Slashdot Mirror
The 3Dsia Project: More Than A 3DWM
xynopsis writes: "There's a virtual reality shell in the making called the 3Dsia project which aims to create a complete intuitive to use 3D-Environment. Inspired by William Gibson's novels, their philosophy differs completely from prevailing 3D-GUIs that just try to rebuild a windowing System in a 3D space (read 3Dwm users!).
They think it's wrong ... When we are able to immerse into a 3D-Space, why should we stick to windows? Why to buttons
and to form-oriented programming? The power of three dimensions lies within the freefloating forms and intuitive interaction possibilities."
I wasn't going to post, but god damn it makes me mad. Why oh why do slashdotters keep slamming 3d environment projects??? can't you see it??? i thought we were supposed to be the technically savvy type...
let me answer your post directly: 3d environments will do to you what windows did to you a few years ago (unless you're one of those guys that refuses to use a windowing system and stays in text mode), it will increase your productivity by giving you the ability to visualize your work better. whatever your work is. for example, if you're a programmer, then you like me probably have the same problems: i need more than just a few windows open and displayed at the same time. soemtimes i need at least 10 things open at the same time in order to feel that i'm really being productive. current windows systems (whatever your flavor) are limitted to the amount of data that can be presented at any given time. (usually 4-5 windows at a time) before you start swapping from window to window...with a 3d environment in a monitor you can improve some (you'll probably be able to see those 10 windows at the same time, but not much more before resolution/readability become an issue); but a 3d environment with some kind of headset where you can _look_ around would probably be enough for me.
same thing goes for most applications. accounting and finance (data cubes, huge financial reports, accounting books, etc.), progamming, engineering, graphics design, writting letters (you can have the rolodex, several reference documents, and the spreadsheet with the tables you're integrating all at the same time), the list goes on. actually i'm having a hard time thinking of an application that wouldn't benefit from a 3d environment.
the point is, if all you do is just run one progarm, then stick to a windowing system, but the minute you want to have more than 2-3 windows open and displayed at the same time (which we usually want to do but end up not doing it because it's awkward) you'd be much more productive using 3d.
as for navigation, i've said it before and i'll say it again, i can move in 3d very well playing quake and using truspace, 3dstudio max, whatever, and it's also very intuitive. i don't think navigation is an issue.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
And if you want to remove the red eye from the snapshots of your friends you took last night you can always do a grep for the pupils, and pipe it to an awk script to replace the red with black....
Er, no, actually, you can't.
This is a good example of the saying "If your only tool is a hammer, all of your problems start looking like nails". A command line interface is great if your data is text. If your data is images, or otherwise is not easily represented by text, then a GUI is often needed.
It's all about the idea of using the right tool for the job. Just sitting here, I really can't think of a good reason to use a 3d enviroment over a 2d, but I'm sure there are people out there that can. Just as there are people out there that can't figure out why people would want to use a GUI over a CLI. The computer should work the way that's best for the user, not the other way around.
have you guys ever thought about doing proof of concept work in blender (www.blender.nl) it is free, but not open. it would probably give you a big boost in productivity. it fully supports the language python and opengl programming (does not support vendor specific extensions). you could use python to bind to os features and have the full strength of a 3D modelling/animation/simulation package at your fingertips. when you get it the way you want it, you just backwards engineer the api's. after all, getting a framework in place that can express functions of an operating system or other high level algorithimic constructs in a meaningful way will be the hard part.
blender also has a community of thousands.
jim
Natural language interfaces are, well, "natural" and should be pursued but there is a lot of room for a synthesis that trancends graphical and textual representations. It's just that most of the thinking in this area has been very ad hoc and insufficiently disciplined to take very seriously.
Seastead this.
I use 'r3a77y k3w7' UI myself, quite often- usually more for decoration than anything else. I'm currently using a window theme on MacOS (with 'Kaleidoscope') called 'ISA Shock Absorber' and the sides of my windows have big shocks with yellow springs that stretch out as the window is expanded. It's fun to look at and nicely photorealistic and of course has no function but I like it anyway.
That said, I've thought about the '3D desktop' myself but the only way I could realize _my_ notion of it is on Linux- which I'm not good enough to program for, at this time. But I can clearly spell it out- this is my notion of 'functionally k3w7'.
Start with a virtual desktop, preferably one that has some depth like a large nature photograph (or a warehouse interior- anything that has depth). Make note of the color of the distance, you'll need it later.
The desktop must be a single tiled picture- total picture several times the size of the screen, scrolling to be done in sub-screen increments to preserve familiarity with your location (or smooth scrolling- anything but jumping to an entirely changed view). This picture ideally will have reference points- for instance in a woodland scene you might habitually put system monitor information by the stream :)
Over this 'deep' background goes- xterms. Nothing but xterms- CLI only. Not even window borders- just rects with a border the color of the default text, click to focus. I already have MacOS and don't need variations of it in Linux. We've done all that, this is about coming up with a genuinely different approach that has benefits that you would not get on Win or MacOS or anything like them. (...though MacOSX might be heading in this direction...)
These terms are manipulated with the mouse in 3D space as follows- horizontal and vertical movement moves them laterally. A scrollwheel is required (for ideal UI) and rolling the scrollwheel _into_ the screen makes the term scale down smaller, fade its colors subtly towards the 'background color', and go behind other term windows, all at the same time. There is no 'over-ride' for any of this- it's one linear process.
That's the gist of it- now here's the 'why' of it.
Windowing systems are a pain- MDI is ugly and awkward, and Mac-style windowing forces you to constantly work on a 'front window' and remember what is going on in other ones, perhaps check them from time to time. You can stagger them to sort of vaguely see at least movement or new information in the unobscured region of such a window, but this is a crude hack. You can (particularly on MacOS) run extra monitors to put other windows on, but this is still somewhat klugey- wastes energy- and confuses some applications.
