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.

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:)

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.

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.

[1] https://www.elliottlewis.com/app/css/images/pjm-control-room... [2] https://www.dezeen.com/2009/08/03/electricity-distribution-c... [3] http://www.experience-it-all.com/2009/08/moscow%E2%80%99s-el...

I had this idea first back when I saw Star Trek The Next Generation and its slick flat computer panels, called "okudagrams" after their designer, Michael Okuda - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCARS. I tried to reproduce the look in a note-taking application. It didn't work. The UI was dominated by these large colored buttons and arches, with too much contrast against the black background, leaving too little room for the actual content.

There is a lot of room for creative metaphor in computer UI, in my opinion - however, I do also agree with your contention that its up to the user. I'm quite sure these complicated interfaces are good for, at the very least, one single user.

Ultimately, it will depend on your own definition of "cool" and "useful" as to how well any one UI suits those labels.

https://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Die+Hard+4.0+-+M...

for reference this is what it looked like in the movie:

https://nmap.org/movies/diehard4/nmap-diehard4-crop-600x300....