W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Property "rotate"

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 11:25:23 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c801050516082526c8d231@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wingnut <wingnut@winternet.com>, www-style@w3.org

I would say it's far more enjoyable as a video game, but by definition
it's not easier. Visual metaphor works as long as you don't take it
too far. For example, take Microsoft Bob which took the idea that your
desktop should look like a desktop and that to get to your contacts
you should click on roledex on the visual desktop; to get to you
calendar, click on the desk calendar. The problem is that once you get
past the original wow factor, people hated it and it never shipped
thankfully. Clippy also seemed like a good idea at the time, but
really to be productive you want as few clicks, animations and steps
as possible to do the task in quesiton. A data island that looks like
an island may be nice to work with, but I've probably just added
several steps and inprecision to my process. Now rather than clicking
on my icon, I have to move my plane to

Games are fun because they force us to master new skills and there's
an enjoyment from that, but they are fun because they are difficult.
The most usuable game I've ever come up that actually requires
interation is a button that says, "Win". There's no other option. It
isn't very fun, but it is very usable. Flying your F-29 to the data
island is fun, but not very usable.

3D interfaces have been tried and tried, but every time they find the
2D interface is much better, which is unfortunate for the 3D fans. But
that is the reality of the research. So given that I do hope web
designers learn the fundamentals of usability and avoid repeating the
mistakes of past designers.

Orion Adrian

On 5/15/05, Wingnut <wingnut@winternet.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi OA!  Good to hear from you again!
> 
> Good thing is... 3D browsing won't REPLACE 2D browsing.  It'll just be
> another option to 2D.  I think there was already one 3D browser
> attempt... called "the brain" or something like that.  Data drilling in
> visual reports... for example,  is far more productive in 3D
> environments than in 2D, by the way.  And it can be far more fun,
> allowing more data inspection time and less long term stress.  Data
> islands and namespaces can actually "look" like islands and "airspace"
> or "ground area".  Blasting your F-29 across farmfield after farmfield
> of bookmarks... is much more enjoyable than boring old clicking.  One
> must be careful of judging usability and functionality... in a 3D
> browser world that hasn't even opened its doors to public ideas yet...
> or ANY ideas for that matter.  You thought XML had 'views' now?  Hell,
> we're not even warmed up yet. :)
> 
> Wing
> 
> 
> Orion Adrian wrote:
> > I for one dread the idea of 3D browsing. Usability studies have shown
> > that users do not function better in 3D space than they do in 2D
> > space. This my partially be because information is not 3-dimentional,
> > it is N-dimentional.
> >
> > So let's stick to the realm of 2D since that's all our displays are
> > best at and leave the realm of 3D to video games.
> >
> > Orion Adrian
> >
> >
> >>Yep, rotating box models around various axis... would be nice... jaggies
> >>and all... but its still left to other methods.  Most use paintbox
> >>programs to fake it... with images, or use contorted SVG or VRML
> >>operations to accomplish it.  I've seen some abolutely wonderful stuff
> >>in VRML, and the whole world of 3D websurfing is still ahead.  The DOM
> >>trees are called 'scene graphs' in that land. When you see onCollision
> >>and onOverlap hit the box model events, you know we're starting to
> >>gear-up. :)  3D browsing will become VERY common eventually, and CSS
> >>styling will take on a whole new meaning in that world.  Can you wait
> >>for a few years... for when your box models can REALLY rotate... and
> >>bonk you on the head, and dance like Gilda Gray, or up and fly away on ya?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>
Received on Monday, 16 May 2005 16:30:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:37 GMT