Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GUI Books Media Software Book Reviews

3D User Interfaces 353

Posted by timothy from the stereo-au-means-solid-gold dept.
Martin Ecker writes "Two-dimensional user interfaces (UIs) have been around for a long time, and people are accustomed to using them. However, 3-dimensional user interfaces have not yet received as much exposure. Only a select few applications utilize 3D UIs, some with more success than others. The book 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice (published by Addison-Wesley) attempts to give a broad overview of the field of 3D user interfaces. It discusses the hardware devices and the software techniques required to build successful 3D UIs and gives a number of design guidelines to follow when having to develop new 3D interaction techniques for specific applications." Read on for the rest of Ecker's review.
3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice
author Doug A. Bowman, Ernst Kruijff, Joseph J. LaViola Jr., Ivan Poupyrev
pages 478
publisher Addison-Wesley Publishing
rating 7/10
reviewer Martin Ecker
ISBN 0201758679
summary An extensive overview of 3D input and output devices, 3D interaction techniques, and 3D user interfaces.

The book contains 13 chapters, divided into five parts. The first part contains two short chapters that introduce the basic concepts of 3D user interfaces, give a bit of history of 3D UIs, and define the scope of the book.

The second part discusses hardware input and output devices that are useful when developing 3D user interfaces. The first chapter in this part is on output devices and it presents various visual and auditory displays. Haptic devices are also discussed in this chapter. The following chapter presents 2D and 3D input devices that can be used with 3D user interfaces. The devices discussed include not only the classics, such as 2D mice, keyboards, and joysticks, but also 3D mice, tracking devices, and various forms of direct human input, such as via speech or via bioelectric signals.

The third and largest part of the book is on 3D interaction techniques. The first chapter of this part discusses the various ways that have been devised in the past to perform 3D selection and manipulation of objects. A vast number of techniques are presented in this chapter, from various pointing and virtual hand techniques to widgets for rotating an object. The following chapters discuss techniques to allow navigation through virtual worlds and user interfaces, in particular techniques for traveling and pathfinding. The following chapter is on system control and it discusses how to control the system via commands, such as using graphical menus, voice and gestural commands, or real-world tools. Finally, this part of the book contains a chapter on symbolic input, i.e. communicating text or numbers to the system, in the context of 3D UIs.

Part four of the book deals with designing and developing 3D user interfaces. For me, this was the most interesting part of the book because it shows how to put together the various input/output devices and interaction techniques presented in the previous chapters. This part also contains a chapter on evaluation of the design and implementation of user interfaces, an important aspect in order to ensure the usability of a user interface.

In the book's final section, the author takes a look at the future of 3D user interfaces with a focus on the combination of the virtual world with the real world -- so-called augmented or mixed reality. This area has received quite a bit of attention from academic research in recent years.

Throughout the book, there are useful guidelines on designing usable user interfaces. Following these guidelines will probably not give you a perfect 3D user interface, but it will definitely help you avoid the common mistakes and pitfalls. It would have been nice if all the guidelines in the book had been put all together in a separate appendix in addition to having them spread out all over the book.

The book also has a number of images and illustrations. The figures throughout the book are in black and white, apart from a four-page color insert that depicts various hardware input and output devices.

This book contains a lot of information and is probably the most comprehensive book on 3D user interfaces I have seen to date. Pretty much every aspect of 3D UIs is covered in the book somewhere, with some topics being covered in more detail than others. If you're not familiar with 3D UIs at all, this book gives you an excellent introduction to this active field of research. If you are already somewhat familiar with the topic, this book offers you a comprehensive overview of the field and gives you many references to more detailed research articles and papers.

Martin Ecker has been involved in real-time graphics programming for more than 9 years and works as a games developer for arcade games. In his rare spare time he works on a graphics-related open source project called XEngine.

You can purchase 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

3D User Interfaces More

3D User Interfaces

Comments Filter:

  • This is UNIX (Score:5, Funny)

    by Shut the fuck up! ( 572058 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:21PM (#11076443)
    I know this!

  • 3d interfaces (Score:3, Funny)

    by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:23PM (#11076464)
    My UI is already 3D (the third dimension being time).

  • Define "Interface" (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:23PM (#11076471)
    The last time I tried to expose *my* 3D user interface, I was escorted to the nearest holding facility for psychological review. /zing

  • I'll stick to 2d (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 88NoSoup4U88 ( 721233 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:23PM (#11076472)
    As long as the "3d" is still displayed on a 2d-field, I'm sticking to good ol' 2d.

