Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 3d web browser
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Ol' Scratch
I don't really see how that's any more effective than, say, using ALT-TAB or similar methods and/or just clicking on (image or text) links as normal. All I really see there is a program eating up processing power in order to make most activities more difficult than they have to be.
ludomastro
Going to have to agree with the good Doctor on this one.
Kagetenshi
Remember VRML? Not only is everything old new again, it's less ambitious and even less useful.

~J
G.NOME
Y'all probably aren't the target market. If you ignore the "processing power" argument with an eye toward the jumps in processing power that is occurring every couple of years, you have a even more "seamless" GUI.

Obviously, this isn't much of an advantage for people who know how to use computers. But, say, senior non-tech savvy senior citizens might find something like this easier to use, for a variety of reasons.
Kagetenshi
Why would this be any easier to use than a digraph of one's history, though?

~J
Ol' Scratch
Really. Overcomplication of simple tasks is not a synonym for ease of use. Hell, I got confused just looking at one of the screen shots.
deek
I'll wait until we actually have 3D displays in common use. The whole idea of a 3D anything confined to a 2D interface is nothing more than eye candy, IMO.
Kagetenshi
Eh? That's a... bold assertion. Care to explain?

~J
deek
Was that directed at me?

I was simply asserting that physically, any kind of common monitor (at least that I am aware of) is confined to two dimensions. So, any manipulation to give a "3D Feel" is technically not three dimensional...you don't get a true physical depth.

I mean, I can't look behind my display or along the side of it and see my display, thus not truly 3D. Its all eye candy until we get that "holographic" display...
Ol' Scratch
Apparently there's a very plausible 3D technology that will be hitting the market in the not-too-distant future.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if the display is simulated 3D or true 3D. The actual interface shown in the original post is just God-awful and doesn't make anything easier or simpler. At least not until input devices leave the 2D world behind... and even then, 2D interfaces will always be easier in the long run.
Eryk the Red
I think it's something I'd like to try. It's simply a different interface. The question lies in how comfortable or easy to use the interface is.
Demerzel
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
I don't really see how that's any more effective than, say, using ALT-TAB or similar methods and/or just clicking on (image or text) links as normal. All I really see there is a program eating up processing power in order to make most activities more difficult than they have to be.

I remember when people were thinking, "I don't see how windows and clicking on all this stuff to get things done will ever be more efficient than just using a clear and well defined set of command lines."
Ol' Scratch
More efficient? They aren't, not by a long shot. Easier for people who don't know what they're doing? Sure.

Feel free to explain how a slew of obscured windows hidden behind other windows that you can only partially see at best is better than a flat 2D layout of windows and information, all of which have just as many text/image links and options like ALT-TAB to switch between them and any that may also be hidden or partially obscured if you choose them to be. And take a look at the screenshots above as well, just for a point of reference.
Demerzel
All I'm implying is just because it's a huge waste of time and resources doesn't mean it won't become the defacto standard... I suppose I shoudl have said effective rather than efficient to better parallel yoru statement.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (deek)
Was that directed at me?

Yep.

QUOTE
I was simply asserting that physically, any kind of common monitor (at least that I am aware of) is confined to two dimensions.  So, any manipulation to give a "3D Feel" is technically not three dimensional...you don't get a true physical depth.

I mean, I can't look behind my display or along the side of it and see my display, thus not truly 3D.  Its all eye candy until we get that "holographic" display...

You lose parallax, of course, but I'm pretty sure that in general it's possible to project an n-dimensional object down to n-1 dimensions in a useful fashion--that is, retaining all of the information that an observer capable of perceiving n-1 dimensions would have seen from that particular viewpoint. It's no more "eye candy" than the three-dimensional nature of the bottle of water I've got next to me is "eye candy" when I close one eye.

(Yes, there are other cues for depth, but most of them can be recreated)

QUOTE (Demerzel)
I remember when people were thinking, "I don't see how windows and clicking on all this stuff to get things done will ever be more efficient than just using a clear and well defined set of command lines."

That's an absurd argument. The GUI made functionality discoverable (in theory, in practice UI designers have managed to prevent that alarmingly often). It had a clear, obvious benefit.

