Slashdot Mirror
Sphere XP Makes GUI 3D
Cypherus writes "I came across a link for a 3d desktop environment. "The SphereXP is a 3D desktop replacement for Microsoft Windows XP. Taking the known concept of three-dimensional desktops to its own level. It offers a new way to organize objects on the desktop such a icons and applications. Check the videos and screenshots to get the idea.""
Do people actually think these are EASIER to use than the traditional 2D/command line interfaces? Or is it just coolness?
Omnes stulti sunt.
3 Dimensional interfaces like these (especially Suns new project) are just annoying. They don't represent any signficant increase in productivity, they aren't going to make your system easier to use - they just look cool, and that's enough to grab attention.
The downside of these interfaces is the ridiculously high processor and memory requirements. All that extra graphic manipulation comes at a price, and I for one don't see any reason to waste processor cycles. What I'd much rather see is somebody developing a faster, more lightweight UI that is a nice combination of OSX and Windows XP. One that chews up LESS memory (instead of more, like this), one that speeds things up.
Then I'll be impressed.
I don't want new WAYS to use the existing functionality of my computer. I want new TOOLS, new things I can do that I could not do before, or things which were complex now made simple. I want my computer to understand spoken instructions in sentence form. I want to tell my computer " Find all of the image files in the computer where the majority color is orange". I want to tell my computer "Show me a list of all of the files on my computer which have been modified or accessed by a user process in the last 15 minutes." and get no system and log files as a result. I want my computer to actually know the purpose of each file its OS is built from. I want to ask it if anything is different between this bootup and last. WHY is the industry looking to add superfluous eyecandy to the same functionality?
It's like being sold a 1930 Ford with a new, prettier body for 2004 but still having the old rattletrap engine.
Those apps that need 3d will HAVE it (Quake) Find ways I can do things FASTER with less effort!!
Problems with 2D paradigm.
1 The real world isn't 2D. People have to learn that icons mean things and all about clicking and double clicking to make it do stuff (i.e. run) So there is this whole training thing. Those who have helped show the older generation how to use PC's know all about this.
2 2D is really limited space. You have a 15"->20" display that has borders.Unless windows go wrong you can't put things off screen. The real world is not like this, I can turn around and put stuff on the table behind me, or on the floor, or on the shelf. I don't have a tiny little workspace, no-one does. Yes , Linux, Irix can have multiple "windows", but the whole thing doesn't scroll, you just choose another rectangle to look at. Although we accept this , take some time to look around your cube, office or kitchen. The real world is not so constrained, why should the virtual one???
3 In the real world I like piling things so I put related things together. This requires 3D. Try this on 2D and you either get a mess or require "folders" to put things in. These folders are just more 2D..
4 Relationships between objects. Our whole brain has evolved to handle 3D relationships. e.g. the files are on the table, the calender is near the phone, the phone is near the window. Our brains thrive on this and it works really well because our brains are good at 3D mapping. Living in a 2D icon based world is mentally crippling. We have to label things with words to know what they are, we need folders and tree structures for directories. These might have seemed a good idea at the time but did anyone ever do some testing to see how effective these paradigms were? Anyone?? Of course we (and in particular younger people) take this all for granted but who says it is any good? Think outside the square people. Icons, folders, windows??? Come on!!
What do people think about having a UI which is a window into a 3D world. It looks 3D because it really is. The calender looks like a calender and is where you would expect it. The Inbox looks like an inbox and is on your table. Your diary is on the table and open to today. You software manuals are on the shelf and look like books, when you move closer you can read the spines.No training required.When you move an cursor (think focus of gaze) over what you want to do icons appear near the object with a list of tasks it can do appear. Move your icon/point of interest away and they go away. Walk down the hall and there is Fred's office , there's Freds stuff. Fred might let you borrow his stuff or he might not. Walk out of that door over there and anything and everything changes and your in the middle of a game. It's ALL transparent and like the real world. (Ok, the game bit is an extension but think local paintball)
Well, anyway, been there, done that, got funding, got business plans, no-one was really interested (including Microsoft). They all like little 2D screens and icons.No-one could clue out a 3D based UI. Search for Cyberterm in the archives and the VR print magazines from the early 90's. (Our 3D interface actually preceded Windows 3.1)
After 10 years of taking it from a hobby to a company and then nowhere we have given up.
(PS The company wasn't called Cyberterm, thats some dude in Florida who got the name before us)
while a GUI allows you to do common things faster.
/home/adam/mypaper.txt /somewhere/else/
/somewhere/else
I think that this is where we are having a slight misunderstanding. The 2D GUI isn't faster than the CLI, but has other added benefits (easier to see relationships, ability to see multiple outputs on the screen at the same time, viewing of fonts/markup, etc) that outweigh the added slowness. For a speed comparison, several common tasks are below:
Copying a file:
CLI:
1.type $ cp
GUI:
1. Go to "MyComputer" or "Finder"
2. [Double]Click on "Documents"
3. Go to "MyComputer" or "Finder" again or move hands to keyboard for CTRL+N to get a second window
4-6. click several times to browse the second window to
7. Drag the icon for mypaper.txt from the first to the second window.
Playing resizing an image:
CLI:
1. type $ mogrify -resize 640x480 cockatoo.jpg
GUI:
1-3. Open a filebrowser and browse to the image
OR
1. Go to "StartMenu" --> applications --> Adobe --> Photoshop
2. Click File --> Open
3+. Browse to cockatoo.jpg, click ok
4. Click Image --> Image Size
5. enter your resize values in the fields, click ok
6. Click File --> Save
OR
6. Click CTRL+S
In these and most other situations, the CLI will be much much faster, however, the added value of the 2D GUI is huge. For instance, being able to see what your image looks like when its resized is a great added value. Likewise, being easily able to see the hierarchy tree when using the filebrowser means that you don't have to keep as much in your head. How this applies to the 3D desktop is that the 3D interface does not have to maintain or reduce the overhead of interaction over the 2D environment, but it must add enough value to the environment to make that extra interaction overhead worth the trouble.
I have yet to try a true 3D desktop and will wait until I have to make judgements on whether the interface overhead is worth the benefit.
"When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers