From jpierce@cs.cmu.edu Thu May 21 22:25:12 1998 Received: from burdell.cc.gatech.edu (root@burdell.cc.gatech.edu [130.207.3.207]) by lennon.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA02205 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 22:25:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wheaten.hitl.washington.edu ([128.95.73.60]) by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA11360 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 22:25:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ux2.sp.cs.cmu.edu (UX2.SP.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.198.102]) by wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA04911 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Thu, 21 May 1998 19:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805220224.TAA04911@wheaten.hitl.washington.edu> Received: from ASYNC3-CS2.NET.CS.CMU.EDU by ux2.sp.cs.cmu.edu id aa09670; 21 May 98 22:23 EDT X-Sender: jpierce@ux2.sp.cs.cmu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:59:56 -0400 To: 3D UI List <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu> From: Jeff Pierce Subject: Re: New topic - adapted 2D interfaces for 3D In-Reply-To: <199805141930.PAA06048@lennon.cc.gatech.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: RO Finally got a free moment to catch up on 3D UI email. I've been out of town visiting friends and packing in preparation for the move to MSR/Seattle for the summer. Ok, 2D interfaces for 3D. I think this depends on how and why they're used. I've seen a number of immersive 3D interfaces that adopt 2D interaction techniques as a failure of design: the designer either didn't even think about what a 3D interaction technique would look like, or didn't invest enough time and just fell back on what had been done before. The obvious advantage is that you're leveraging off what (most) people already know. We've button-slider-pulldown menu'd them to death for years. Heck, even CNN uses pulldown menus on TV now to indicate a change in topic. The disadvantage is that you're using a interaction technique from one medium (2D desktop) in a different medium (3D, either immersive, CAVE, desktop, whatever). In certain cases this can work: I think if you have a solid surface for the user to press against (a touch screen, or a hand-held clipboard) you can get away with using 2D techniques. I've played around a little bit with the idea of a transparent marking slate as a prop for interacting in 3D. Or if the user is seated a desk and you're displaying images on the desk surface, 2D interaction might be useful. However, I personally find the idea of 2D buttons and sliders floating around in space highly distasteful, and I think with a little effort we can find different (and better) methods of interaction to replace them. Ok, stepping off the soapbox. Jeff At 03:30 PM 5/14/98 -0400, Doug Bowman wrote: >What do people think are the advantages/disadvantages of such >paradigms? Do they have a place in VEs? If so, can we systematically >describe where they might be useful? What are the best ways >to constrain the user's input to 2D? In what cases is it >best to keep the interaction completely in 3 dimensions? > >There, that should stoke the fire a bit... :-) > >Doug