Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:53:06 -0500 From: "Kevin M Curry" Subject: 2D interfaces in a 3D environment Sender: To: "3D UI list" <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu> Cc: "Robert W. Lindeman" , , "Chris Arena (Home)" , "Robert Johns" , , "Michael Brazell" Message-id: <3BF9D3A2.5E8EA9C@home.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Accept-Language: en X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 References: X-Authentication-warning: torch.hitl.washington.edu: majordom set sender toowner-3dui@hitl.washington.edu using -f X-Priority: 3 (Normal) This is from way back, but I got started and only just now picked it back up to finish...

We published work on using 2D interfaces in 3D in IEEE VR'99 & CHI '99.

I definitely have to read this paper. I started to draft this mail even before reading the line above.

One claim I stand by firmly:

There is no need to make something 3D just because you can.

Has anyone seen Win3D from Clockwise? They turn your desktop into a virtual world. I hate it. (I'm sorry, but I really don't like it.) I can find no good reason why my desktop should be laid out like a virtual office, where I have to walk around the hallways and visit thematic rooms labeled "Games," or "Internet." What is gained by having me "walk" over to a 3D model of a filing cabinet and open a drawer just to access the file system? I'd even have to guess that if one measured the tasks they'd be found to take longer. Yet, browsing the file system is something that I can and want to as quickly and painlessly as possible. Browsing a virtual world is an interesting concept when it's truly meant to be part of the experience. But when it come to file access, I care nothing about the journey. I only care about getting to the thing I'm after. Creating a neat virtual world to represent my computer's file system does nothing for me.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm rather open to the possibility that I've been brainwashed by the "Windows paradigm" and that there could be completely new and different metaphors for interaction besides the traditional virtual desktop. But people have immediate needs to get at their data and play with it NOW. They can't wait for what may be a more natural and intuitive way to do the I/O. We have to be careful not to spend so much time trying to look for the right 3d metaphor that we miss the point. 3D has been slow to gain legitimacy as a solution because we haven't been able to do much with it besides look at the output of complex computer algorithms.

Of course, I could read that paper and find myself totally invalidated - I don't even know if it agrees with what I'm asserting here. But I think there's something to be said for limiting some interaction in 3D environments to 2D manipulation. Note that I said "manipulation." I'm not saying buttons, and menus, and combo boxes can't look 3D. As long as I am building buttons, menus and combo boxes, I should never have to reach for a control. I should only have to reach when it conveys meaning in the VE. The location of a light switch on a wall for an architectural walk through has meaning for the designer. There are also virtual models of certain real world controls that require 6 DOF. But a control panel of buttons and combo boxes is just an easy and recognizable way to manipulate data. Give me a HUD that can be navigated with an X & Y device - fill it with sliders and dials and buttons. You can keep Z for the tasks that are truly three dimensional.

I cannot tell you how many times I've seen scientists trying to use tool panels that they can't reach with the virtual tip of their wand. It's almost sad watching them rearrange the objects in the environment so they can find their toolbars. If I'm inspecting a model of a rocket engine, then I need