    Wake me up when they have the gear available that is being used in Minority Report : There seems to be more thought put into that than just to give Cruise a cool way to look for information.

    • second that (Score:3, Interesting)

      by GunFodder ( 208805 )
      The holographic computer interface was the coolest part of that movie. It really looked like a good way to process a lot of dense audiovisual data as quickly as possible. Too many movie computer systems look like nothing more than limited use expert systems with flashy graphics and cheesy sound.
    • Some people think there is some natural prgression that we should go from 2d to 3d, but the fact is we never realy had a 1d interface. (I don't think I'm willing to except that the command line is 1d) I think the next UI will be something completly new. If you have to do all this and people still aren't going for it chances are that it's a solution looking for a problem.

      Look how popular the GUI became, did it really take much to get people to go from the command line to teh GUI?

    • Hand Waving (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ThePyro ( 645161 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @06:01PM (#11076815)
      I'd definitely prefer the current point-and-click interface over all that hand waving in Minority Report. Why do so many "futuristic" interfaces (as seen in movies) require the users to move more? That's a step backwards, not a step forwards. Nobody wants to break into a sweat just trying to use a computer.

      • Re:Hand Waving (Score:5, Funny)

        by fred fleenblat ( 463628 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @06:30PM (#11077049) Homepage
        depends on what web site you're accessing...
      • Yeah ... I remember thinking that when I was watching Johnny Mnemonic.

        On the other hand ... a little exercise while working would certainly be healthier for all us chair pilots.

      • Re:Hand Waving (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SilentJ_PDX ( 559136 )
        Really? The mouse requires more movement than the keyboard but the mouse is definitely a step forwards in terms of UI. Sure, CLI hackers can do a lot more with a keyboard but the mouse has helped bring computers to the masses.

        A UI shouldn't be judged on how much the user has to move but on how intuitive it is. I move a lot more with my evolution [m-audio.com] but it's much more intuitive (and infinitely faster) than working with a mouse on Reason [propellerheads.se].

        • Re:Hand Waving (Score:3, Insightful)

          by schvenk ( 466484 ) *
          Actually, a UI should be judged on both. The balance varies depending on the intended user. A UI that sacrificies efficiency for intuitiveness is fine if it will mostly see infrequent, novice use. But a UI that will be used constantly for complex or repetitive tasks might justify a steeper learning curve in exchange for greater efficiency (for example, less extraneous mousing around). In the best case one doesn't have to sacrifice one for the other, of course, but sometimes it's necessary.

        • Re:Hand Waving (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Taladar ( 717494 )
          I wouldn't say the mouse is 'definitly a step forwards'. It is more like a step sideways. The mouse is good at things the keyboard is bad and the other way round. If you don't have to do anything graphical (no drawing, no moving in FPS,...) the keyboard is faster than the mouse.

          Just another instance of "right tool for the job"
      • Look at it this way, at least in the future all the geeks will be super fit.

  • SphereXP (Score:5, Informative)

    by lordkuri ( 514498 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:24PM (#11076482)
    I've tried out SphereXP [hamar.sk] and I have to say it's pretty kludgy. It bogged my machine down quite a bit, and just seemed rather counter intuitive. The idea of "parking" a window somewhere, and not being able to interact with it unless you restore it seemed to be a pretty big limitation to me.

  • Sphere XP (Score:2, Informative)

    by lou2ser ( 458778 )
    If anyone wants to try a 3D UI plugin for Windows XP, I reccomend Sphere XP http://www.hamar.sk/sphere/ [hamar.sk] I have not used it in months, but it was fun to play around with. Not the most useful thing, but it shows where the future is headed.

  • 3DDesktop (Score:2, Interesting)

    by e133tc1pher ( 752949 )
    Not quite a "real" 3D UI, it does have some cool effects for switching between virtual desktops. http://desk3d.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
  • I am happy with X Windows, thank you very much.
    I see no reason, absolutely none at all, why this will improve anyone's computing experience in any way. This is just another fantastic way to waste the CPU. If anyone can point out a valid reason for this, then by all means please let me know.
    • Take a look in our past. Computer interfaces started out with the command line. Would you be happy only using the command line? Then we moved to a basic color "form" style interface. Would you be happy using that? Then we added more intense graphics and windows. This is where we are now. You honestly think that will be the last user interface we ever see?

