That’s a very good description, but what you’re describing is Rafale’s cockpit layout and equipment (the hardware), and not the Man Machine Interface itself.

MMI is achieved via hardware, of course, but the hardware isn’t the MMI.

MMI is like your computer’s OS, and you’re describing its keyboard, the configuration of the mouse and the spec of its LCD/CRT display screen.

They come into it, but they don’t represent the core of what MMI means.

I doubt that anyone who doesn’t use a Fast Jet Man Machine Interface for a living is qualified to make any judgement as to the pros and cons of a given MMI, and even then, we the readers would have to disentangle what makes a good MMI from what makes a good MMI for a particular pilot.

Thus the Rafale’s MMI might be viewed as being the best in the world by a Mirage 2000 pilot, while a Heritage Hornet pilot will prefer that of the Super Hornet, a JA37 pilot will appreciate the Gripen and no-one will like Typhoon as much as they like their present mount! There will even be pilots who think that the Su-35 has a great MMI, if they come to it from an upgraded Su-27.

You might get a better idea from the brand new ‘rookie’ fast jet pilot, though he’s likely to favour the MMI which best resembles that of the aircraft that he has trained on, unless he has trained on an entirely analogue, non-glass, non HUD equipped advanced trainer, and there aren’t that many of those still around.

That doesn’t mean that the subject is entirely subjective, as the test community have a range of objective scales that can be used to measure the efficacy of a particular MMI.

I rather suspect that you’d need to be a Test Pilot to know what they’re called, let alone to be able to use and then interpret them.