I think that HF has its place in ATC, most definitely. However I along with some other supposed 'narrow-minded' people wonder how effective the department is at times.
At the end of the day when installing operational systems the end users, us ignorant narrow-minded people, are the customers.
Frustration arises when (and it may seem trivial) - seats are bought at great expense for TC and when questioned the answer was 'no one objected to them in the trial' - a statement that was factually incorrect.
Headsets bought that are uncomfortable and not fit for purpose.
No colour display on stack management cameras/displays because it was felt it would 'overwhelm ATCOs' who were moving from WD to Swanwick.
Furthermore, and here is the biggy - what is the HF take on EFPS for TC? A busy environment, with multiple conflictions per aircraft that requires a lot of moving strips manually to highlight the conflictions.
I remember being told by HF that one of the biggest and best aide memoirs for an ATCO was the sensation of physically picking up, handling, and moving a physical strip.
How does that theory (which I fully believe), sit with EFPS? Is anyone from HF bringing this point up? Surely that is what HF is there for - technology for technology's sake is not the way to implement new equipment.
I'd hope HF would put a stopper on things if needed, but it seems that if management want something, it will happen, regardless of what is common sense.
HF does have a place in ATC, but sometimes its readily apparent why people are cynical.