My notion of a flat 3D (depth 3D?) windowing system (particularly when heavily term-centric) is about being able to visually scan really _large_ amounts of data and intuitively deal with it all in a natural way. The assumption is that you'll have lots of different terms, and will visually recognise one from another by the pattern of text on it. 'pico' does not look like 'bash' does not look like 'root-tail', especially if you have color involved and some messages are coming up in color.
Another important assumption is that you'll have a large collection of font sizes, ranging from the customary ones to 'flyspeck' sizes. It doesn't have to be able to produce a smooth animation of a zooming window- the only requirement is that it _must_ be possible to zoom a window so far back that the individual characters are down to about 2x3 pixels in size- as well as down to one pixel in size. New fonts need to be made to do this (if I knew how I would have done it already. I can do it in MacOS but can't use the result...)
When a term is zoomed out so far that it is postage-stamp sized, there is one major difference between it and an icon- it's 'live'. The pattern of text will be recognizable. If there is a 'postage stamp' window with system messages and suddenly there's a message in red that must be attended to, the visual scan of the whole desktop area will suddenly return a little red line on the 'postage stamp', a sure sign that something is up. This happens immediately and is its own 'notification system'. If something runs amok and a monitor window begins scrolling wildly with error messages, that 'postage stamp' becomes animated! In quieter times, a private IRC or muck conversation that's waiting on a response can be zoomed to the back- when a reply comes, the 'postage stamp' image will visibly alter and scroll a bit, and then you can zoom it forward and see what the message was.
I don't know of any system that would so directly give access and monitoring to a very large number of processes. None of it is at all new technology- changing term font sizes is well established, virtual desktops are well established, playing with the colors of terms is well established. It's just a matter of putting it together in this way. The result would be CLI-lovers heaven- the mouse reduced to strictly an xterm manager, its role so intuitively obvious that there's nothing to learn about the windowing system, no hidden behavior at all, and everything else focussed on the xterms and the many, many programs that can interact and display things textually- and of course writing your own programs for the console is simpler than writing them for X.
I hope to use this interface someday- many of the things I do would be suited to it. So much of what I do is processing information in text form- so much reading, typing, more reading etc... it would help me to have an interface like this so I could keep more tasks in my 'field of view' at one time.
It would also be a wonderful mingling of form and function- with the primary task simply being display of an xterm, it would be simple to incorporate all sorts of decorative touches, such as allowing semitransparent term backgrounds for a 'frosted glass' effect, pixmaps to add more decorative borders for the term rects, terms in different colors for different tasks (or with the color dynamically changing to convey information like 'you haven't worked on me in days'). You could have dozens of projects scattered all over your virtual desktop- not icons, but the actual projects, right there ready to be pulled closer and immediately worked on.
I guess it's strange for a Mac dude to be wanting such a full-on CLI environment, but it's not that strange really. Being a longtime Mac dude causes you to look at stuff like Eazel more sceptically. It's like 'been there done that', and now that I do know what I'm doing, what would be the most efficient, streamlined way to do that?
Maybe I can make a demo of it on MacOS, seeing as I know I can make the requisite fonts. I might not be able to make actual terms but it should be possible to code up 'sticky notes' that at least _look_ the way they should :)
You aren't being very forward thinking here. It isn't so much what 3d will do for existing apps, like word processing & spreadsheets, it's what it can do for the apps of the future. The coming combination of ubiquious 3d rendering hardware and broadband internet connections has the potential to revolutionize the way we use computers to communicate. Honestly, I don't think the way we write text documents or other traditional applications will change at all. The new multi-user communications/shared experience applications will benifit the most. Personally, I can't wait to see how people will use this technology in the future.
-hyperlogic
In 2350 they're going to look at the global archive of this project and sigh in nostalgia. Imagine having to use a 2D display to look in to a 3D world. And the 3D displays that came shortly thereafter weren't much better. The world took a giant leap forward with the development of holodeck technology and TRUE immersive environments. But if you want to take a step back for the "Retro" experience, feel free to load the holodeck with a Circa 2005 style computer with a 2 dimensional display. It's quite the experience...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I work in the Advanced Technologies of my company. We have had several people come of with ideas to produce such a thing. My corporation is mainly DoD but we are also starting to get into the Commercial world.
Some uses:
With a VR helmet that can detect head motion... imagine this:
You are sitting in the middle of a virtual warehouse that is a database. You see virtual cabinets and files. All you need to do is take a look up and you automatically come to some draw that contains the data you need.
Also, more in the DoD world. You can now have users train in a virtual battle field, or be able to view what others see. Or more realistically, have sensors set up around your base, and have security able to monitor the entire base that is sent back digitally as a smaller model in real time so that MPs can use their peripheral vision to detect intrusions.
These are just some of the many.. (that I can say) and there are many more.
Those that do not understand the possibilities should not be involved in the process.
You need to start now working on the things that don't make sense with todays technologies, so that you can better understand what the future brings.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
This 3D "world" here (much like the one in Snow Crash), is nothing more than eye candy (although the world in Snow Crash was just a plot-device). It will not serve to increase anyone's productivity. Rather, it is a neat and interesting way to look at data, but it's no revolutionary substitute for the power user.
Plus, a 3d "desktop" is not intutive. If you think about it, a real desktop (including papers, books, etc.) is nothing but a bunch of 2d "windows" that you stack around and move about the desktop. There's nothing 3d about any of it.