      What if in some point in the future we can interface to our computer easily with a glove? Perhaps with our own thoughts even. Do you think a flat 2d inter
      • Take a look in our past. Computer interfaces started out with the command line. Would you be happy only using the command line?

        Yes.
      • Would you be happy only using the command line?

        On a daily basis, I use exactly two graphical apps:

        1. Mozilla
        2. Molecular modelling programs

        On a somewhat less regular basis, I use PDF viewers, The Gimp, and several other scientific apps that use a GUI. But 90% of the real work I do gets done in Xterms, and as far as I'm concerned a window manager exists just to keep my terminal windows in order.

        I can think of improved user interfaces that would make my life easier, but most of them would still involve
        • You might want to have a look at Ratpoison http://www.nongnu.org/ratpoison/ [nongnu.org] as a WM. It is a Windowsmanager that basically maximizes every Window (tiling is possible AFAIK) and you can switch between them with the same keys you would use in "screen" (with a different prefix key of course). I use it as the final step of a constant descend KDE->XFCE->Fvwm->Ratpoison since I also use X only to give me more Xterms and for browsing, movies and pictures.
    • It's not an either-or situation: X can be made to look 3D.

      I'd like an X window manager that let me grab the edge of a window and turn it, so it looked like it was facing to the left, right, up, or down, depending on which direction I turned it. You would still see the window, and it would still respond to events, but it would look compressed in the dimension you pushed it.

      Another 3D-like effect would be to move "away" from a group of windows, as zooming out to 10,000 feet, so the group of running apps lo
    • "If anyone can point out a valid reason for this, then by all means please let me know."

      Because then you'll have to buy a faster CPU so you can run 3DSOL.EXE!!!

      And before you say that's not valid... it is valid, just not very good :-)

    • Re:Why is more dimensions "better" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @06:38PM (#11077114)
      > this will improve anyone's computing experience in any way.

      That's ridiculous. Let's talke real 3D, glasses and all. This would completely change everything and for the better. Putting things in a real background, 3D video, parking windows, 3D representations of CD cases instead of ID3 tags, 3D website deisgn, remote control of real world objects, etc.

      >This is just another fantastic way to waste the CPU

      So is anti-aliasing, so is even having a windowing system that isn't completely and utterly bare bones, etc. Some of us buy our CPUs to use them, not coddle them.

      Then again 640k is enough, eh??
      • Its funny, the whole argument about how 3D interfaces are a step back, not forward reminds me of a scene from the Matrix, where Neo is asking why he doesn't need to have the monitors on, and the answer was that he could read the code.

        So...reading code, versus having a visual representation. Some people work better with the more visual stimulus they have, some people work better with less. I actually think this is a necessary step is we want to one day have true Matrix-esqe immersion into a computer. So i

      • Let's talk real 3D, glasses and all. This would completely change everything and for the better.

        Yes, let's talk about this "better" world.

        Putting things in a real background,

        Okay in a real 3D, there is no "background", just like how there's no "background" in real life. There's just things that are farther away. The way you put things in the "background" is either by schlepping the window 5km away from where you're working, and then then return the 5km to your primary worksite. This method is incr

  • Shameless plug (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mite51 ( 771446 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:27PM (#11076522)
    I am working on a 3D UI project, theres still a lot of work to do but I think it has potential. I'd love to get some feedback, positive and negative. I currently have a techdemo but I plan to have a virutal desktop expose like system sometime early next year.
    I will probably buy this book just to see if if actually has any good ideas I can incorporate.
    logiccubed.com [logiccubed.com]
    Jason
    • Well I'll go straight to the source with my question then.

      What, pray tell, makes a 3D interface a step up from a 2D interface?

      I can buy the fact that it's a newer design and therefore has a coolness about it, but I have trouble believing that it's a solid step forward. What are the shortcomings of a 2D desktop that need to be solved?

      If it's really cool, then by all means, go for it. If these are good questions (unlikely) and you want to just see what you can do with a 3D interface, it sounds like a leg

      • Re:Shameless plug (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Mite51 ( 771446 )
        If there is a shortfall to 2D desktops it is that its a parallel graphics paradigm that isnt quite inline with where graphics hardware is going. The benifit of a 3D gui isnt that its 3D per se, but that it can use 3D accelerations. 2D acceleration went the way of the dodo years ago, so from a preformance point of view using 3D APIs is very desireable.

