Re: Property "rotate"

Orion Adrian wrote:

> 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
> 

Hey, no "by definition" regimenting 'round these parts, ok?  It 
stagnates change and growth! :)

I'd probably have to agree with that... from a professional, 
appropriate, productivity, and profit viewpoint... as a free marketeer 
might do.  But I work in a land of children and scared-to-learn, 
scare-to-compute adults where... enjoyment is IMPERATIVE to continuence 
of program usage.  Contrary to popular self-foolery, SOME data-sniffin' 
folk are not "out" to work efficiently... they're out to enjoy 
researching... and make learning fun, and do fun "resource discovery". 
In fact, there's a CHUNKLOAD of folks like this.  Not all the internet 
is business-minded.  There's some folks on the planet that abhor 
competitive survival systems, and wish constantly for a cooperative one. 
  But that's a whole other story.  There's a pathetic group of 
gentle-hearts who I fight-for, and write data-accessing 
friendliness-for.  Efficiency concerns them little.


> 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.
> 

Some games are fun because they are BEAUTIFUL... sometimes simulations 
of beautiful things in nature.  OA... with all gentleness, I think you 
have a bit of a bias toward VR workareas... because you've lumped them 
into the category of "game".  Its ok, of course, because others are 
going to do years and years of devving 3D browsing systems whether you 
approve or not.  3D is just too cool to ignore... so folks will pursue. 
  Yeah, we're off-topic seriously here, it seems. I suppose we should be 
over in the 3D-CSS list. :)

> 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.

Oh, how could they be "tried and tried"?  We haven't even got a decent 
"anyone can use it/build it" 3D canvas on any consumer-grade platforms 
yet.  The closest I think I can get... is connecting a java object to an 
openGL canvas, then trying to expose that java object to javascript, and 
THEN... maybe, wrapping some xul around it and giving users what might 
be their first 3D canvas of general usability.  3D is far from dead. 
Its coming-on strong.  We have a whole generation of quakers and serious 
sambos surging into our fuddy-duddy old stick-in-the-mud regimentations. 
  They're here!  :)

Wing Thing

> 
> 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 21:26:16 UTC