This sort of thing just isn't going to be useful. Look at the failure of VRML. People don't want this because it doesn't add value nor increase productivity.
http://www.naildrivin5.com/davec
3D "GUI" designers seem to be stuck on thinking of VR in terms of Gibson/Stephenson/Lawnmower Man - instead of studying what has gone before.
Looking at what has been proposed uses for VR, rarely will you read about programming or other functions best done in 2D. About as close as you get to this is the idea of a virtual office, where you would sit down at a virtual desk, type on a virtual keyboard, and see a virtual display (in 2D) show what you are doing.
3D GUIs can be useful, if the task fits. An earlier poster brought up the idea of seeing network layout and traffic patterns - such data visualization uses for complex data are ideal uses for 3D GUIs and VR. One could imagine any network being represented in a similar way (piping networks, electrical networks, phone networks).
Other potential uses that have been explored with some measure of success is that of using VR to explore new designs (or designing the device/building/whatever in the VR space) - not only to model them, but to also run simulations, and see how they behave and interact (think of being able to get inside a virtual car, sit down, and finding that the gear shift isn't in a good position - before BUILDING the vehicle).
Another use has been training (surgery, etc) - which is still up in the air as far as usefulness, because haptics research/feedback devices aren't quite up to snuff (a lot of surgery is "feel", from what I understand).
Entertainment is the pre-eminant use, and will likely continue to be (like it or not, Quake, in all incarnations, is VR - desktop VR - still makes me wonder why low cost HMD systems haven't taken off).
Not everything can or should be done in a 3D GUI - however, some tasks are ideal. I think what these guys are doing with 3Dsia is a good thing - not by creating a do-it-all system, but by building a framework for which tasks that are ideally suited for the environment may be developed.
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I think I hit my head on the Eastern Seaboard Fission Authority.
--
Freeper Logic
3D Linux is not only the next step it's probably the future of computers in the next 10 years. Think about it. We have peripheral vision and sound. And we can move our heads quite easily. Look at how much of our senses we're wasting when using a standard computer. I know none of these projects are designing the WM for VR helmets or any VR hardware for that matter, but wouldn't that be the next step? Basically all you need is alot of processing power and memory and the 3D computer world becomes the world that you like and don't want to go back from ... ever.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Maybe now instead of typing out that horrible cp
command, I can pick up a bundle of files, and waste 3 hours walking to my destination, asking
directions along the way, and drop my files in
a messy heap when I get there. A real timesaver!
I think it would be cool, if in this environment, you could wait by your mailbox like Wile E. Coyote
until someone replied to your emails. Spam, of course, could find you anywhere, and would be a giant anvil dropped on your head.
Well, I can certainly understand this criticism. And I have ZERO problems whatsoever with the idea of new apps where 3d visualisation is a great idea. There are PRESENT applications where 3d visualisation is a great idea; engineering, architecture, scientific visualisation, medical visualisation, etc.
My question is neither a troll nor a condemnation of the 3d environment idea PER SE - it's just a question. I understand that GUI is better from a usability standpoint over text based interfaces in a lot of instances - easier to click on an icon than remember what the executable name is. But I cannot see how an OPERATING SYSTEM will benefit from 3d visualisation: there appears to me to be a poor cost-benefit ratio given the hurdles to figure out in terms of haptics, etc. I mean, you'd have to devote tons of clock cycles just doing collision detection to "click" a "button".
GUI design in 2D is relatively simple- find a pictural metaphor and use it. 3D design on a 2D plane is tricky. Very tricky. And 3d metaphors may exist, but I can't think of any. My question was an honest one, not a troll. I want to know where this can lead.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
I haven't gone through the website to see if the details are any good, but the main idea is pure gold. Not in the sense of being good--who knows if 3D UIs will take off. But they are absolutely right (and nearly alone) in understanding that a 3D UI is more than 6 windows on a rotating cube just like a GUI is more than tiled DOS windows.
I've been so frustrated trying to get this idea across that I taught myself a little OpenGL so I could try to implement something...trouble is, all I have is a vague vision, no concrete plan.
--
MailOne
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
With processing power and increases in technology leaping forward every few months, I can see why people would undertake VERY tricky feats that just seemed too difficult a few years ago - like voice control and voice dictation rather than using a keyboard. I'm not saying, and never have, that computing really reached its zenith with vi in a CLI environment, and everything else is "eye candy".
Marshall McLuhan once said that "the medium is the message" - and astute people can figure out the social effects (message) of a given technology (medium). I'm looking FORWARD to seeing what comes out of these kinds of projects - because you're right. I am trying to wonder what's going to come from this. I guess I'm just too dumb to see where this is going and hope that the more enlightened amongst us can give me some additional insight.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
I don't know how effective this will be, because the whole reason we use computers is to get AWAY from the desk. I mean my desk is always crammed with papers, book ets, why would I want that clutter in my computer? (Another reason I hate the UNIX directory structure!) I really do think the UI of the future is VOICE control. Think about it, even in real life, the easiest thing to do is have somebody else do your work. No file manager will ever be easier than the user just asking (or in the future, THINGING) for the report he was working on. No "Start Menu" will ever be easier than the user simply asking "Open-up Opera," or, "I need to use 3D Studio." Another thing that is imporant is tactile response. Almost as much as visual, humans are tactile creatures; they like to touch things. Integrating touch and voice into the environment, IMO, is much more effective than 3D spaces.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Legecy support is a bitch. People are too damn afraid to abondon these things. I think that there should be a 7 year limit on how long software should be supported. There is really no reason to want to run old software and hardware on new environments/hardware.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Hi folks, I'm from the 3Dsia staff, and happily noticed this story, so I'm trying to gain some new project members :-) If you're interested in helping us, subscribe to our mailinglists and get your questions answered (see here.