        I am not trying to make a new design or add a lot of eye candy. I would like to think I making something that will actually be useful but takes advantage of

    • Re:Shameless plug (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jugalator ( 259273 )
      Do you work noticeably faster via that 3D interface than in a 2D interface?

      I've found that most 3D interfaces fail already on this point (since you have to for example spend time manipulating and moving around stuff more than in a 2D interface). It doesn't help that both the input device (mouse) and output device (monitor) usually are 2D and inefficient at navigating in and visualizing a 3D environment well. But if you indeed get the job done much faster in that interface, it sounds interesting, and I thin

  • 3d File Browser (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dangerz ( 540904 ) <stuffNO@SPAMtildastudios.net> on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:28PM (#11076532) Homepage
    A while ago I wrote a 3d file browser for Linux. It's available here:

    http://www.freshmeat.net/projects/3dfb/ [freshmeat.net]

    It was a fun project and I wish I had the time to move on with it. I wanted to start adding support for textures and such, but alas school got in the way.

    It was an interesting look into the 3d world. I still use it from time to time just to fly around my file system.

  • My favorite 3d user interface (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CrazyJim1 ( 809850 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:29PM (#11076534) Journal
    I like to be INSIDE a 3dlevel when designing it. I haven't coded the technology, maybe never will, but the ability to 'dig' holes or 'raise' up the walls/floor, or place objects inside the level is CLEARLY SUPERIOR to 2d CAD level design.
    • I wish there was a level editor that had an interface like maya. I could build a simple level in about ten minutes with maya that would take hours with radiant. The 3d views are universally very difficult to navigate, selection tools suck and working in the 3d view in near impossible.

  • Underexposed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:37PM (#11076622) Homepage Journal
    Two-dimensional user interfaces (UIs) have been around for a long time, and people are accustomed to using them. However, 3-dimensional user interfaces have not yet received as much exposure.
    If you mean, "3D UIs haven't been widely accepted", that's true. But if you mean, "We're stuck in a 2D rut because nobody pays attention to 3D UIs," then you have a short memory. Every couple of years there's some new "breakthrough" in 3D technology that's supposed to change the way we use computers -- everything from simple 3D GUI metaphors to "immersive" user interfaces. These have a few applications (mostly having to do with simulating the real world), but mostly people aren't interested.

    And why should they be? Adding a third dimension adds an order of complexity to the interface. The challenge of user interface design is to make things simpler.

    • In support... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) *
      In support of your argument, I have a box at home filled with consumer 3D controllers - there was a fad for special 3D joysticks, all of which seem to have fallen by the wayside.

      A whole industry seemingly built around trying to help you gain better control of the craft in Descent. No more Descent - no more 3D controllers.
      • {sigh} I miss Descent. In network play, it was one of the most awesome games ever written. Probably the only "flying" game where I ever invested significant amounts of time in learning how to control the craft.

        Descent II supported LCD glasses ... I tried that for a while, and it was cool. I found that actually having stereoscopic vision really helped out in game play. I was no longer solely dependent upon visual cuing to decide how far an object was from me ... I just used the occipital area of my he
    • I'm just remembering back to my skepticism when 3D platform games were coming out...

      for instance, I remember when the Nintendo64 came out and I saw a demo of Mario64... I couldn't conceive how the game could be fun or intuitive at all... so used to 2d Mario.

      But after a few minutes of using Mario64, it became second nature to move around in the 3d world and manipulate objects.

      Maybe Nintendo should design the next 3d UI. In any case, I think it is possible to have a 3D UI without having that sense of adde
  • As cool as this is, it sounds about as necessary as stereo telephones. :) The videophone was always a neat idea (I remember seeing prototypes in the early 1970s)... it never took off because the plain audio telephone was good enough. Is not a 2D GUI sufficient for all but the most involved CAD?

  • 3D on 2D Still 2D (Score:3, Insightful)

    by o0congee0o ( 800446 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:41PM (#11076655)
    Just because you arrange your stuff in 3D does not mean that you do your work in 3D. There's just no usefulness other than eye-candy, didn't RTFA, but as long as my monitor is 2D I don't know how usefull it is to have my Word Processor or my spreadsheets in 3D. 3D is best left for games and simulations. I like my file manager, browser, desktop to remain 2D, can't find the crap as it is. Id be cool if I can "reach" into my monitor and strangle the virtual avatar of that moron thou.

