A new type of computer ineterface

Completely and utterly unrelated.

Moderators: raboof, MattKingUSA, khz

Post Reply
User avatar
MattKingUSA
Moderation Services Senior Administrator
Posts: 795
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:01 pm
Location: United States
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 38 times
Contact:

A new type of computer ineterface

Post by MattKingUSA »

So, I am really wanting to create a new type of interface that is somewhere between what you find with FSV, The OS from Hackers the movie and Elisa media center. Where you kind of just work on your computer in a constant 3d invironment and there is no need for a desktop becuase everything is accesable from the 3d world! Anyway, I think that it would be very cool and perhaps simple to do. Just get rid of the desktop and window managers all together and create a new type of computer interface that is modeled after the comptuer's filesystem and I think that it would be cool to be able to apply themes of cities and stuff. And on a network you can share you cities and stuff and invite people to browse your machine or city basically. It would be rebuilding the whole world via computer system it would make desktop sharing a whole new thing. I think that it sounds amazingly awesome if you're a nerd or a stoner.

I am the first, not the second.

-Matt

-Matt :D

User avatar
DioXide
Established Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:02 am
Location: Mexico

Re: A new type of computer ineterface

Post by DioXide »

I know this is an old post, but over time you'll learn that something like this can't go without a long rant from me :wink:

If anyone asks me, it's time to split up computers between different uses and then design interfaces that are optimal for each application. (Despite a lot of people saying the opposite)

I want to think of this with the following hierarchy:
-1D
-2D (implies 1D, which is the system behing a 2D interface)
-2D Animations (which imply 2D objects)
-3D (which imples 2D animations, in some way or another)
-3D Animations (which imply everything above, in some way or another)

1D:
Text commands (ie. command line, programming). As an end-user interface, it's useful for a couple things, but mostly there for bragging rights.

2D:
This has been tried and it's true. Just because 3D looks better doesn't mean it's actually better. 2D is much more efficient in most cases. Computers are not the real life, and that's for a reason.
There is no need to make them imitate life.

When I say 2D I generally mean static 2D.

2D with animations:
This is where you start to need a criteria.
Some animations help, some other are a waste of time.
An example of an animation that helps is the one that animates windows when you minimize them, this way you can easily see what place in the taskbar the window got, so you can later recall it without having to read the titles of the buttons in the taskbar.

Examples of animations that only waste your time are a plenty...

3D (without animations):
This is worthless because the brain relies mostly on movement to track 3D objects.
Static 3D for a human interface would be more of a PITA than anything else.

3D with animations:
This is the double-sided weapon.

On one hand, it helps better visualize massive amounts of data, for the simple reason that this is what we're used to in real life (where we process massive amounts of data without even noticing).
Example: It's much easier to find a person in a 3D chatroom where everyone has a unique body and aspect, than in a big list of names.

On the other hand, 3D is awfully bad when it comes option-picking, which on computers (and on everything, really) is a need we can't get rid of.
This is one of the very reasons you can do big operations much faster in a computer (through the internet) than you can by going to buildings in real life. One example is online shopping.

Another important, often overlooked factor of 3D is that it seems faster without being faster.
This is because while you wait to do something in 2D, your brain has nothing to do, and hence "notices" the time as it goes by.
In 3D, while you wait to do something, the brain is still busy looking at all those pretty moving objects, hence "forgetting" about time and giving you the impression that everything is running smoothly, while the reality is very different.
This is akin to the time spent traveling from a city to another for business purposes. You don't see the travel itself as a loss of time, do you?.. But it IS a loss of time. If you could just teletransport there, you'd be done with your business faster.

You could argue that teletransportation in the computer 3D world would solve it, but this takes us back to the problem of "static 3D": It would be too confusing to be practical. You can't have practical 3D without having at least some animations (which negate teletransportation), which can invariably be avoided in a 2D world, which invariably saves time.
--

All in all the point is that there is no single best solution.

In order to get the most out of a computer interface, 2D, 2D animations and 3D must be mixed into their optimal places.
A 3D-only interface, as many people proposes, would actually kind of suck.

These are some of my suggestions:

-Filesystem is perfect for a 3D world (just as Matt suggested :wink: ), as it involves huge amounts of data.

-Applications that involve chosing options (ie. pretty much all applications) should be 2D, as this is inefficient in 3D. This also covers the desktop itself, which involves picking the option of what application to load or folder to go to.

-Entertainment applications should be all 3D, as this will keep the brain entertained at any moment.

-Virtual desktops should be 3D, as it involves more data-handling (what's in here?) than option-picking (is this the one I want?)

-Social interaction should be 3D, as this is more natural (and also generally more efficient).

-The web should be split between 2D and 3D using the same criteria as local applications

-Animations should be used only where they aid in the spatial localization of something.
Example: Localizing an item in a matrix. Useless animations should be avoided.

