Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:51:46 -0500 From: "Jeff Pierce" Subject: Re: 2D interfaces in a 3D environment In-reply-to: <3BF9D3A2.5E8EA9C@home.com> Sender: X-Sender: jpierce@ux2.sp.cs.cmu.edu To: "3D UI list" <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu> Message-id: <4.1.20011121134641.00bc8530@ux2.sp.cs.cmu.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal 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) At 10:53 PM 11/19/01, Kevin M Curry wrote:

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 3D interaction and preferably 6 DOF. If I have to open up a dialog to load a new model then is there anything wrong with a 2D control?

In certain situations, yes.

For example:

- I know the name of the model I want. Why should I even have to use a dialog box? I should be able to use voice input to ask the system to "load the model of the rocket ship".

- I don't know the name of the model, but I know what it looks like. The problem with 2D dialog boxes is that they typically show the names of objects, not what they look like. So I might have to load and then delete several models with similar names before I find the one I want. A 3D panel could have the actual models (or simplified versions of them)