[Nico_from_Paris]

Anyone has some info on the 3D graphic interface Sun is working on ? Any chance Apple will jump on it and make it its Mac OS XI, XII graphic interface like they did with the XEROX PARC ones before for the first Mac ?

http://wwws.sun.com/software/looking_glass/

Thx
Nico

[Brad]

A couple members already touched on Project Looking Glass briefly near the end of this thread. I swear we had another older thread about it somewhere but I can't find it...

Anyhow, truth be told, we already have what Sun is demonstrating. Mac OS X already pipes everything so it can be handled in 3D by the graphics card. Did you forget about Quartz Extreme and Exposé? In Tiger, we'll even have the Dashboard widgets that can flip around to access their controls. Plus, we'll have further optimizations and new features like CoreImage.

The BFD about Looking Glass is just that it means the PC (well, Sun) world is finally catching up with Apple in the UI engine department. There's really nothing all that great about it otherwise. Sure, it may have some fancy animations, but it's nothing new. Have you seen the horribly gaudy flag-waving and spinning windows demonstration for Longhorn? Again, they're just jumping on the new UI bandwagon that Apple set in motion.

What's important is that we already have what this takes and we have it in a usable fashion. If Apple wanted to have windows spin in a cyclone as they opened, they could do it today. Does that benefit users, though? Is it practical? Absolutely not. That's why we still have the relatively simple and subtle (key word) animations and effects throughout the system.

[DaveGee]

Originally Posted by Brad If Apple wanted to have windows spin in a cyclone as they opened, they could do it today. Does that benefit users, though? Is it practical? Absolutely not. That's why we still have the relatively simple and subtle (key word) animations and effects throughout the system.

This reminds me of the days when DOS/Win users first got the ability to use multiple fonts... They would try their hardest to use as many different fonts in the same document as they could (just because they could). Made for some pretty freaky documents, memos and garage sale signs.

Apple has long known the simple rule of 'less is more' where Windows seem to follow the 'a little is good so more must be better and a lot more is better still!' philosophy. On the other-hand, if it weren't for Windows people might not be able to appreciate good and thoughtful design when they finally do see it.

Dave

[psmith2.0]

Good point, Dave.

I'm with Brad on this. Apple and OS X could currently do all this, but why? I viewed those Sun screenshots and nothing really appealed to me. I'd rather just send windows down to the Dock than have them turn sideways. A lot of that stuff honestly seems like "ooh, look at me" eye candy (eye candy in the bad way).

I'm glad Apple shows restraint in its GUI, knowing that they certainly are capable of going all out and having the entire OS be one huge exercise in blinking, flashing, rotating, swooping, spinning, tumbling, etc.



Uhh, no...let's not.



Things like the Dock, the Genie minimizing to the Dock and Exposé meet all my organizing/viewing needs. And it looks nice and clean in the process. It's slick and attractive, but not in a gaudy, "look what we can tack on!" way. And the upcoming Dashboard and Spotlight features in Tiger will only add to, and enhance, the experience.

I've not seen these Longhorn demos mentioned above. Are they viewable online? Anyone have a link? That might be something to see...

[bauman]

Have you ever seen 3DOSX? It's an interesting Finder Replacement concept, albeit by no means usable.

[psmith2.0]

I see a lot of talking/writing about it, but no screenshots at the site you linked, or at the site of the guys who made it.

So no, I haven't "seen it". Would like to.

But the four people writing the little mini-reviews at the link you gave didn't seem too nuts about it. Must be real slow?

[Brad]

Oh man. I remember when that was released a couple years ago. I'd nearly forgotten about it!

Worst.
Finder.
Replacement.
Ever.

It's a nice technical achievement, but usability over any length of time goes right out the door.

This is a prime example of why 3D interfaces will never work in a 2D environment. It's almost as bad as Microsoft's TaskGallery project.

[bauman]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I see a lot of talking/writing about it, but no screenshots at the site you linked, or at the site of the guys who made it. So no, I haven't "seen it". Would like to. But the four people writing the little mini-reviews at the link you gave didn't seem too nuts about it. Must be real slow?

Download it and try it out for yourself... it's just like any other app.