~J
G.NOME
I'm not going to argue at all about efficiency of control. That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that most seniors I know don't know how to use the Windows hotkey shortcuts, and it hasn't been fun trying to teach them. I know some people who have arthritis so bad that they have trouble typing. There is a strong movement towards tablet/touchscreen-type user interfaces for computers. I mean, c'mon, the iPhone interface isn't that extraordinary (and it doesn't have the same functionality of a regular vanilla PDA-phone), but look at all the people drooling over it.

I'm just saying there's a strong trend towards simplified (read: dumbed down) GUI and input devices, and this looks like a logical extension of some of the features of Windows Vista. It's simple, accessible, and "looks cool." The latter, unfortunately, drives purchasing decisions for everything from toaster ovens to fighter jets.
deek
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
You lose parallax, of course, but I'm pretty sure that in general it's possible to project an n-dimensional object down to n-1 dimensions in a useful fashion--that is, retaining all of the information that an observer capable of perceiving n-1 dimensions would have seen [b]from that particular viewpoint.[b] It's no more "eye candy" than the three-dimensional nature of the bottle of water I've got next to me is "eye candy" when I close one eye.

(Yes, there are other cues for depth, but most of them can be recreated)

(bolded above)

Yes, that is the key...from a single viewpoint...

I don't understand your bottle of water argument though, as it really is a 3D object. Take a paper cutout of that bottle of water...sure, from one perspective there is no difference, but scoot your body 12 inches to the right or left, and you'll see a drastic difference.

Again, while I agree above a "dumbed-down" or cool looking interface has its place, don't try and tell me its 3D, because its not. It simulates 3D, sure, and from a certain perspective, you can't tell the difference, but that doesn't mean it is 3D. Its a simulator...cool as it may look and as easy as it may be, but don't try selling me on the 3D aspect...because its not!
Kagetenshi
But you can display arbitrary angles, that's the thing. You have to replace "moving your head" with some kind of input, but otherwise the result is the same.

~J
Lilt
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Remember VRML? Not only is everything old new again, it's less ambitious and even less useful.

~J

Yeah, I remember VRML. Then-again, there's a time and place for everything. IIRC VRML was before the .com boom, in-fact I just checked and VRML came out about 1994 when the .com boom started at around 1995.

Sure, that's fairly close, but enthusiasm in something only needs to fade once before it's gone. 1 year is a long time for enthusiasm to fade, and that was only the start of the .com boom before companies had pulled all the lesser tricks.

It may sound like I'm putting a lot of significance into the .com boom, well that was really when people started putting big money into web sites. Without big money, things generally don't go far.

Nowadays 3d stuff is becoming more common on the web, with flash 9 approaching workable 3D content and Google's Google's SketchUp app getting some news time and a little push.

In short: I'd put my money on this web browser not amounting to much, but don't discount 3d web experiences just yet.
Aaron
Three-dimensional rendering is nice and flash, but it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that three-dimensional spatial-referenced haptic interface.

Doo wop, doo wop, doo wop.
Lilt
QUOTE (Aaron)
Three-dimensional rendering is nice and flash, but it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that three-dimensional spatial-referenced haptic interface.

Doo wop, doo wop, doo wop.

Perhaps, but I've seen people duck dinosaurs in Tomb Raider...

IE: It might not be VR yet, but it doesn't need to be as long as you have suspension of disbelief.

I suppose that once you have VR, the old interfaces and displays might not be good enough. Perhaps your imagination is exercised less, meaning it can't quite suspend the disbelief of a non-vr experience?

Hmm... That just gave me an idea for a character who really highly prises his imagination. Maybe even a mage-type with an imagination-themed tradition? Possibly Intuition or Charisma? Charisma vaguely makes sense if you say "I can think past your thoughts" equates to better astral damage, whilst Intuition has the Artisan skill and is used for evasion of astral attacks in a "I can think round your thoughts" sense.
hyzmarca
I very much doubt that computer input-output will get any more efficient than 2D GUI + command line using a keyboard and mouse until we either have direct neural interface or solid-light holograms.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012