    • Re:3D on 2D Still 2D (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Eric604 ( 798298 )
      Even a real 3d display doesn't cut it. Do you realy want to twist your head just to look around your spreadsheet? Or standup to take a look from above? Or even worse: walk around it. Most certainly not.

      The problem here is that our eyes are realy 2D sensors. The stereoscopic effect gives an estimation of the distance but all the information is still projected on a 2D plane. and the brain translates this to 3D information. You don't know what's behind an object until you walked around it. When you walked all

  • Where is the critical interpretation? Pro's and con's?

  • Java 3D Desktop (Score:5, Informative)

    by myawn ( 562028 ) <mike.theYawns@com> on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:41PM (#11076661) Homepage
    If you're interested in 3D interfaces, you should take a look at Project Looking Glass from Sun:

    Project Looking Glass [java.net]
    This was demo'ed at JavaOne this year, and really had some catchy visual features. Window contents can be saved to a backing pixmap and then applied to (wrapped around) objects of any shape.

    Windows could be rotated (for example, post-its or config info was stuck to the back of a flat window in several cases)

    This is still in the prototype stage, but the developer's release is open-sourced and available at java.net.

    • Nuh uh (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SpooForBrains ( 771537 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @06:16PM (#11076913)
      I had a good chance to play with Project Looking Glass at Linux Expo in London this year, and while I was certainly impressed, I realised that it's nothing more than a very very pretty extension of a standard KDE/Gnome-like desktop.

      First off, you can shrink things down to the bottom of your window. This is basically a clone of the MacOS X dock. You can also shove things off to the left or right of your workspace, which is the same thing, but sideways. The impressive twist to this is that you can still see what the windows are doing when they are in this state, so if, for example, you have a movie playing, it will continue to play in it's docked state. Basically an up-to-date reworking of an existing concept.

      Secondly, you can rotate n degrees clockwise or anti-clockwise to get a fresh workspace. Now bear in mind that the number of workspaces is finite, and you always rotate the same amount of space round, it's not an "analogue" rotation. So basically this is the concept of multiple desktops (as KDE and Gnome and various other WMs have had for years) but made much more pretty. The inclusion of a number of specially created "panoramic" desktop wallpapers help enhance the illusion.

      You can't move windows along the Z axis, ie change their "depth" in space, nor can you travel vertically around your 3D environment (think Doom vs Quake here).

      So basically, project looking glass is a very impressive, very pretty extension of your standard WM. There will be some next generation desktop features that will be taken from it, but noone's ever going to be able to *use* it.

      Think of it as the latest Vivenne Westwood creation strolling down the Milan catwalk. Many of the years line in clothes will be based on elemnents of the design, but noone's ever going to wear it to a business meeting.

  • why 3d is desirable? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xlyz ( 695304 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:42PM (#11076670) Journal
    why everybody seem to think that 3d will improve usability? information has stayed on plain paper for centuries. and screen will stay 2d for a bit still.
    • I don't think that 'real' 3d will ever have any place in everyday userinterfaces, after all you don't want to search windows and files behind your back which you can't see, it just wouldn't make much sense from a usability point of view.

      However what will hopefull find its way into everydays userinterfaces are zooming capabilities, like for example Apples Expose shows them in a very simple way. While not really true 3d in itself zooming provides some functionality that is simply not available in most of tod

  • 3D interfaces - the Uncanny Valley of UI (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:51PM (#11076742)
    To me, 3D interfaces strongly resemble the efforts to produce realistically rendered humans - with an even deeper "Uncanny Valley" [msn.com].

    To summarize, this Valley is where when you get closer to the target (realistically rendered huamns) the more of a problem you have with the small remaining portion of data being "not quite right" to the human eye and as a result being much more disturbing to the viewer, contributing to a feeling of "creepyness" or disbelief in the result.

    3D interfaces seem to have very much the same problem, exactly because we are such spatially orientend beings and used to real 3D manipulation of objects everyday. Thus the closer 3D interfaces get, the better the 3D inputs get, the more clunky they seem to use - because you know exactly how you would do something in real life and you are constrained in some artifical way by the technology from doing what seems natural. There are a few speciailized problems solved will by 3D inputs, but no good general use that I have seen or read of.