[Brad]

For what it is worth, 3DOSX is as amazingly bad as when I last tried it two years ago. It's actually worse.

Navigation is pure hell. It's not intuitive at all and there are no on-screen controls to help you out. The fact that you're mostly limited to keyboard navigation really stinks too.

Here's a video of my sad attempt to try to use it for a couple minutes:

http://www.project-think.com/movies/3DOSX-sucks.mov

Yes, that tiny little window is jerky on a 12"PB 1.33 GHz with a 64MB GeForce FX Go5200.

[BuonRotto]

Thank you, Brad for pointing out the subtle nature of OS X's UI power, and about how bad that perspective GUI is.

I would point out though that Apple has experimented a bit to refine its UI in OS X, finding more subtle ways of using its graphics abilities for better use, and, espcially with Tiger coming, leaving most of the potential power of this graphics system up to developers (and their own creation apps of course).

People have to realize that the so-called 3D GUI isn't really 3D, it's linear perspective, which is a projection of a 3D world on a flat surface from a point, and is approxmiate to how the human eye works. It fails because it's trying to simulate 3D stimuli but lacks the most important ones. Instead, it only foreshortens, distorts, shrinks and occludes. (Well, occlusion can be a good thing, but when something is foreshortened or shrunk as well, it makes for bad access.) Navigation is also a big problem in that GUI -- the mouse is not a very good tool for moving around in 3D space. Modeling apps have elaborate ways to handle this, but it's important to constantly move around when you're modeling in a virtual space. It requires a decent learning curve to get around well.

I think 3D GUIs are in the future, but different hardware is required for that change to take place, not just software.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Anyone remember the iChat demo at WWDC? It had 3 windows for video conferencing and they were set up a little like this PLG screenie:

http://wwws.sun.com/software/product...glass/ss10.jpg

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by bassplayinMacFiend Anyone remember the iChat demo at WWDC? It had 3 windows for video conferencing and they were set up a little like this PLG screenie:

So when you invoke Exposé, do the windows make with the hyperspace effect and zoom in 3D?

That might be cool... especially with a properly planetarium planned desktop.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Brad For what it is worth, 3DOSX is as amazingly bad as when I last tried it two years ago. It's actually worse. Navigation is pure hell. It's not intuitive at all and there are no on-screen controls to help you out. The fact that you're mostly limited to keyboard navigation really stinks too. Here's a video of my sad attempt to try to use it for a couple minutes: http://www.project-think.com/movies/3DOSX-sucks.mov Yes, that tiny little window is jerky on a 12"PB 1.33 GHz with a 64MB GeForce FX Go5200.

What the . . .

[curiousuburb]

I remember the first implementations of Plumb Design -now Thinkmap-'s Visual Thesaurus and recall it (or something very similar) making appearances at EMP's website, FoxSportsWorld.com, and most recently, at the top of http://allmusic.com results pages as promptings for peripheral searches.

The Plumb stuff made Cool site of the day or something similar, as I recall.

Takes a while to get the 3d sense of the associative thesaurus (as with almost any VRML viewer or similar), but as a stream of consciousness GUI, it seems to fit the description of 'ThinkMap', although this is still early technology.

Might make an interesting SDK for Spotlight to play with.

Not quite the 3d landscapes of Jurassic Park's 'nix filing system.

[Brad]

I only looked at that Thinkmap VirtualThesaurus briefly, but the screenshots immediately reminded me of Apple's ancient Project X aka "HotSauce".

VirtualThesaurus:


Apple's Project X:



Watch a quick demo here:
http://www.project-think.com/movies/ProjectX.mov

Download here:
http://downlode.org/etext/mcf/

Neither is really very innovative. They're both just simple trees. It's just that no one ever really uses trees graphically for navigating data.

[futuretheory]

Look, it's pretty simple. 3D doesn't, nor will it ever, work as a complete UI. Sure, you may have certain types of information display that lend themselves to 3D but for the most part it just isn't something we can deal with. The argument is often made that we work in a 3d world every day and that this translation into computer space is somehow helpful. It's not.