We are currently in a redesign phase, means we will start with a complete code rewrite soon. So if you're into OpenGL programming, 3D modelling and the kind you should have a look :-)
Thnx and c'ya,
Marc
Marc Haisenko
The 3Dsia Project
alias StonedBones
alias DarkDust
axl@cu-muc.de
Seeing as I've stuck that post on my own site (here), I must thank you for the flame as you've helped to correct a spelling error :)
To the other AC- no, I am not on the 3Dsia mailing list :) however, they are welcome to any of my stuff if it will help them. I don't always have the capacity to implement on all of my ideas so the least I can do is let others do so if they want :)
You don't. Actually, the whole concept of X is not to get work done, but to create hundreds of toolkits, window managers and applications that all look and behave like no other.
How I hate it. Is it so god damn hard to copy the OS/2 WPS, one of the few UI:s made for usage?
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
If you're serious about a "modeless" interface, it is hard to get less "modal" than a shell command line.
The Perl guru Rick Klement (who really likes to build specialized Tk GUIs) once commented that the reason you never see any real advances in GUIs is that the programmers who set out to develop new GUIs usually start by writing a GUI for an IDE and then quickly realize that command line interfaces are better than GUIs for for IDEs. User configurability of a GUI environment is, in a sense, user programmability. Therefore, one has to wonder whether the power given up by a GUI really buys your users enough to make up for the loss compared to, say, better text-based facilities.
For example, more flexible and forgiving parsers with better command line generation tools (a simple example being command histories with arrow keys retrieval in shells) can go along way toward simplifying text entry in computer-understandable form.
Recently, Dan Brumleve has been showing some simple extensions to Perl at Perl Mongers meetings that make writing Perl statements lines more natural and powerful -- like the determiner "it" meaning the default variable "$_" so you can say things like "store it" and the interpreter knows what you are talking about. He's put in a variety of adjectives, nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc.
Other, equally simple extensions to the parsing of a general language can make it a lot more flexible, accessible and forgiving. Automated composition assistants could pop up when they think they can help you compose text for the command line.
Graphical interfaces are ideal for interacting with numeric continua (continuous spaces), but most abstract information is in the form of rules or natural laws derived from observations of continua. Humans are always trying to abstract their sensory perception into such codified knowledge so they can more parsimoniously speak of their inner worlds, which reflect their private interpretation of shared sensory information, to each other.
Seastead this.
I understand your confusion.
3D can benefit the searching and orginization of data, more than viewing of it, unless you want to see trends.
This is the main reason I like a paper book more than one on the screen. If I know something is somewhare in the middle of a book, I find it is easier to flip to it than to use a scroll bar. Or if I know the approximate location of a picture, I find it easier to flip the pages and find it, then to scroll down a document and find it. Yes, books don't have that automatic search for text, but it is more of a pain if you don't know of the exact text you are looking for.
Now imagine a three dimensional database. Where you can point to (using something like a laser pointer) and be brought to exactly the location you are looking for. By knowing where certain types of data is located, you can brouse the area useing more of your peripheral vision then a small screen.
I mentioned the pointer since you mentioned that you can't tell when you actually touched something. A 3D interface that relies on touch is bad. This is a virtual vision interface and everthing should be determined by that. So if you had a device in you hand that was something like a laser pointer, and it would show a red dot at the location that you are pointing to in the virtual world, then you could just point and press a small button on the device to go to a location.
As for text, I would imagine that text would not be like it is in the screen shots. You need to have shapes or colors or something else, and when you point to it, it shows the text of what it is supposed to be.
Again, all this is in development, and we will try several things before we find out what seems to be the best. But I don't think you have to worry about the applications that should not be 3D going that way. Unless you have that pointy hair boss that thinks 3D is the new buzz word and makes you do your email in 3D.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Let me put it to you this way - unless you're doing graphic design with pictures, and that - is there any REAL advantage apart from typesetting between using WordPerfect for DOS and the latest newfangled "will do HTML, PDF output, with 35,000 useless features" WYSINNWYG MS Word, in terms of productivity when it comes to typing out text?
Nope, which is why I'm still using WP5.1 for DOS. In fact, that old WP works better for me than word does. I have macros (and no, they don't have viruses in them) that let me type in spanish conveniently (no 3 or 4-keystroke combinations for accents here!), add headers and footers, keep track of contacts (yep, I wrote a rolodex program in the WP macro language. Let's see you do that in 2k of word macros), and FORMAT MY DAMN TEXT. In word, to get 'By: <name>' left-justified on one side of a line and 'November 11, 2000' (yes, it's a date code--shows the date I print a document, not when it's created) right-justified on the other, you have to use a table. I'm sorry, a table is not a formatting element: it's a data-presentation element.
Anyway, the point of this rant is that, as you hinted at, adding features and such doesn't make a better program. I'd love to be able to buzz around in a 3D world to do my computing, but I won't touch it unless it can beat the programs I currently use for usability. Yes, that means making a word processor that can out-do WP5.1 (and I *do* make use of my ability to position individual characters within a thousandth of an inch in wordperfect), notetab (beefed-up Notepad, for HTML editing), the Gimp, etc.
And let's not forget the biggest 3D problem is feedback...
