The advantages of using alternative energies


Where Computer Interfaces Are Going : 3D Beyond Games

This article serves two purposes. It is athe entertainment, video game, simulation,
discussion about the future of computerand design sectors. Although 2D interfaces
interfaces; and it is a means by which I canhave dominated everything else, I expect we
purge myself of thoughts that have beenwill start seeing more 3D incursions.
accumulating on this topic for quite a fewOperating systems and applications are
years. Even if it fails as intelligentbeginning to capitalize on what 3D has to
discourse on the first, it will haveoffer. The precise nature of how and where
succeeded in the second. Previously the3D can best be incorporated is an open
title was Where Are Computer Interfacesquestion, and a framework to evaluate these
Going? but after writing it I noticed aquestions seems appropriate. As a rough
significant number of predictive passages andstarting point it seems reasonable to divide
decided to be bold and move the "are". Ofthe attempts into two broad categories: those
course now I feel obliged to add athat are trying to simulate the physical
disclaimer. I admit right here, or at leastworld and those that prefer more abstract
in the next sentence, that I don't know whererepresentations. If you'll indulge me, I'd
computer interfaces are going. I don'tlike to call these two approaches,
know.With that out of the way, I'd like torespectively, the "Physical Simulation
start, as many interfaces do, with theApproach" (PSA) and the "Abstract
metaphor. In the 80s and 90s successfulRepresentation Approach" (ARA).Developers in
interface design and an appropriate metaphorthe PSA camp are taking physical simulations
were taken to be nearly synonymous. Althoughand hanging applications, web sites, movies,
a good metaphor is important, it imposesand pictures on simulated walls. Simulated
unnecessary and artificial restrictions. Sodesks have functional simulated calculators
why is it so important? The best, perhapson them. And, perhaps, there is a simulated
only, reason is familiarity. Unfortunately,sun outside. It's all very familiar and
familiarity comes at a cost: the shortercomes with a nice minimal learning curve.The
learning curve can require speed and abilityARA camp are working on strange visualization
to be sacrificed.Consider the ubiquitoustechniques to view complexity and patterns in
desktop metaphor. What is more powerful, thelarge amounts of data. They have general
abstract construct of a tree, or a singlegraphs floating around in space with links
flat surface to place your papers on? Well,joining concepts and words together in
a tree is. In fact it is so much morearbitrary ways. They have nifty algorithms
powerful that it is the cornerstone of allthat filter the salient characteristics of
modern file systems. Trees are great, theylarge data sets so you don't get overwhelmed.
impose an organizational order that is commonTheir attempts are, by far, much harder to
in natural systems. General graphs are,describe with these mere words.In practice
perhaps, too general. DAGs (Directed Acyclicmany attempts will combine aspects of both
Graphs) are a good contender; largely becausephilosophies. I suspect that successful
of their acyclicness, but also because theyattempts at a 3D interface will have to
extend trees in a well defined way. Ibalance these two extremes in appropriate
suspect that trees are so useful because weways. Objects in a functional 3D interface
can't move backwards in time. Speciesshould probably be represented with models
speciate, languages extend, and softwarethat are familiar, just like the icons on
bloats. To fight these is to fight theyour desktop are often imitations of familiar
increasing entropy of the universe.Would itreal-world objects. This is a PSA property.
be a good idea not to allow folders withinOn the other hand, tree-based organizational
folders within folders just because it wouldsystems would be well advised. Very much an
be physically cumbersome, and at some pointARA concept.Text should always be view-plane
impossible? Probably not. Do icons have aaligned, as should images. This is one of
real-world counterpart? Not really.those 2D features mentioned earlier. Images
Metaphors should be, and have been, takenand text may be scaled, but they should not
only so far.So what does the future hold?present themselves at an angle. Vertical and
Will interfaces be 3D? Will we be stuck withhorizontal edges need to remain vertical and
rectangles forever? I think it's reasonablehorizontal. Of course, these features are
to say both have their place. People on thetrivially present with your desktop interface
3D side think that we humans see, work, live,as well.And there's an important lesson:
and play in 3D. We don't. They say theybuild on the backs of giants. The desktop UI
can't wait until there are fully 3D monitorsis successful for a reason, not simply
that you can walk around. Why? Our retinas,because it has a familiar analogue in the
as well as birds whose eyes are plastered onphysical world, but rather because it behaves
the side of their heads, are two-dimensionalin that same useful way that real desks
surfaces. Birds have flatter vision than webehave. It takes advantage of a
do, if not as Euclidean, because they don'twell-established ability; spatial memory.
have the benefit of the tiny bit of 3D depthYou put something down and it stays
perception a predator gets by overlappingthere.Useable interfaces need a certain
images. I've heard graphics programmersamount of persistence in their structure.
explain that their 3D scene was beingHaving objects stay where you leave them is
projected onto a flat 2D screen and so it wasone good way to achieve persistence. Placing