The reality is that the computer about working with information. Sometimes it helps to format it into a certain form to help communication, just like in real life. In real life we take our most complex forms of information and translate them into 2D (paper, drawings, maps, etc.) to help communicate.Yes, sometimes a physical model is more helpful but in the end presentation choice depends on 3 things: The audience, the type of information, and the message goal.

The concept of high quality 3D representations of data is a good one, but let's not get stupid. The idea that we will work in virtual environments, virtually walking from one place to another is sick waste of time and offers nothing to users wanting to quickly build their own mental model of information. Instead of working on ways to better visualize and remember where information is stored, we are much better off working on ways to bring information to the user without looking. This where the new search tools within OS X should really shine, I for one, will be using the hell out of smart folders.

[CoreMac]

I think Tiger will have new superfluous eye candy by the time it ships. The Core Image/Video technologies will creep into the interface, and why shouldn't they? Apple will do it with taste and it's own patented Feng Shui. We will love it. I read somewhere that in the current Tiger build the zoom effect when launching from the Finder is broken. Sounds like a replacement is coming.

[Gargoyle]

All these 3D Desktops are just fancy ways of doing the main things a desktop is used for:- Showing a main app, Minimising, switching and sorting between others.

Think about how you use your real desktop. You will have a few key tools close to hand, and some others slightly further away. (examples listed below with computer desktop equivilants in brackets).

* Your main area, be it keyboard & mouse or canvas and ink. (The centre section of the desktop)
* Your phone, Stapler and Holepunch. (The menu Bar / The Dock)
* The pile of documents you are not currently working on (The Dock / Expose)

The one improvement I would like to see is the ability to have multiple Docks. Personally I would have my open documents at the bottom, web type apps on the left (iChat, Safari, Etc) and productivity ones on the right (Photoshop, Word, Etc).

[kscherer]

I don't recall where I saw it or who made it, nut there was an attempt at a 3-D interface by IBM or HP several years ago. The desktop composed of a little desk with drawers that slid open to reveal folders, a book shelf that held apps, a closet that held utilities etc. It seems to me that it was a start up program that ran over the top of Windoze. At the time it was called revolutionary, but it failed miserably. The critics and users said they just could not relate to it.

I agree with other posts here. The virtual 3-D workspace will not work. 3-D effects work great for visual purposes and OS's in the future will take great advantage of visual trickery to ENHANCE our work experience, but they will NOT succeed at replacing it.

[Brad]

kscherer: That sounds a lot like Microsoft Bob you're describing. Does this look familiar?

[scratt]

Ok I've read this thread and looked at the Sun UI.

I hear what Brad is saying... but I can see a use for some of this '3D'ish stuff.

In certain cases it does allow you to get more out of your screen real estate.

A postit note at an angle takes less screen space and is still readable, to the extent that it functions as a reminder. Scribbling on the back of a picture and flipping it back over again I think is pretty neat..

It gives an airy and less cramped feel to your desktop environment. Sure it does not do the funky stuff we see in movies, and yes the way the Mac is set up now it can more than handle it. It would be nice to see some more of these ideas absorbed and Apple innovated.

A good example of that is the way that the new iChat with three way conferencing is going to work... It actually takes less horizontal screen space to show the same thing. OK... you could shrink the images but somehow (from an aesthetic view point) that will feel more cramped. Maybe we then throw away the 'saved' screen space with the reflections and stuff! But - What the heck!!!

I think done right it will give a more comfortable work flow.
Using transparency to watch a movie from behind may seem like a funky trick and I bet we'd all love it, and it is well within the cababilites of the OS and the hardware most of us have.. So why the heck don't we get it!!!

I personally work with more than one app open and with more than one picture in Photoshop quite often. Turning one so that it is on edge but still visible would be an interesting and I think somteimes preferable alternative to squashing it entirely, or having windows overlapping...

Likewise I am watching the Lookingglass mpeg in Quicktime right now.. Putting that at the top right of my screen at 45% and 25% transparent would be really cool and a real complement to Expose...

Just my 10c!!

