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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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
Member since:2006-01-12
The reason why we don't have the Doom interface is because the Doom interface was stupid. Who wants to walk down a virtual hall to get to our applications, when we can click on a QuickLaunch or Dock icon?
This isn't a Doom-like 3D UI. It's zooming, but that's not the same thing. Just go to the link. It makes a lot more sense to just see the images. It's not a file manager. Not a new system shell. Just a desktop augmentation. Current desktops already behave different than folders do. Desktops have widget engines, application launchers, multi-tasking management, system information, and so on. I don't think this would be more or less difficult than learning conventional desktop behaviors.
As I said in a root reply, this would incorporate well into a Surface, tablet PC or other touch interface.
Member since:2007-09-06
I think truly 3D UI will only come with truly usable VR. By VR, I don't mean putting on cheesey goggle and gloves or 2nd Life crap; I mean sticking a thin wire into a socet behind my ear (today, a wifi connection of some sort but I like the old monofiliment deck wired interface idea).
Anything I've seen 3D on a screen so far has been a novelty item. Grape comes closest too usable 3D viewed through a purely 2D surface. It feels like a slimmed down version of whatever that last 3D "move files as big icon previews" desktop was; the one with the group objects lasoo and a few other gimicky "3D desktop space" tricks like watching icons bounce offthe endges when thrown across the surface.
When we can fully imerse ourselves in a digitally created 5 senses environment the 2D UI will be reduced to very limited use where applicable while the 3D UI will simply be the natural existance of anyone jacked in. That's my random guess at it all due to too much Cyberpunk in my past anyhow.
Member since:2008-05-13
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.