no longer really 3D. But consider this:objects manually, whether on your desktop or
everything you see in this world is likein a 3D environment, takes advantage of
that. It all gets projected onto our flatspatial memory. We can remember, in context,
retinas. We just have really big brains. Awhere we've left hundreds of objects
3D scene is constructed in our mind(notwithstanding car keys; they get moved
regardless of whether what we're viewing isaround too much). You probably know where
on a flat computer monitor or in thatyour camera is and where the light switches
nether-world known as real life. In fact,in your home are. By positioning objects
most brains do a decent job of scenemanually you can give them some context;
construction even with one eye closed. Fromperhaps by placing pictures of your family to
2D to 3D. Impressive!People on the 2D sidethe left, and panoramic vistas to the right.
think that we humans see, work, live, andContextual clues help you remember.I've heard
play in 2D. We do, after all, have flatthe assertion that adding a single extra
retinas, like playing tennis on flat tennisdimension doesn't buy you much organizational
courts, and eat dinners from flat plates onpower and that the added navigational
flat tables. But we don't live in 2D. Ourcomplexity isn't worth it. Others think that
brains are really big. 1.3 litres big. Morewe need an n-dimensional space to do a good
than enough dendrites, axons and otherjob. Aside from the obvious observation that
brain-things to contain a nice 3Dwe seem to exist in a macroscopically
representation of the world we live in.three-dimensional world (macroscopically was
Clues to build the scene abound: motion,added just to keep any
foreshortening, and the aforementioned depthphysicists-who-may-know-better reading) and
perception.The truth is some things areare therefore good at 3D manipulations, there
better in 2D and some 3D. Writing a letter?is evidence that the jump from 2 to 3
Use a desk. Put a flat piece of paper on it.dimensions is of a more fundamental
Want to file that letter away? Wouldn't itsignificance. If you draw a bunch of dots on
be cool if you could just let it hover ina piece of paper you will not be able to draw
some large 3D organizational space? Here'slines joining the dots in all possible
what  I  think.configurations unless the lines cross (given
some sufficiently large number of dots. I
Text:  2Dthink 5 might do it). However, once you hit
three dimensions, all configurations are
Reading  and  Writing:  2Dpossible without crossings. Adding a fourth
or fifth doesn't have any further beneficial
Organizing  and  Grouping:  3Deffect. Admittedly there is some hand-waving
going on here; but the result has
Visualization  of  Data:  Dependsimplications for some possible interface
designs; and it points to using three
It has occurred to me that 2Ddimensions.So why haven't interfaces changed
representations should be considered amuch in the last 20 years? One possibility
feature of an interface. It's beneficialis that the desktop is in some way an optimal
that text documents are lined up nicely forrepresentation. More likely, however, is
you in a window. If head-or-eye-trackingthat it is simply a functional
hardware were more widespread, we'd haverepresentation; no need to change when change
software that could compensate for (single)takes effort, right? We expect to be able to
users who are not directly in front of theirsit down in front of a new interface and
screens. Imagine looking at your monitorimmediately be as productive as we were
from an angle but still having the text ofbefore. We have all learned to use the
this article appear flat. That would be adesktop and menu-driven interfaces because we
pretty neat feature (on the other hand, ithaven't had a choice. It has taken time;
might just look strange and make you sick;just as learning to read and write took years
hard to tell without trying it).Because thewhen we were younger. Even the keyboard and
input is essentially 2D, I predict pure 3Dthe mouse, although perhaps easier than
imaging devices will prove to be a noveltywriting, have taken time and effort to
even if the enormous bandwidth problems canmaster. New interfaces will face the same
be solved. A graphics card that draws ahurdles. Their designs will need tweaking to
480x480 pixel scene at 60fps would take 8reduce the learning curve as much as
seconds to update a 480x480x480 cube. Yes, Ipossible. The users of these new interfaces
understand this is a vast simplification.will need the patience to develop efficient
Somehow restricting rendering to the surfacesusage patterns; and the interfaces themselves
of an object might help, but it soundswill need to be entertaining enough to
tricky. Regardless, the same or bettermitigate the patience required. All these
effect will be achievable by feeding a coupleefforts will yield interfaces that are not
of 2D images to each eye. Technology thatonly more enjoyable, but faster and more
takes this approach will be more successful.useful.Tristan Grimmer is technical director
Devices that project images directly onto theat Upper Bounds Interactive Inc. Previously
retina seem like a reasonable approach; alonga video-game programmer, and much earlier
with any tracking technology that may go withthan that a young boy trying to get his
them.The next 10 years will be a transitionalVic-20 to accurately compute Pi, Tristan now
phase for interface design. 3D renderingspends his time working on Tactile 3D in an
technologies already have a stable home inattempt to rid the world of rectangles.



1 A B C 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 63 64 65 66 68 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93