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

Originally Posted by futuretheory Look, it's pretty simple. 3D doesn't, nor will it ever, work as a complete UI. Sure, you may have certain types of information display that lend themselves to 3D but for the most part it just isn't something we can deal with. The argument is often made that we work in a 3d world every day and that this translation into computer space is somehow helpful. It's not. The reality is that the computer about working with information. Sometimes it helps to format it into a certain form to help communication, just like in real life. In real life we take our most complex forms of information and translate them into 2D (paper, drawings, maps, etc.) to help communicate.Yes, sometimes a physical model is more helpful but in the end presentation choice depends on 3 things: The audience, the type of information, and the message goal. The concept of high quality 3D representations of data is a good one, but let's not get stupid. The idea that we will work in virtual environments, virtually walking from one place to another is sick waste of time and offers nothing to users wanting to quickly build their own mental model of information. Instead of working on ways to better visualize and remember where information is stored, we are much better off working on ways to bring information to the user without looking. This where the new search tools within OS X should really shine, I for one, will be using the hell out of smart folders.

I tend to agree for the most part. For most tasks, there's very little purpose to a 3D Interface.

Keyword: most.

Yet when it comes to certain tasks, 3D will have a place. I don't see it becoming the guts of the GUI that we all will use like a lot of movies will generate the pictorial of. There's just way too much data to extrapolate in a complex 3D environment at a glance that like in a 3D world where you can lose things quite easily without careful planning (we've all done it no matter how anal you are), the major movement in PC-dom is towards ease of finding things via stuff like Metadata and databased structuring. Yes you can apply this to 3D... but it's a step backwards from the simplicity of a flat 2D environment. Rather than start over with a new paradigm, we extend the paradigm we have and find better ways to make the 2D environment better.

Some will argue space savings, and I don't disagree... but I think that you'll see a 3D-ization of a 2D space to achieve that. Instead of having x # of docks like someone recently spoke of, think more along the lines of a Linux Virtual Desktop idea. One dock that can flip like a Rubik's Cube to reveal different things. OS X could literally do this now and have a form of rotate mechanism (think of something like the volume slider in most apps) attached to it to allow you to flip it almost like the old-style round flip Rolodex's for those that actually know/remember what one of these was/is.

Although better than that... hell, could do the same thing with a "tabbed" dock too. It wouldn't have the eye candy so much (although I s'pose it could), but it could be just as effective and usable without the whizbang element. Apple could even make it extensible and create a better distinction between active apps., and stored apps, and maybe even add an active documents tab. Toss in the ability to categorize via added tabs (internet tab, graphics tab, iLife tab, folders tab, etc.) and it could take a good thing and make it more usable and imminently better rather than sending you a device to clutter up and hog more of your desktop. The dock should be an asset to the interface, not become a hinderance.

My prediction... more than an immersive/submersive experience, you'll see interfaces dumbed down even further with greater use of more powerful tools. The more powerful the back end of the system gets, the less you'll need to mouse around when you can rely on something like Spotlight (database-based find) to find and launch things. It's proven that hot keys, once learned, are a faster and more efficient use of the interface. The reason they are is because they take less steps. Adding 3D into the mix will require a vast array of directions to get from start to endpoint than it does in a 2D environment where the data is simpler to extrapolate (although more complex as drives get larger, which is why metadata database searching is imminent). The day you have to use Mapquest to find directions to the virtual intersection where you stored your porn at on your hard disk is the day computers fail us. LoL

[johnwillo]

Originally Posted by kscherer I don't recall where I saw it or who made it, nut there was an attempt at a 3-D interface by IBM or HP several years ago. The desktop composed of a little desk with drawers that slid open to reveal folders, a book shelf that held apps, a closet that held utilities etc. It seems to me that it was a start up program that ran over the top of Windoze. At the time it was called revolutionary, but it failed miserably. The critics and users said they just could not relate to it. I agree with other posts here. The virtual 3-D workspace will not work. 3-D effects work great for visual purposes and OS's in the future will take great advantage of visual trickery to ENHANCE our work experience, but they will NOT succeed at replacing it.

That almost sounds like Magic Cap, the General Magic PDA interface. It worked well on PDA's.

http://www.maclovers.com/articoli/magic%20cap.gif

[Tom]

http://wwws.sun.com/software/looking_glass/details.html

[Brad]

Old news. That link was off of the link in the first post in the thread. Got anything new to add? Comments? Ideas?