As for your issues with the physical gear (binocular headware, force-feedback gloves / whatever else, the problem of motion, etc.), I'd say not to worry about it. Currently, most of it is just a problem of economics, which will change when such a thing becomes popular / useful, rather than technology. There's a product which basically fubares your inner ear so it doesn't provide much in the way of orientation or acceleration information at all (sorry, I forget what it's called, or I'd put in a link), so you are forced to rely on visual cues instead, for example, and I don't see any major technological problems creeping in while we aren't looking. Having an environment that you can literally run around in could be created if someone wanted to spend the money. All you need is a lightweight I/O package (glasses, gloves, etc.), and a surface to move around on. Take a sphere, cover it with a fabric surface that can be moved around by a computer. Squish the sphere so it's flat on top to a radius of about 6 feet, and let people run on that. Whenever someone moves, the computer moves the fabric they're running on in the opposite direction so they stay more or less stationary. Just a thought, but it illustrates that it's not technology that's holding us back right now.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
This is a great idea. You and I should go into business, "Sferics's and Commandant's E-Z Geek Workout". We could make millions! Rather than atrophy, computer users can BUILD muscle mass in only days!
To perfect this, though, we'd need to develop a pair of force-feedback VR sleeves, which make you move your entire arm to move the files. What to you think, the equivalent of 2 pounds per 50kb? Most people don't use files larger than a few megabytes, so a two megabyte file would weigh 80 lbs. Good deal! The problem is, a file like the compressed Mozilla tarball would weigh about 800 lbs! You'd need friends to help you move that.
To take this further, what about untarring/ungzipping files? You could open the box and manually remove each component!
We could "fragilize" the files, too, so that if you handled them without much care, they would become corrupt.
NB: Quick calculations show that my MP3 directory would weigh 56000 pounds. Damn!
I do not belong in the spam.redirect.de domain.
Nobody does this, possibly because people are more interested in making spectacularly 3D-looking screenshots than in making screenshots of a 3D window manager where you could actually _read_ Netscape and _use_ the GIMP. Without trapezoid windows the only cues it was 3D would be _movement_ cues. In use it would be shockingly different, but in screenshots it would be 2D-like.
Oh yeah? It is relatively simple to do something that has 3D, is networked and multiuser.. but if you are going to do something that is intended to be good and you want people to actually use the system you have a really big project on your hands...
Just from the top of my head: WorldForge, Metaverse, Verse etc.. Maybe it would be wiser to see how they are doing and choose to join on of them.
*Looks up*
Yup, WorldForge is quite far enough along to give a project such as this a major leg up, and we would be thrilled to collaborate with this project (or any project) working on virtual world types of things.
Even though us at worldforge don't speak of it a whole lot, I think we often give thought to how what we are doing could evolve into a virtual reality like system - distributed server clustering, in-game editing / building, player uploaded media, client-side scripting... All features that would be *critical* for a virtual reality-based system.
Anyway... so even though our goals are being thrust in a medieval direction, the architecture is generic and usable for a variety of things, and certainly should lend itself as a low level base for non-game applications too.
I agree.
Arguing about how a three-dimensional is or isn't useful is a far too general argument. The arguments I've heard either way are almost always fallacies. Such as the idea of needing a 3D monitor or a 3D mouse because we use a 2D monitor and a 2D mouse right now. Maybe it is true. Maybe it is not. But the truth is---we don't know. Just because it makes intuitive sense doesn't mean it is true. I would wager that a combination of 2D and 3D interfaces might be a useful experiment---because that is how the eye and mind percieves the world. But again, I am not claiming anything, just making a conjecture.
And that is why we want these projects to be around. We all know it would be pretty cool to have a three dimensional enviroment. But one of the first things these projects are going to do is try to prove that this paradigm *can* be useful and that it *can* be productive. Perhaps not with all the common apps...perhaps with only a niche of apps. But this all an interesting experiment that I look forward to finding out what works and what doesn't. In fact, my interest has been on user interfaces for a while now...both the tradition WIMP interface, but also interfaces for the blind and the 3D interface.
Did you hear that? *Experiment* Isn't it part of geek culture to want to find out new things? Now how are you going to find out new things if you already decide that it is a failure. But! you see a failure is a success! At least we know what approaches *don't* work. Too many of you people are still in Linux advocacy mode where you guys are constantly trying to find out who wins. This isn't a horse race where you wager on a horse to win and then gloat "I told you so" if your horse makes it. We are here to find out more about interfaces in general. I think traditional interfaces would be more useful if some 3D elements were used in it. And a 3D interface could inspire these kinds of ideas at how to make our current WIMP interfaces better. The same goes for interfaces for the blind. I would love to see some true Accessibility initiatives with our current desktop projects. Perhaps a common library that projects can link into to provide common features such as speech synthesis and brail output. And how come X-Windows doesn't have mouse trails---or does it?
So I agree...free software isn't a spectator sport. Its an experiment. Lets see what happens instead of declaring a bet.
Of course we can end up with something out of a bad movie. The phenomenon that would allow this is the same one that allows most politicians to be so dirty--the phenomenon of popular choice.
Why do you think Windows is mediocre at best? Because the public, on the whole, doesn't demand much. Those who demand more power, go to Unix. Those who demand simplicity, go to Mac OS. Microsoft is here to cater to the masses.
Similarly, polititians cater to the masses, and the masses don't demand much character in polititicians. Don't ask me why, that's just the way it works.
In computing right now, the masses demand mediocrity. They want pretty icons and widgets to click on, they want a desktop where they can stick their daughter's picutre, and a place to store icons for programs they run, because they don't know how to run them otherwise. To them, a file isn't a file... A file is a picture of a sheet of paper, overlaid with a stylized "W", that says, "Letter to Mom.doc" beneath the picture. Have you noticed how there are no more directories in Windows, and there never were in the Mac OS? There are only "folders", because nobody puts sheets of paper in a directory, they stick the paper in a folder.
In truth, directory is more accurate, because that's what it is--a directory of objects that are linked by whatever attribute the user decided to link them with. A directory isn't a special object, just a regular object containing the names of other objects. But people don't care; they want it to look like the office they've worked in for the past ten years.
When people begin introducing 3D file and window managers, users will latch onto them, because it is all that much more like an office, rather than a computer. People don't want to use computers--they want an extra room to work in. That doesn't mean that's the appropriate choice, it's just the mediocre choice made by the masses. And commercial organizations are here to appeal to the masses.
Many argue that the interface to a computer must become transparent. I fully agree--I should use my computer not with the skill I've developed throughout the years, but with an intrinsic understanding that comes with a near-perfect interface. That is when people no longer separate a computer from everyday life--when they are intrinsic.
People mistakenly associate a more office-like interface with transparency. That is not the case. There is always the glaring fact that this office, no matter how carefully designed, is digital, and therefore not a perfect replica. And while people may not realize it, that is the problem that keeps interfaces from becoming transparent. Interfaces are bad enough know that people are blatantly aware of the problems of computers today. But as time progress, and the workings are hidden from people, they will stop realizing why they feel the computer has a problem, but the problem will not go away. At a subconscious level, a user will be thinking, "It looks like an office... It really does... And yet, it's not quite the same."
Consider my example of a steering wheel in a car. It was totally unfamiliar when introduced. "What is this? I'm supposed to control this thing with that... circle?!?" Despite this, even babies understand how the steering wheel controls the care. It is based on logic that is built into our brains. A parent need only sit his three-year old in front of a video game, say, "Turn the wheel this way, and the car goes this way. Turn it the other way, and the car goes the other way." With no further explanation, the child has a full understanding of how to control the automobile. That is how intrinsic our understanding of a steering wheel is. (Not to say the three-year old is capable of actually controlling the car, but he understands.)
We need something like this to happen to computing. Something that lies very close to our intrinsic knowledge of raw data. Unfortunately, I'm not a psychologist, nor am I a GUI specialist. All I can say is there is something better out there, but I don't know what it is. And that it can't come today... We're still spending too much time in the real world to step away from it in the digital world.
But there is change for the better. I used to be a Windows user, and as such, I thought that the desktop-folder-icon GUI was the only way I could operate (nevermind the fact that I grew up in the DOS era). When switching to Linux, I first used KDE, and then GNOME. These most closely approximated the metaphors I was searching for. Later, I switched to WindowMaker for memory reasons (it bothers me to occupy 30M of RAM to display a panel in GNOME). WindowMaker was radically different, in that there was no real desktop, only a fixed area to hold program icons. Furthermore, I got rid of GMC, so I didn't have a file manager that built on my metaphors.
I slowly adjusted, and eventually switched to Enlightenment for theming and window handling features that WindowMaker doesn't have. This took away my all my icons. I've adjusted completely, and now mostly spend my time typing in an rxvt session. I use the enlightenment menu, but only to launch Mozilla and rxvt. While confusing to outsiders, I feel much more productive, and free... I don't treat files as little sheets of paper, I don't treat directories as folders that contain paper. Files have become abstract objects with certain attributes, and directories have simply become lists of files. I no longer rely on metaphors, only the names "file" and "directory", because I don't have better names.
The result? I don't sit there at the computer thinking (subconsciously or otherwise) that something is wrong with the interface. The computer interface has gone from external to intrinsic, based on my skill level. Although too complex for the average user, rxvt and Enlightenment have made my data its own object, not some bad copy of the real world.
It is this attitude that makes people think of me as some wacko computer geek who doesn't use Windows ME (how could that be?!?), but I am the one who uses a computer without hitches. I am not bound by some other guy's idea of how things should behave. I may curse when my software is buggy, but I never say that the computer is ass-backwards. (That is a common complaint of Windows: "Who the hell thought that should do this? It should do THIS!") Although I hate to say it this way, I am at harmony with my computer.
I do not belong in the spam.redirect.de domain.
You might think it's neat, yeah, until a stray BFG blast takes out most of your MP3 archive...
Come on people, what's all the bitching and moaning about? I'm reminded of the mozila threads where people bitch about it sucking. Guess what? Linux 1.0.13 sucked pretty big balls too. You could have argued then "Why use that crappy OS when I can get Solaris X86 or Sco?". Bagging on people for trying something new with their time and equipment is not cool, guys.
So what if YOU don't like it. So what if YOU have a hard time navigating 3D space. It's not like YOU spent any money on the project, or anyone is making YOU try it out. Are you worried people will stop developing new versions of command line stuff for you? Or are you worried you might have to change? Or worse still, someone might make a tool that takes the magic out of shell scripts and prompts? If that's your preference, go ahead! Hell, nobody's arguing those are inferior. They're probably using vim, er, emacs, er.. to create the thing.. right?
Maybe I'm being a little too harsh, but don't bag on people just because you might not find what they're doing immediately useful (a la Mozilla). Right now, the 3D interface isn't the best. But in 5 years if we've all got 400DPI screens and super-high res / refresh cards, that might change - and from what I've read on the site, that's what they're looking forward to. If anyone actually READ what they're trying to do, it isn't just a file manager, it's changing the interface completely from the system adminstration to program execution level. Is it useful on todays technology? You can argue that. What about if some brilliant upstart came up with a $2k 1m^3 holographic display because of this? Then would it be useful?
People fear change.. but don't bag on these guys for doing something IMHO extremely cool and ambitious.
..don't panic
Ok ma'am. This is what you need to do to fix your problem. First, walk through the green door. To your right there will be a veriticle lever. Pull it down. A door should open up below you. Pick up the red key. Walk back through the green door and go down the stairs to your right... etc.
It would also make hacking a lot more fun.
