One of the many things that Star Trek doesn’t have that its rival space epic Star Wars has is a tourist attraction. Star Trek used to have the great Star Trek Experience attraction in Las Vegas, but that has been gone for over 18 months now. Star Wars has the long running (and soon to be revamped) Star Tours ride at Disneyland and Disney World, and Disney also offers the Star Wars weekends special events every year in Orlando.

Yes, Star Trek has a traveling exhibition, which is cool, but it’s not like the Experience was – a must-see destination for Trekkers like me. They are still trying to get the Experience revived but the economy – especially in the troubled Las Vegas region – is not helping matters. So, I thought to myself as I was daydreaming the other day, how do you do a permanent Star Trek destination on the cheap?

The answer came in a flash. Retheming.

Retheming is the term used when a theme park attraction is, in affect, “re-skinned”; When a new tie-in or story is applied to an old attraction, to leverage the legacy hardware and building. And no one does it better than Disney.

Disney has rethemed buildings at their parks numerous times, a fairly recent example being when they changed a mostly-empty stage building to the American Idol Experience at Disney’s Hollywood Studios. It’s cheap (compared to building a new attraction), it’s relatively quick to implement, and can draw people in who would not have gone to the “old” attraction before.

I have three retheming ideas Disney can use if they cut a deal to license Star Trek (which would not be unprecedented – Universal licenses Star Trek form Paramount for an attraction in the 1980s).

Option 1: Stitch’s Great Escape. Instead of having Stitch in the center of the auditorium, have a Borg be the specimen that has been captured. Enhance the ride with two or three cast members in Borg outfits browsing through the audience.. and give the audience Phasers attached to their seats that can let them defend themselves. Leave in the dark, scary moments and re-theme the entryway and signage to be Starfleet. It’s already been rethemed once before, why not again?

Option 2: Innoventions. Add Star Trek theming to Innoventions, and surround the new inventions to a Star Trek scenario. Have the cast members don the red, blue and gold tunics and divide the areas into science, engineering and command. Sell Star Trek merchandise in the carts in front of both entrances.

Option 3: Mission Space. This is one of my favorite rides at Epcot, and features a great spaceflight simulator that (unfortunately) not a lot of people ride nowadays. The thing is, the ride uses a fictional space agency and a futuristic space ship you pilot…. So how hard would it be to replace the agency with Star Trek and the space ship with a long-range shuttle in the ride film? Not very, I think. Rebrand the whole thing “Starfleet Academy”, put the cast members in Trek uniforms, and then rebrand the Advanced Training Lab play area and gift shop. Heck, you can even add on to the building and create a quick-service area/bar like Quarks (from the Star Trek Experience) or you can use the nearby (and mostly abandoned) Odyssey Center for the new Quarks Bar and Restaurant… Or a Star Trek museum.

It’s this last option – rebranding Mission Space – is the most ambitious and the one that I think would resonate with the most folks (it would also take away from the stigma the ride had after two people died on it the past few years). Of course, all this would cost money, and Disney is already tying up a lot of cash with a refresh of Fantasyland…

But I can’t help that it would work. As we saw with last year’s Star Trek reboot, a lot of people still love the property and a lot of new fans were created from the film. It would be expensive but not THAT expensive. And it could live up to the promise of Epcot, the city of the future. What’s more futuristic than Star Trek?

Anyway, it’ll probably never happen. But a man can dream…

There, that wasn’t too hard, was it?

Remember all that? Because those days are long gone. Dead, and buried. The new rules of engagement? Not more features, but better features. Improvements, enhancements, and usability. The design of the software is now the selling point.

And I couldn’t be happier. Why is obvious, but I’ll state it directly anyway: Now the programs are designed for users, and not by engineers or project managers trying to one-up the competition. Now, the software is appropriate, appealing and most importantly USEFUL.

Two examples, both from the Big 800-lb Gorilla of software, Microsoft. Recently, Microsoft released the beta of their Microsoft Office 2010 suite, and the design enhancements are plentiful and incredible. They have designed a new File “menu” that groups like functions in a way that brings a gasp to users who are accustomed to the old awkward UI that was presented when they tried to print or export documents – it even provides context-driven options that are based on the specific Office program you are using, integrated and consistent across programs.

The second example? Microsoft’s recently announce Windows Mobile 7 operating system (renamed “Windows Phone 7”). The new UI is a dramatic departure from the standard phone interface, in that the UI is driven by data and not applications – contextual options display about your calendar mail and contacts, instead of having applications be the center of the interaction model. it’s unique, it’s user-centered and, frankly… it’s bold. It’s the type of innovative design work one would expect from a company like Apple – not Microsoft. It’s impressive.

So, when even the king of “featuritis” Microsoft starts to focus on experience design… well, the tide has turned.

It’s a great time to be a software designer, and an even better time to be a user experience designer – because, finally, the companies who make software “get it” – it’s about the how, not just about the what. It’s about making engaging appealing experiences for user – not just shipping lots of bullet-point functionality.

