 |
 |
The 3D spatial-stereo effects of headphones can be quite striking. Beware the blinders of Monitor-centrism. ........................................... Jonathan Schull, Ph.D., Founder & Chief Scientist, Digital Goods (formerly SoftLock.com) ph:(978)764-1058 fax: 978-461-5945 Five Clock Tower Place, Maynard, MA 01754 ........................................... -----Original Message----- From: Bob Jacobson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 2:46 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: news article "Internet sites offer their visitors real senseof place." David's assertions below, that 3D interfaces simply don't work, are correct only when 3D representations are confined to small 2D spaces, like the screen of a monitor. The inability of the user to move around and in some way tap his or her proprioceptive capabities -- the spatial sense provided by sloshing fluid in the inner ear -- seriously limits the value of 3D systems on desktops. Similarly, since the biggest monitors are only in the 23" range, and we sit at least two feet away (if we're playing it safe), until we go wall-hanging screens (and better yet, immersion theaters), the subtended field of view these images can provide is inadequate to fool the brain into thinking it's "inside" an imaged space. When (not if) we move to easily accessible immersion spaces like the CAVE (and the Virtual Environment Theater, which my firm, Worldesign Inc., pioneered), only cheaper and more plentiful, 3D interfaces will start to make a great deal of sense. But they'll be different from the mnemonic and semantic allegories that currently pass for 3D interfaces. Like natural language interfaces, natural perception interfaces will process information the way we do, using the natural world as its model. For some suggestive ideas, see http://www.fakespace.com/. Fakespace and its founder, Mark Bolas (who has a new design firm affiliated with the original Fakespace), pioneered 3D interfaces. Mark did some of his most outstanding work, BTW, using simple vector graphics generated by pre-Windows PCs and viewed through a wearable headset (NASA's first). The elevator experience was remarkable. Worldesign, my firm, evolved over time from a typical 3D design studio (1992, a spinoff of the HIT Lab) to a GIS shop using 3D interfaces (1995-6). Our last "product" was an alpha version of a map-to-3D model of neighborhoods, for utilities and others to use. The ability to see pipes and conduits underground (a serendipitous feature) wowed the engineers. Unfortunately, we had to close the doors before we could go to beta (the decline of VR anticipated the dot-com catastrophe). Finally, I note that Magic Earth, which provides a 3D interface for oil exploration and development, was just sold to Halliburton for ~$100MM. Someone must like 3D interfaces...! (See http://www.magic-earth.com/.) Thanks to Martin for raising the issue. Bob Jacobson Bluefire Consulting San Mateo, California [log in to unmask] David Evans wrote: > > Back in 1994 I created a small "world" linked to different types of data > repositories on the net through my Nintentno PowerGlove. > Since then I have seen many different types of information navigation > applications, from research labs to commercial products. > > As a founding member of the Boston Computer Society Virtual Reality Group, > in 1993 we had people coming by all the time showing off 3D navigation > applications, and they were all mostly cool for about an hour, or until you > had to to something really important with them. > > I am convinced that The Brain(the application not the greymatter) is the > closest we have come to a decent way to navigate massive amounts of > information. I'ts not perfect, but it scales well. I am still waiting for > someone to improve the interface though, the idea is there, the > implementation is rough as it's hard to tell how "deep" you are into a > topic. > > Muriel Cooper's work at MIT Media Lab was fascinating, whatever happened to > the idea of mapping data onto simple objects like cubes and letting > typography provide the cues as to topic, relevance, depth, etc? Simple, > elegant, efffective. > > Throwing all this 3D gee-wiz interaface technology at the problem is the > wrong way to go about developing the next generation of information > navigation applications. Companies that have tried this end up on Bonus Pack > CD-ROMs sold with cheap PC's. Lets take things back to basics- find out > whats important to people, refine refine refine the model, then apply > whatever technology works. > > Just my two cents, I've been reading these threads for 8 years now and it's > always pretty much the same thing. I remember having a meeting with SGI when > Cosmo browser came out, brainstorming ways they were going to pay us $100k > to develop "cool stuff that would make people use the plug-in" and they > could sell hardware(even GETTING that meeting with them was amazing ;-). 3D > worlds representing data, spinning cubes, land-based representations, done > done done, none of it worked then why should it work now? > > David Evans > [log in to unmask]