Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th May 2008 18:30 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces Rethinking the desktop metaphor, or even improving it in any significant way, is a daunting task, and few dare to take the risk. The end result is that the desktop metaphor that we use today barely changed over the years - which is quite unique for the computing industry, as normally, things change very rapidly.
Thread beginning with comment 314092
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I thought of this, but
by sakeniwefu on Wed 14th May 2008 08:27 UTC in reply to "RE: I thought of this, but"
sakeniwefu
Member since:
2008-02-26

Spatial memory yes, 3D memory no. Maybe the human brain could handle it if we used it regularly, but in our real lives we are 2.5D. We move in a 2D space and manipulate local objects in 3D.
I doubt you remember your girlfriend's room(the refrigerator, whatever) as relative 3D(x,y,z) coordinates. You have a 2D memory of the surfaces you have to cross. You going upstairs or using the elevator are just tricks, you aren't really thinking in 3D. Go upstairs to reach surface A. Push "3" button to reach surface B.
Trivial 3D memory and abstract 3D thought problems such as the folded/unfolded dices present in IQ tests, leave at least 50% of the human population out, so even if YOU could remember random 3D locations and relative positions, I wouldn't assume an interface based in real 3D to be usable by the general populace at all.

Edited 2008-05-14 08:31 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 0

yannlecoroller Member since:
2008-05-13

Grape is exactly what you describe. It's not a 3D space but A 2D space and stack of icons. You zoom in and out like everybody in the Graphic Industry do for years in any graphic package. So things are really located on a plane, you zoom by looking closer to the plane. I think the demos were clear on that point.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

I couldn't see the demos, so I relied in other people's posts, but anyways.
Remember the Doom interface that came out for Windows 3.11(Maybe plain DOS)? It was intuitive and close to our real world. One could remember the way to Word, Qbasic, DOS... That was in the nineties. Why aren't we using that interface by now?
The answer is that simple 2D I/O will always be easier to process by both the computer and the person operating it. A normal file browser(with nothing flying around) assuming an equally well thought arrangement, will always have the lead in terms of productivity, although I can imagine people eventually swearing by interfaces like grape if such interfaces became common. Just like people swear by 2D interfaces to find their programs when typing their name(OS/UNIX style), or telling the computer to open it(Star Trek TNG style) are obviously superior approaches. 2D adds some value over 1D, but I fail to see any benefit in 3D. The redundancy it adds, while cool, has no informative value.

Edited 2008-05-14 12:40 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1