"sir why is there a hole in that wall"
"uh oh.. looks like we have a hacker
"I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
Having to physically, without response, move things is one of the major problems of 3d interfaces. It is wearing. With keyboard I can let my hands rest on the table while typing with my fingers. The fingers are much lighter to raise than hands. Why do we write on A4-sized paper on table instead of some huge paper in vertical position? If I have to use the mouse (I wish I didn't have to), I have to move my hand. Repeating this monotonous, responseless movement for a while is tiresome. 3D interfaces would be even worse in this respect. So how to create a "light" responsive input method? I certainly wouldn't want to use a special suit and I don't think it'd be light.
Also, I wouldn't want to wear special goggles to use the UI. They make contact with the physical world too difficult. I don't stare at the computer screen all the time, as one might think and I don't want to have "computer/goggle sessions" alike using modem to take an "internet session" vs. real 24h network connection. It is just too complicated.
This goggle+suit system might work for FSP games and such. I don't care about them. For any other use it isn't practical. An air-projected 3d image would, on the other hand, be ideal for visualization, but we're still missing a "light" input method. It certainly isn't practical to use keyboard (or the rodent) for such. One could say voice recognizition, but I don't agree. Voicerec is the way to go for embedded tasks and remotely controlling devices at home, but it is not what I would want to use when doing real work on a workstation. The kind of voicerec that would be usefull to more than simple commands and dictation could require an AI that can practically do everything you can. Else it'd be like instructing a moron. We all hate helldesking via phone.
Doom for sysadmins
...I think the entire notion of a departure from 2D is absoultely awesome. "Go run down to the end of the boot partition, take a right, get on the scsi bus, ride it for about three stops or so, and get off at the Jaz drive".
exactly what it is you're supposed to gain by being able to browse your data in three dimensions.
Certain kinds of DATA in certain kinds of APPLICATIONS might benefit from 3D visualisation: there are certain engineering applications and certain mathematical visualisation apps I can think of. However, having an ENTIRE 3D ENVIRONMENT seems to me to be a waste of time and clock cycles and energy. I am WILLING to be proven wrong.
Let me put it to you this way - unless you're doing graphic design with pictures, and that - is there any REAL advantage apart from typesetting between using WordPerfect for DOS and the latest newfangled "will do HTML, PDF output, with 35,000 useless features" WYSINNWYG MS Word, in terms of productivity when it comes to typing out text? It seems to me that I can write just as well in this little text box in a courier font as I could in any other kind of app.
And let's not forget the biggest 3D problem is feedback - if you're not using a binocular display (VERY expensive) figuring out exactly "how far away" something is is tricky (I don't see in 3D myself - and I can tell you I tend to stop putting things down when I feel them hit). And there's the mechanics of navigation in 3D - most of our present solutions give you shoulder strain from waving your arms around. Without touch feedback to tell you you've "touched" the "button" you're constantly guessing at what you've just done. In addition, you have the problem of some people who get violently ill when visual cues ("I'm flying forward") don't match inner ear cues ("I'm sitting still") - a situation we call VIMS (Virtually Induced Motion Sickness).
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
I think that the debate whether 3Dsia is better than 3Dwm is rather pointless. Being one of the core developers of 3Dwm myself, I know that the scopes of the two different projects are quite different. 3Dwm is all about building a general platform for 3D user interfaces (3DUIs), while 3Dsia goes for the William Gibson "cyberspace" approach. This might seem like a fine point, but there is quite a difference. Now, I am not going to stand here and say which approach is best (hey, you know which I prefer!), but I daresay that 3Dwm is a more mature system resting on a more solid system architecture (we use CORBA, heavy modularization, and object-orientation), though.
A common misconception among most slashdotters seem to be that 3Dwm is all about "flat" windows. It is not. This is our fault, since all we've shown on our screenshots are those images of X11 and Windows desktops in 3D, but that only forms one of the cornerstones of 3Dwm (the backwards-compatibility one). 3Dwm is mainly about building 3DUI applications (like the prototype web browser you can see here, here and here) for use in Virtual Reality.
That said, I'm not about to steal 3Dsia's show in any way. Above all, good luck and have fun!
Most test persons had quite good sense of space of some meters in front of them. After this short distance, the spatial perception usually gets very bad, let alone people that cannot see 3D at all.
3D has numerous problems, most of them are "things are behind others and you cannot see them". If you use 3D for files or other abstract things, you must know that you are most of the time reproducing the real world which is in many cases bad. Why shall i want to walk somewhere to get info or to fly up 20 meter high towers when i can press some keys or file a search query that gives me a one-dimensional list that is easy to overlook?
Humans have a much stronger ability to visualize things 2D than 3D. Even if you think that in your flat you have things organized in 3D, it's not true. You put things in shelves one besides another, or you make groups on the floor, or put them into drawers. You switch angle several times, but each hierarchical level is 2D.
Overviews are always 2D, it's an abstraction of 3D, and 1D text has the largest abstraction.
3D is great when you work with virtual real objects (architecture, industrial design, geolocial structures, driving simulation ...) or when you want very rough information about something, like "there's a hell of a lot over there and few things over there, connected with the blue stuff over there".
It also looks cool in movies. But not for files, maps, lists, tasks, texts, archives ...
Most people who build 3D environments just start with file systems because that's the only data structures they have at hand. I suggest to get so data that is more useful for 3D first. Like from a survey or location of oil under ground or fish population in the ocean or something ...
I agree with you - at least for current systems.
/bin, /usr/bin, /opt/bin, and /usr/local/bin (should) keep all your user-level programs. That way, you only need to have those four directories in your $PATH. Why not seperate each packages' files from the rest? 'cause then you would need to add each packages' 'bin' directory to your $PATH. Pain in the arse, so we don't do it.
The reason why a file system makes a lousy 3D object is the fact that it was never meant to be one.