Is this an ongoing trend? Absolutely. I see more and more companies embracing a user-centered design model, especially in those areas where software is becoming a “commodity play” – which is, well, almost everywhere. I see good times – and great human-computer interactions – ahead.

A gray Dalek, straight from the 70s! Some weird flipping-head dude! The statue from Blink! And a Silurian! Can. Not. Wait.

One of the shows that JJ Abrams and producer/writer Damon Lindleoff has cited as an influence to LOST was The Prisoner, the groundbreaking 1960s spy show from the late great Patrick McGoohan that confounded viewers as much as entertained them. That series ended with the Village being destroyed (or at least abandoned) and The Prisoner (also known as Number 6) “free.” Until…

You saw the last scene. The last scene of The Prisoner saw the lead character driving his car towards the camera – the exact same scene that began the series. What did this mean? That it was all going to happen again, with the same result? Was he in a loop?

Yes. And No. It was all in the eye of the beholder.

“The Prisoner is ultimately what the show aspires to be,” Damon Lindelof said in 2006. Was this an off-the-cuff comment, or a very big clue? I think the later.

We have seen flash-backs, flash-forwards, and now, with this last season a concept called “flash-sideways” which is supposed to show what happens if they don’t get on the island.

Except they get to the island. They ALWAYS get to the island. They are meant to be. Or, to quote another recently-ended favorite program: “All this has happened before, and will happen again.”

They are in a moebius strip, and we will see both timelines merge by the end of the year, in a stalemate, and almost all will be explained. How does that end? No idea. And only a few people know the final shot we will see of LOST, and one of them is actor Matthew Fox (who plays Jack) – he said on Jimmy Kimmel he knows what it is.

Of course he does, cause he’s the only actor in the shot.

The last shot of the series – Jack’s opening his eyes as he lies in the jungle after the crash – will be the same as the first shot of the first episode. The perfect bookend. The end is the beginning is the end. Just like on The Prisoner.

The symbolism of the show has been clear – the record, the donkey-wheel – all are circular, not linear… Heck, they even had the “Oceanic (Number) Six” – They ALL are The Prisoner. And I’m not the only one to see similarities in both shows.

“They have to go back!”

Of course. They have no choice. That is the wheel, and that is their fate – to be forever LOST.

Shortly after the announcement, the criticisms started flying all around the Internet: “I don’t need it.” “It sounds like a feminine hygiene product.” ”It’s just a big iPod Touch.” “Where’s the camera?” And so on. I don’t disagree with many of these comments – especially the ones around the product name – but I think they are mostly trivialities. The iPad is a game changer, for many reasons, and one that I think will be very very successful.

Why? Because it is going to be a device that people will use instead of a full-fledged computer, just as netbooks have supplanted full laptops and desktops. Netbooks are limited devices, just as they stated in the keynote announcing the iPad. Is the iPad better than a notebook? No. It’s different, and services many of the same needs that netbooks do, only better – which is why I think it will be successful.

The best description I heard of the iPad came from Chief TWIT Leo Laporte, immediately after the announcement. The iPad is not as powerful as a full computer, it doesn’t do multitasking, but that’s fine. It’s an appliance, a utilitarian device that gets “out of the way” and lets people DO THINGS. That’s been Apple’s modus operandi for years, and this device appears to do that quite elegantly.

Another observation from the announcement: Steve Jobs said very directly at the end that they could not have released this two years ago, basically because the interaction model and UI would have been too high a learning curve for consumers. The iPhone and iPod Touch, as it shares the same model as the iPad, has reduced that learning curve tremendously.

This, I think, is one of the brilliant things about what Apple does. They can do some revolutionary things with their products – just look at some of their patent applications – but they know that if they put something out that is too “out there” then users will be confused and this “resistance to the new” prevents them from purchasing the device. Again, another reason I’m bullish on the iPad.

So, what does this mean when it comes to us Interaction design folks? It means a great opportunity to do things differently. Looking at the keynote and reviewing the updated SDK, it appears the interaction models and controls they have defined for the iPad are very consistent and quite “learnable” – I particularly like the way they have designed the standard “portrait” mode and differentiated if from “landscape”, hiding contextual navigation and other controls in portrait and displaying them in landscape (The e-mail client is a good example of this).

More than that though, the iPad presents us with both design opportunities and challenges. We have to adapt to the new interaction models that the iPad allows. The thing that the iPad reminds me most of is, ironically, a Microsoft product. Microsoft Surface featured some very interesting technology and design ideas that allowed you to “play” with information on a tabletop. Now, we have similar tech in a portable magazine-sized device, and the same possibility, which was much more limited when it comes to Surface, is available to all.

I know that I am already working on how I can design things in this medium, and if you want to “future proof” yourself, I’d recommend you start looking into doing the same. Knowing how to design apps on the iPad will, in my opinion, become a very desirable skill in the years to come.