    I would never say never - 3D GUIs may well one day become useful. I would say getting the technology out of this valley and into common use is a long ways off - possibly longer than real honest to god grey-goo nanotechnology!!

  • There could be a reason for this... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Angst Badger ( 8636 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:56PM (#11076771)
    3D interfaces have never caught on for a couple of reasons. First and foremost is that the majority of end-user applications, from web browsers to word processors to spreadsheets are simply digital reimplementations of paper documents. The second reason is that there is no hardware that provides three-dimensional imagery that isn't either hideously expensive, causes headaches, or uncomfortable and awkward. What we casually refer to as 3D games, for example, are really projections of 3D structures onto a two-dimensional screen.

    Until it is possible to inexpensively provide a convincing illusion of depth -- which is arguably barely possible even with the expensive stuff -- 3D interfaces will require the user to perform 3D actions with a 2D representation. This is a needless complication in most cases.
    • What we casually refer to as 3D games, for example, are really projections of 3D structures onto a two-dimensional screen.

      True, but one must be out of this world to perceive current games like Far Cry or HL2 as projections on a 2D screen.

  • Been there, done that .. partially (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ballpoint ( 192660 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:57PM (#11076785)
    Some years (5 already?) ago I started developing a server and a 3D widget set based on Direct3D. I started with OpenGL, but found Direct3D more fully featured and a better fit for my goals at that time.

    Applications shared the server to display their objects. All interprocess communication was COM. You could easily write a 3D app in Visual Basic.

    Navigation between applications (or their components) was made easy by having each application offer a set of camera positions and orientations for the user to travel to (using the Alt-Tab and Ctrl-Tab conventions); but the user still could roam freely if he wanted.

    Unfortunately my interest waned out before I could do anything really useful. I've still got a 3D piano keyboard object, controlled by an app playing midi...

    While some say that a 3D UI doesn't add value, I think there is much to be discovered. Imagine programming in 3D, where each class and function is a labeled box which you can enter to see its code. If-then-else and case constructs could also be presented interestingly. Lame maybe - for now - but I believe that by leaving the linear one-dimensional text model we'll get a completely new perspective which we haven't grasped yet because of the lack of a useable and non-trivial framework to play with. It'll come.
    • Three-dimensional UIs are worth pursuing because one-dimensional UIs are too limited? Did you not get a nagging sensation while writing that paragraph that maybe, just maybe, there was some intermediary stage that might merit some investigation?

      "Imagine programming in 3D, where each class and function is a labeled box which you can enter to see its code"

      Okay, I'm imagining it. It's awful. Graphical representations of code are equally feasible in 2D; I've used one, and it was appalling. Took forever to d
  • I think 2d window managers are enough and that 3d window managers are silly. Years ago, when folks started adding shadows to title bars, resize handles, etc, I asked, Why not have ray traced shadows on these objects? What if I want to change the light source?

    I've seen 3d wms, and I've never had the urge to use one. But if we're going to move away from flatland, why stop at three dimensions? Why not four or five?

    One more time? What problem are you trying to solve by displaying these extra dimensio

  • 3D Zooming Interfaces (Score:3, Informative)

    by Nooface ( 526234 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @06:03PM (#11076831) Homepage
    Most of the 3D user interfaces that people usually mention are designed for 3D file system visualization [slashdot.org]. As others have pointed out, it is not clear that 3D adds any value for navigating the hierarchical structure of current file systems.

    It gets much more interesting when you combine 3D navigation with Zooming User Interfaces [nyu.edu] (ZUIs). For example, Zoom Quilt [cyphic.net] is a collaborative art project based on Macromedia Flash [macromedia.com] that illustrates what a 3D ZUI might look and feel like. ZUIs work by creating an intuitive information landscape. The user moves "further away" to get an overview, or "closer" for more detail, while keeping a sense of orientation and structure that traditional pop-up windows and dialogs can't match (see research papers [umd.edu] and Java demo [nyu.edu]). Zoom Quilt was assembled from different frames of content [nikkki.net] contributed by various participants. For another Flash-based example of a 3D zooming experience, see also the older Christmas Zoom [dinosaurdesign.com].
  • OK, so you've written a synopsis of the book. Can you tell us if it's any good? Does the book cover the areas it does in enough depth? How does it compare to other books in the field?

    Just expanding on the table of contents wouldn't've been good enough for your 9th grade English class, why do you think it's good enough for Slashdot? Oh, wait, the editors published it, so I guess it is. Nevermind.

