From ernst@kwetal.ms.mff.cuni.cz Sat May 23 10:24:10 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 KAA05916 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 10:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (h++wwwANzsjC7xnIKT+GeKnfSXu7JUOV@[128.95.73.60]) by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA08438 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 10:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from relay.cc.ruu.nl (relay.cc.ruu.nl [131.211.16.32]) by wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA25117 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Sat, 23 May 1998 07:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hydra.cc.ruu.nl (hydra.cc.ruu.nl [131.211.16.28]) by relay.cc.ruu.nl (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA82346 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Sat, 23 May 1998 16:23:55 +0200 Received: from pop.cc.ruu.nl (hydra.cc.ruu.nl [131.211.16.28]) by hydra.cc.ruu.nl (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA31600 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Sat, 23 May 1998 16:23:33 +0200 Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 16:23:33 +0200 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970423161926.0fd70cea@pop.cc.ruu.nl> X-Sender: l9339493@pop.cc.ruu.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: 3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu From: Ernst Kruijff Subject: adapted 2D interfaces for 3D Status: RO Hello all! Since the adapted 2D interfaces was one of my proposed issues for 3D-UI it is not more than appropriate to give my opinion too.... ----When I talk about 3D-Ui I mean UIs for immersive VEs. Actually, this issue has been commented in CVDE a couple of times - and I still think it is a topic of foremost importance for 3D-UI / VE development. I agree with Jeff that simply using 2D interface elements in a 3D environment from the point of lazyness is very wrong - you completely overlook the possibilities of 3D environments then, by simply assuming that 3D is only visual 3D perception (?). However, I agree with Doug that 2,5D elements can be very beneficial because people know how to use them AND because they are well constrained - however, are these constraints worth anything in a 3D environment? I don't know. Furthermore, what is EXACTLY the psychological barrier between using 2,5D and pure 3D elements / techniques in a 3D environment? Is Mark Green (U Alberta) indeed right when saying that: "Most 3D CAD and design programs have a 2D graphical user interface that forms a major barrier to user productivity. The user must perform mental transformations from the 3D design space to the 2D user interface slowing down the interaction." The question is, what is more important: the mental transformation or the proven usability of 2D interface techniques and elements. My opinion is very simple: if we regard a VE is a actual replacement of the real world, it is absolutely rediculous to assume that every task we perform in the real world is in 3D - it is my firm belief that in EVERY VE there will be 2D (or 2,5D) interface elements and techniques. take for instance Ivan's (et al) Virtual Notepad system: it would be, for graphical designers, extremely interesting to perform ALL tasks within the same environmnet. That is, to allow both sketching (typical 2D) and modeling (3D) in a VE - in this way, you create a working environment which has definite advantages above the real world. It is nonsense to say "OK, let us allow 3D sketching" - you completely overlook the fact WHAT sketching is. To choose a interface technique / element is thus purely task specific. And sure, you are right when you say that IF a task is performed in the real world in "3D", you should develop a equivalent technique which is suitable to perform this task in a VE too. But do NOT want to force everything to 3D - I see that happening in a lot of 3D modeling packages using a 2D interface. Developers make some fancy 3D-looking interface, but it works shitty. However, the package sells because 3D is "hot". So, then you are back to the initial point of UI design: task and performance. Fancy 3D may be esthetically correct but from a performance (usability) point of view very wrong. A user will finally discard using the application. Now I hear you all thinking - what is this guy saying??? Quite unoriginal comments from his side. However, why do I still see UI techniques which let the user perform tasks in the "wrong" way when we are all aware of this fact? If we do not watch out, the Magic of 3D will turn against us... (wwwwooow, how phylosophical... doh :-( One thing I did not hear during the discussion (unless it is in one of issues I have not downloaded yet..) is how to deal with augmented devices / objects in a semi-immersive of AR environment - what about 3D-UIs then???? You have to stick with the way a task is performed in the real world - you can NOT develop an equivalent in the 3D environment..... Conclusion - there should be more research on how tasks are performed in the real world and in what way a user might perform this task in a VE - but that is an obvious conclusion, I know that :-) I thought several of you were doing research at this - who? If I am not mistaken WDI-Mark was doing something... maybe even a lot. OK, I'll stop here.... adding one thing to the flying issue - besides OSMOSE there also was a guy (an artist) who used breathing techniques for navigation, and also to alter the environment itself (fractal way). I thought his name was Stacey.. I can look it up if there is interest in the application. Cheerios, -Ernst .................. Ernst Kruijff ................. Westersingel 9 .............. 4101 ZG Culemborg ................ The Netherlands ................ (0)345 - 519397 .. e.p.c.kruijff@stud.let.ruu.nl .... ernst@kwetal.ms.mff.cuni.cz .. kwetal.ms.mff.cuni.cz/~ernst/