Now, start from the top down. Figure out what you want your 3D computer-world to look like, right from the beginning. Utility programs are best kept in the "garage". You want to find that program that compresses your file? Go into the garage. It'll be a clamp or a compressor.
You want to change some system settings? Go into the drawing room, where there are reams and reams of system design plans. Find the area you want, and change it.
Want to send mail, watch TV, get a file? Go into your communications room.
After you've decided what "room" each and every piece of your system belongs in, you've got a file system in a very organized, very logical(to the normal human mind) manner.
Current file system layout is based wholly on technical design issues.
You get the idea.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Likewise, no UI I've seen approaches a command line in functionality. X11 to me is mostly a vehicle to manage dozens of xterms (rxvt's actually).
Want to generate a quick histogram of hits vs. IP from an apache log spanning midnight til 12:59am?
Try: awk '/11.Nov.2000:00:/{print $1;}' access_log | sort | uniq -c | sort
Cooking up a little pipeline like this only takes a few seconds when you're familiar with a cli (far less time than clicking your way to "M$-Histogram LogTool", opening and closing dialogs, aargh!).
As far as representing data with shapes, icons fall short. They generally need to be fairly large (bigger than a word) to be recognizable. Even then, they're usually accompanied with a text description or tooltips (because they simply don't provide enough data for positive identification). I fail to see how some fancy, rotating, textured solid would differ, except in compute reqs. A cave-man's iconic repesentation of chasing a gazelle requires a few square feet. A textual representation (ie. "Og chase gazelle with spear".) is far more efficient.
Also consider a real-world desk. They're generally flat. You put papers, books, etc. on them. After thousands of years, they're still flat. No real innovation there. No significant transparent multi-layer approaches. Sure, you can use stackable paper trays and file folders, but they're essentially storage. While your paperwork is in these devices, its not being used. When you need to access something in bin-4, you take it out and put it on your flat desktop.
On the other hand, when you don't care too much for resolution in your data, 3-D can help. Our core network topology is fairly complex, 200 machines, routers, a few dozen administrative IP ranges, lotsa' vlans across a few local directors, and thats before you count desktops/wan/etc. Most people need therapy after looking at the diagram. Some sort of 3-D visualization would go miles towards deciphering it for the younger folks, though I suspect it might be a bit awkward in Euclid-space.
void rbowles(int signature)
{
signal(signature, rbowles);
raise(signature);
/* MAGIC THEATRE
ENTRANCE NOT FOR EVERYBODY
MADMEN ONLY */
I'd rather my desktop not look like a digital wasteland out of Tron. Vast expanses of black grids are a bit...depressing, don't you think? How about some nice grassy hills in the background or something.
--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
. . .I know this!"
I wouldn't want 3D in my cellphone menus, for instance; I have trouble finding numbers as is. ;-) In fairness, more media can make it easier, like Samsung's voice-triggered dialing, all I'd have to do to get my wife is flip it open and say, "Carol." Likewise, there are a lot of other media that can be added to 3D to make it easier, like laser sites for "Terminator point-and-click."
Real Uses
When Jaron Lanier invented the Data Glove (also licensed as the less-sophisticated PowerGlove), we did something fascinating: he taught himself to juggle using VR. Place a few objects, turn down the acceleration-of-gravity dial to give yourself plenty of time to get your hand under it, and viola'! A simulator to provide the eye-hand coordination you can only learn by experience!
Experience is a needed teacher... It's why Airlines and the military spend so much on simulators. Remember learning to drive? At first, it's all a jumble of Left-Brain rules that you try to juggle into logical order. Once you gain experience, it all transfers to Right-Brain pattern-matching and instinct.
3D turns good surgeons into brilliant ones. In an age where your likely to get the wrong foot amputated or your liver juxtaposed with your spleen, a surgeon greatly benefits from a strong sense of visualization. Likewise for Nuclear workers and Olympic Atheletes.
Sure, there are plenty of cases where 3D is a far-from-optimal medium for what you need, but NASA and other organizations are still advancing the state of the art.
...and file managers have always, and will always, make lousy subjects in 3-space. A file manager relies on text to convey information, namely file names and attributes. This is intrinsic to the functioning of operating systems and file systems.
However, text is a two dimensional object--lines on paper, paint on a wall, or the facade of metal boxes that contain neon lights in them. You can't convey textual information in three dimensions, simply because there are many angles where your text will look like "|" or be otherwise illegible.
Nobody has yet figured out a viable way to handle electronic data other than by giving it a name and attributes. It will probably be a long time before we can manage data without text.
Until then, it pointless to display files in 3-space. Aside from the text rendering problems, likening unordered, unfamiliar electronic bits to objects we deal with every day, like boxes and pillars, is foolish. What possible advantage can one gain by viewing files not as a list of words, but as boxes in a room?
Don't get me wrong, the concept is cool to play with, but it is completely wrong for a computer user interface. We don't need more metaphors for data. We have enough in file, desktop, window, folder, directory, and countless others. Adding box, room, pillar to the mix doesn't do any good.
For now, the concept of file and directory is sufficiently abstract for data manipulation--when the file is perceived as a cluster of data belonging to an object with a name and set of attributes, it is easy to deal with data. Then you group these objects according to function, making a directory. So far, these are only names. But to make files look and behave like boxes, or pillars, is to set in stone a metaphor that is no good.
It will be a long time before we handle data on its own terms. As someone once explained, the automobile was originally controlled by a series of ropes that immitated a horse's reigns. It took a while to develop the unique (yet somehow appropriate) steering wheel. Until we do the same for electronic data, we should avoid casting it into more inappropriate types.
Someday people will look back and marvel at files and directories.
But not today.
I do not belong in the spam.redirect.de domain.