Appears that ATCOs are like economists...get 10 in a room and you get 15 opinions on what should be the font/ size/color/trackball feel/etc.
As a witness to some of the earlier efforts at AAS in the US I watched as a controller team had a technical meeting with the contractor, provided input ,went away. The contractor worked for a few months and they had another meeting with the controllers. Except it wasn't exactly the same controllers so the input was a little different, and the contractor then went off and incorporated the input for another few months and billed the FAA. Lovely work if you can get it but a terribly way to build a system.
Since it appears that the next software drop is November 2002 (got to be careful to put years in you know) you should be alert to the "incredible shrinking build" game. If a certain drop of software is supposed to be made up of 10 builds you must watch which build has which functionality in it (or function points if you are a S/W person and use that method). What happens sometimes is that the builds all show up on schedule and work fine but don't have the functions in them that they are supposed to have and it all either gets shoved into the last build or 10 builds turn into 12 or more as the schedule slips or (most likely) the drop is delivered on schedule with 10 builds that don't have all the functions they are supposed to have.
Obvious NATS/NERC management has not been fired or disciplined or made to atone for their failures. The have found out how to "fail upward". It happens in many organizations. I've observed it and know it when I see it, but have yet to figure out exactly how it is done.
Specifying displays for ATC (and other) systems requiring resolution, color, and other characteristics is not an easy or quick task. The displays for the FAA system were specificed by the usual engineering measures, but there was only one source for CRTs of the size needed (about 20" square) and that was Sony in Japan, though they later built a plant in California. The characteristics specified for pixel size, resolution etc were as I recall similar to the specifications for very good quality PC monitors at the time, which hasn't changed much to today. This only gives the underlying physical capabilities of the display. Next you have to write the display driver software to use these physical characteristics, and lastly you write the software to write the characters and graphics on the screen. Then it all has to run on the computer platform you are using.
What the controllers can do is get together and agree on what they want and describe it quantitatively. No "you knows" or "just like so and so's" or any of that arm waving. If you can't describe it in a quantitative manner and get it put in a contract the contractor can not be held to build it. What he can do is work his a** off at best effort and send you the bill along with the product. And if it still isn't what you want he'll try again if you can describe it and also send you the bill, again. Not horribly useful.
Good luck to all at Swanwick.