among the actually useful buttons. But that may be the challenge she’s set up for herself today: Can she keep the tasks done without looking at the interface, and minimize the number of black squares she accidentally taps?

Lastly, Matt tells her that the interface is symbolic, and part of how she operates it is by thinking. So, for example, when we wonder how she adds a new “music type” icon to the existing array, it could be that she just thinks it. Which confounds the usual concern for affordances and constrains.

All of this is to say this is shaky, shaky ground for an exhaustive analysis. I suspect it would be thick with problems that could be excused diegetically, and leave us struggling to find any useful lessons beyond design platitudes. There are three nice elements I will point out, though.

  1. I love the monochrome, high-contrast palette. Yes, you lose some channels (R,G,B) in which to encode meaning, but that also makes it quick to scan and gives it high visibility, so virtual Greta can operate it in her peripheral vision. This allows her to keep her eyes on real Greta, to read her expressions in real-time.
  2. The gestures seem generally well-mapped to the things being controlled: A gesture up raises the blinds (or the light levels, anyway.) Dropping a virtual lever drops the carriage lever. Lifting it pops up the toast. It’s not all perfect. A wrist-twist increases volume, but that’s only ideal when the extents are unknowable by the interface. It should be a smart, informational slider.
  3. There is a lovely gestural command in the appointment interface. Greta is able to stack the day’s events, gather them into a package by bringing her hands together, and then “toss” it towards the display of real Greta to instantiate a brief of the day’s events. It has a nice intuitive mapping to mean “give these to her.”
Cookie_throw_gesture.gif

What’s her dev environment?

Sadly, we never get to see her design environment, how she goes about customizing her interface, or even how she switches from control mode to use mode. This would be juicy and worth looking at, specifically. The dev environment is crucial for understanding what her options are to meet her goals. And specifically, this calls into question how she can hack the system, and how likely she can communicate with real Greta, or find a sympathetic someone on the Internet to communicate with, or plot her escape.

How does feedback work?

Another thing we don’t get to see in this story is how real Greta provides feedback. I suspect that for simple things, like “the toast was a bit overdone this morning” (correction, preferences) or “I’d like to hear some Stravinsky this morning,” (a new request) she can just speak it. Virtual Greta will hear and respond through the house appliances appropriately. But what if she had a question for the Cookie, such as “How much time do I have before I need to leave?” You’d might think virtual Greta could look something up and communicate the answer to real Greta. But it seems that virtual Greta is prevented from direct communication. The daily briefing, after all, is read by some other computer voice. This implies that virtual Greta is prevented from direct communication, raising a troubling question answered in the next post: Does real Greta know?

Jasper’s car dashboard

Jasper is a longtime friend of Theo’s who offers his home as a safe house for a time. Jasper’s civilian vehicle features a device on its dashboard that merits some attention. It is something like a small laptop computer, with a flat-screen in a roughly pill-shaped black plastic frame mounted in the center of the dashboard. The top half of this screen shows a view from a backward-facing camera mounted on the vehicle.

childrenofmen-012

The lower half shows a number of different mode- and context-aware displays. The first we see is an overhead schematic of the vehicle, showing pulses moving back and forth from the front to the rear of the car, similar to Prius dash displays that display the transfer of power between the brakes and the battery.

childrenofmen-010
2838668732_c9ccdcdc97_b

As the vehicle nears Jasper’’s house, the overhead schematic view draws up and is replaced with a column of text, which is in turn replaced by a circular object with animated rays projecting from it. Neither Jasper nor Theo gives the screen any notice during the scene.

Several dings

It’s dangerous to ask drivers to parse columns of text while operating a vehicle. Information must be glanceable.

The monochrome display seems to unnecessarily constrain the color palette. It’s good to give color-blind users modes that optimize the display for monochrome, and if we’re being generous, we can presume Jasper’s done just that.

But on the other hand, the monochrome minimizes the distractions that the mode switching causes. Note that the rapid changes that happen when Jasper is not on open road, but nearing a building. His attention should be on navigating the space ahead of him rather than on the screen. Maybe the monochrome helps ameliorate this.

Lastly note that the dashboard also features a full keyboard beneath the screen, positioned for the driver’s use. Since we never see it in use, let’s hope it’s not actually meant to be used while driving. Better would be a more suitable input mechanism like voice that doesn’t occupy the driver’s hands and eyes to use.

But wait

But those dings make more sense when we consider the interface narratively. The big clue is why would it persistently show a backward-facing camera when he’s driving forward? Can’t he just use the rear-view mirror? It seems to be something a normal driver wouldn’t concern themselves with. But it is something that a member of an underground resistance might be interested in, to use computer vision algorithms to help him know if he or she was being tailed or there was some threat behind him. That clue (along with the contrast to Syd’s car display) hints that this is not an off-the-shelf system, but something that Jasper has hacked together for himself. Maybe the software is shared amongst resistance members.

In any case, a homemade system can’t be expected to have the same level of usability as a professionally designed one. So narratively, this interface earns a pass.