  • A few comments on 3D UIs (Score:3, Informative)

    by LinuxParanoid ( 64467 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @06:24PM (#11076996) Homepage Journal
    A) For a slash site covering next-gen UI issues, 3D and otherwise, check out Nooface [nooface.com]. There's not a lot of discussion, but it has pretty good high-quality no-fluff content and occassional posts from people who really know their stuff or are actively working in the field.

    B) The contrast between 3D FPSes (fun, fairly easy, compelling) and VRML/virtual worlds (often pretty awkward) always struck me as interesting and illustrative of the following point. Too many degrees of freedom makes an interface awkward and highly confusing to someone who hasn't had extensive experience with 3D... a loser at the "mother test." id Software and the 3D FPS genre have always benefitted a fair bit imho from architecting the world such that even though it was 3D, you only had 2 directions to go most of the time; forward and backward.

    Wake me up when someone has a (non-bogus) study finding that users can actually be more productive in manipulating information with whatever 3D paradigm is being proposed. Eye candy helps but it's pretty easy to lose productivity going 3D imho.

    --LP
  • The only reason they haven't caught on, is because the hardware interface to the computer is inherently 2D. A mouse moves only in 2D-- sure, you can fudge it, but there needs to be a proper 3D interface in order for the 3D UIs to work right.

    Well, that's my opinion of it anyway. I could be proven wrong (wouldn't mind being proven wrong either)
    • The trick is to come up with a useful metaphor for the third dimension. Once you have that, it'll be obvious how to map that into two-dimensional mouse movements.

      The model most often used is a geographical model for a hierarchy... usually a file hierarchy. "See, here's the directory you're looking at. And then behind it, there's the sub directories, and when you pop up a level, everything fades back..." which is cool as hell, but when I play with it I find myself wishing for a nice isometric or plan view,
      • In all honesty, I wouldn't use that unless I had no other choice.

        The reason there's no mainstream acceptance of 3d UI's is that they're novelties. Until artifical reality becomes a realistic possibility, they won't ever be anything other than a novelty. And the previous poster had it partially: it's not just the input method, it's the efficiency of using layered 2d. Until there's a virtual world I can walk in for my UI, a-la holodeck, I doubt I'll ever use anything other than a 2d environment. One of the f

  • Maybe a book can help (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @06:28PM (#11077036)
    I've seen a lot of projects take stab at 3D and many of them go about it in a very unnatural way.

    SphereXP that someone mentioned earlier, for example, takes regular windows apps and has paper thin windows floating around arbitrarily in 3D. I mean, that just doesn't work. Then you have all these 3D file browsers that cram so many files into this vast 3D mess that unintelligble. You can't read the filenames because there's so much stuff in the way (usually other filenames, but sometimes representations of files or folders) and that's just not natural either.

    And I'm not claiming to be an expert on 3D design. I don't know how you'd do a good 3D file browser off the top of my head, nor a 3D desktop. But I can definitely spot the ones that aren't remotely natural or intuitive.

    Part of the reason windowed user interfaces work is because the paradigm of a "desktop" makes sense to users. And a desktop is flat. So is a window. So, if you want 3D UI to work, you need to come up with a 3D paradigm that seems natural to the user, and frankly, I just don't know what that paradigm would be.
    • The problem is that we are still stuck on presenting the interface on a 2D surface, such as any normal monitor or single-screen projector.

      3D interfaces will only become super-useful when you can surround the user in some groovy holographic virtual screen, such that they have to rotate their chair to use all of it. But that isn't enough either, I'll need to be able to abandon mouse and keyboard at that point, and reach out and move things around with my hands, type in the air, and stuff like that. When we h
  • If you get right down to it, aren't our current interfaces already 3 dimensional to some degree? Certain windows are located on top of or in front of other windows. That level of depth is a 3rd dimension. Although they are displayed as 2 dimensions, a third one is there...
  • Honestly, until output devices (e.g. monitors) become fully 3D, I fail to see a reason to create 3D user interfaces.

  • 3D On The Monitor Doesn't Cut It (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @07:44PM (#11077616) Homepage Journal
    The only way a 3D UI is going to take off is if you're immersed in a 3D working environment. Once you're in the environment and can overlay information on top of the real world, then it will start being useful. I seem to recall that there are already some applications for this, mostly in the military and with airline mechanics.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close