I won’t debate the pros or cons about that idea (but, as a libertarian, you can probably guess my opinion) but instead I bring this up to note that similar concerns have been expressed about another huge data system that has an incredible amount of personal information about Americans… Google.

No, I’m not one of those “OMG Google is spying on us” types, I just think we are about to enter a new era very soon where Total Information Awareness is not something that we will need to be afraid of – it will be something that all of us are going to have access to, anywhere we are.

Two examples: First, there are the augmented reality apps that are being developed by many different companies allows you to use your mobile device’s camera and GPS to “see” additional details about your surroundings. The best example of this I have seen is in the Yelp app, which gives you contextual information about restaurants, shops, and more in this manner.

Second is Google Goggles, another piece of “beta” software that is kind of “augmented reality on steroids.” It allows you to access similar contextual knowledge, only n this case it is not limited to restaurant, entertainment or shop reviews – you can take a picture of a neighborhood and Google will give you information about where you are, all from that really big database they are managing of, well, EVERYTHING. They won’t do facial recognition, out of privacy concerns… but who’s to say someone else won’t push that technology out there, to get a jump on Google in this new metadata-filled space?

When you can install Google Goggles on Android phones and Yelp on that and other devices, for free, I think you are seeing a new and challenging area that we as users and designers need to be very very cautious about. The potential for information overload is greater than ever when you can access such contextual information anytime, anywhere… not to mention the potential for abuse (especially if the facial recognition stuff is eventually made public).

The world is changing, and as I said before, the future has arrived – it’s just not the one we were expecting. Let’s remember (quoting that great scientist Jeff Goldblum) that just because technology allows us to do something doesn’t mean we should.

The opening narration! The Jeep flip! Even B.A.’s head turn and glare! One ticket: sold!

I can’t even count the number of times I have tried to do something in a software program and the process of attempting the task at hand was either needlessly complicated or hard to find or both. I almost used the word “confronted” in that last sentence, because that’s what it felt like – conflict. The program was not working with me, it was fighting me – using controls and ideas that an engineer had conceived, one that was alien to me as a use.

I do not want to fight software – I want to USE software.

As a user experience designer, I hope (and pray) to never inflict the type of contrived and ill-informed program on my users – that’s why I do my “due diligence” and research users, test my designs, and make the best solution I can for my company’s customers in the (always limited) time I have to deliver such a solution. And, in those times I find limited – which is more often than not – I follow two basic principles.

Wabi and Sabi.

What, you may think, is that? Well, they are two concepts of simplicity as defined in Zen (details here). I approach these concepts as a designer, not with any pretension or formal focus, but as guiding principles. I make the design simple and try and make it effortless for the user to take and use. My designs will never be perfect – nothing is.

I always focus on the saying I heard many years ago that “perfect is the enemy of good,” and so always try and I make the design appropriate and approachable more than anything else, using the language of the user and not some contrived technical terms or making the screen oppressive and, therefore, intimidating.

It isn’t easy, and I’m still working on it, but I definitely recommend that you take the concepts of Zen to heart whenever you approach a design problem. The simple path is sometimes far better than the complex one.

He should have. Because, while The Hurt Locker is a brutal and real depiction of people in an incredibly stressful situation – defusing IEDs in Iraq – Avatar is one of the most thin sloppy and false movies I saw last year. And I’m not talking about the CGI, I’m referring to the characters and plot. It’s thin as gruel, Saturday-morning television stuff. As South Park so aptly parodied it early this year, it’s “Dances with Smurfs”, played in large IMAX-scaled size. And in 3D!

Do I hate it? No, I’m frustrated by it. I’m disappointed by it. I like James Cameron, but more as a director than a writer. This was an opportunity lost, because Cameron refused to accept that he is NOT A GOOD WRITER he did it all by himself, and he needed help (much Like Lucas realized as he was writing the last Star Wars prequel). There is not one moment as I watched the film that I cared or sympathized with any of the characters on screen. Movies are about association and empathy and I did. Not. Care.

Is it stunning? Absolutely. Is it award-winning, for the visuals alone? Yes. Is it good, to me? No. To me it is Transformers 2 with a slightly better plot and better design and cinematography. As technology advances, and the visuals we see in it become commonplace and better filmmakers and writers realize than now anything can happen, I suspect it will not age well.

Yes, it is making a quazillion dollars. Good. It’s the closest thing we have right now in theatres to original SF, and I hope that Hollywood sees this and takes a chance on adapting some GOOD SF to theatre screens, like, well, anything Baen publishes right now. Or maybe that great Harlan Ellison I ROBOT script he did two-plus decades ago. They’d have to rename it, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the Will Smith movie.

Anyway, I know there are people who LOVE Avatar. And I’m happy for them. Movies are, like all art, received as personal experiences – you take something, or you leave it. You love it, or you hate it. For me, Avatar is a brilliant technological achievement without any real characters I care about.

It is a pretty, empty box.