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 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 :)
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
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.
Of course! Why didn't I realize this before. The "Take a Look UP!" interface.
Hmm... I need to find the code that used to draw that widget. Well, "Take a Look UP!" Ah! There it is!.
I need the Letter I sent to Verisign two weeks ago, and they're pretending not to have again. Well, "Take a Look UP!" There it is!
I'm searching for data about the US income tax rate in 1980. Well, put on the 3D goggles, and "Take a Look UP!" Duh! Why couldn't I find that before?
I'd like to find the actual glyphs used to write the name "Achilles" in the oldest copies of the Illiad that still exist. "Take a Look UP!" Man, this could make research easy!
But wait -- I'm just being a jerk. Certainly, those huge physical card catalogs that filled rooms in most libraries were far, far more intuitive and featureful than any of the online indices we have today. Why, in those, to find a book by Mark Twain, you just hunted around for a while, until you found the room with the R-Z catalog. Then, you just found the bank with the Taz-Smith (cont.). Then, you just found the row with Tu-Sac. Then, you found the drawer with Twa-Tzam. Then, you looked through that draw until you found Twain! Oh, shit. It says: see Clemens, Samuel. Thats so intuitive! I hope to do that in VR sometime soon!
Heck -- I don't even 2.5 dimension overlapping windows. In fact, I think 2.5 dimension overlapping window desktop metaphor is the most asinine thing I've ever seen. It works for transients, like menus and modal dialog boxes (don't get me started on modal dialog boxes), but why the hell would I want to see only half of my vi window, behind netscape? I'm waiting for the day the desktop metaphor dies. And you want to bring back card catalogs? Whatever.
I am, however, not a luddite. There are places where "3d" presentation of information is interesting, and even useful. The "warehouse" metaphor for data is useless, though. Have you ever actually been in a warehouse? Getting things into and out of a warehouse is hard. Useful organization for items is made extremely dificult by the fact that real objects are painfully restricted to existing in only one place at a time, and that place takes up non-zero space and mass. The cool think about virtual objects is that they don't take up space, and can be an infinite number of places at once. You want to confine virtual data by the constraints of the medium we once used to store that data? Bleah.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
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
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.
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
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
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 ...
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 */
...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.