If we use the filesystem as the 3D universe we could use the root as the final boundary. We'd need the folder "desktop" to actually take you to the desktop (not just the contents of the desktop). Opening something would take you back to the virtual desktop you leaved from.

Enough rant :) .. It had been a while
Expert in non-working solutions.
(Signature shamelessly ripped from someone else, is still the truth)
Havoc
Established Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:57 pm

Re: A new type of computer ineterface

Post by Havoc »

I can get most of your ideas (certainly that od useless animations) but I feel you overrate 3D. If you think deep about it then you will see there are very few things that really need to be 3D in orderto use them, get all information about them or to visualise them. Just a few examples.

Filesystems are better off 2D because the relations between data in a filesystem is very rarely 3D. If it is 3D, then it very often is 2D in reality with a time dimension as a third one. Mostly files depend on each other in one direction only, they are a subset of a larger group.

You contradict yourself a bit when saying that finding a person is a 3D experience while finding an option is a 2D one. Well, both are the same and are very 2D. It is not because a person is 3D in itself that selecting a communication partner is a 3D experience, it is selecting an option: who to "talk" with. If instead of a list of names there was a grid of photo's the user interface would be just as good as if there were 3D structures of those persons. If you would hear the real voice of the persons you wouldn't even need photo's.

Virtual desktops are just like real desktops: flat. It is not because we are not sufficiently advanced to make a screen or book or pen infinitely thin that the information they represent is 3D in itself. A book may be a 3D object, but the information in it, the text, could perfectly be flat without loosing anything. I have 3 tables where I work, 3 ordinary flat tables. I go from one to the other depending on what has to be done. Again a movement in 2D, it doesn't matter I have to go downstairs to the workbench, the bench itself is just as flat. It is only downstairs because it is convenient but I would prefer it to be next to the other tables.

There are very few things that are 3D because they have to. Sculptures would be the only ones I can think of. But a lot of other things have a volume just because we have volume and need another volume to interact, not because it has to be 3D. Take any piece of equipment and think about what you use of it and if it needs to be 3D. Should your keyboard need to be 3D? Should your mic preamp be 3D? If we could make those really 2D, would it matter?

The mistake is that very often the third dimension is time, not space. IF you would make the filesystem 3D, then that third dimension should be time: how did the file evolve in time.

There are of course uses of 3D interfaces, but seldom for intellectual information presentation and manipulation. It would make sense in engineering, just because we happen to make all our stuff in 3D. The step from 2D cad to 3D cad is a good example for that: we think in volumes, not projections. Lots of impressive 3D representations of scientific data is just that: impressive. The real representation and manipulation is done with very 2D math formulas.

One area where 3D interfaces on pc make sense is games where you interact with others (real opponents or artificial).
User avatar
DioXide
Established Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:02 am
Location: Mexico

Re: A new type of computer ineterface

Post by DioXide »

Yes I do contradict myself a bit, but let's be realistic: Most people doesn't use their photos in messaging, avatars change like running water, so do nicknames.. Also, I specified "massive" for "amounts of data". When chosing options on a common program, those options don't come in massive quantities.. So it's a little different.

When I say "3D filesystem" I don't mean adding another dimension to the filesystem, but representing the existing filesystem with 3D visuals. Thing of "EagleMode" but with fancy 3D animations.

Similarly, by 3D virtual desktops I mean that those normal, plain desktops should be represented with 3D visuals.. Think of the Compiz cube.

--

Everything aside I agree with you... I also think 3D is overrated, and I myself would not use such an interface
Expert in non-working solutions.
(Signature shamelessly ripped from someone else, is still the truth)
Havoc
Established Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:57 pm

Re: A new type of computer ineterface

Post by Havoc »

I have seen the compiz cube, but honestly what is the advantage? It takes longer to switch desktops... Otherwise I don't see a difference. It's neat I admit that but practical?
User avatar
DioXide
Established Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:02 am
Location: Mexico

Re: A new type of computer ineterface

Post by DioXide »

It's easier on the brain to switch desktops that way...

With 4 desktops the effect it's not appreciable, but consider my situation:

- I have 10 desktops (and yes, I use them all)

- I have no pager in the taskbar, because 10 desktops would take too much space on it, and on my small screen space is at a premium

- Usually, at least 5 of the desktops are loaded with Jack-Racks, so that they look very similar to each other

The point here is that, without a 3D representation of all those spaces, it's very easy to get lost.

Sometimes I end up scrolling twice through all the desktops to find the one I want.

It's the very only thing I miss from Compiz... Sometimes you get lost on the wheel too, but it's much, MUCH easier to locate yourself when you're lost. Especially with a little transparency, if you remember what was on the other side of the desktop you want, it's trivial to get there.
Expert in non-working solutions.
(Signature shamelessly ripped from someone else, is still the truth)
Post Reply