From kenh@microsoft.com Thu May 21 22:36:22 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 WAA02780 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 22:36:20 -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 WAA12593 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 22:36:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail5.microsoft.com (mail5.microsoft.com [131.107.3.31]) by wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA05962 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Thu, 21 May 1998 19:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by INET-05-IMC with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Thu, 21 May 1998 19:36:52 -0700 Message-ID: <5F68209F7E4BD111A5F500805FFE35B905797752@red-msg-54.dns.microsoft.com> From: Ken Hinckley To: "'Jeff Pierce'" , 3D UI List <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu> Subject: RE: New topic - adapted 2D interfaces for 3D Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:36:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Status: RO I'm with Jeff on this one. I actually tried the touchscreen-based interaction approach in my dissertation work (non-immersive desktop VR), and it seemed to work pretty well. But I never really published this work (other than one obscure conference publication), since I got mono in the middle of working on the idea and didn't have any time left to explore it further once I recovered. See section 3.9 of http://research.microsoft.com/ui/kenh/thesis/system.htm (may need to say www.research... outside of MS) Ken Hinckley Microsoft Research One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 703-9065 kenh@microsoft.com -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Pierce [mailto:jpierce@cs.cmu.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 7:00 PM To: 3D UI List Subject: Re: New topic - adapted 2D interfaces for 3D 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