Topic awaiting preservation: Broswer history, now and the Future?.... (Page 1 of 1)

Well if you haven't seen an article at CNET's new.com about browsers and the internet found here, you might find it a nice and interesting read about it all.

It's a long read, but nice to see the past, present and future in about 4 pages (I've started you at Pg 1 here).

So instead of just stopping there with the reading on CNET, how about we discuss about browsers and what you think is the future of them? and/or what else you think will shape the internet in years to come.

or have we discussed this before?


I'm thinking of macromedia with their first class flash app, it's like a browser, but takes it to far beyond a window type browser we all have right now, that flash can run outside the browser. Sounds good, but I can only think about the bad things like spam, advertisers and other people taking advantage of it in a bad way. But I'll wait and see first about the macromedia with their first class flash app.

:::COPEY + CELL + DA + GFX:::

[This message has been edited by Copey (edited 04-17-2003).]

theres truth in that one.

I firmly believe in (and cannot wait for) an intuitive 3D interface...

WS, I don't know why you think a 3D interface would be so great. It could have advantages in some situations that I'm not thinking of, but I have a hard time imagining a 3D interface that can do what a 2D interface can't, and/or do it in a way that's easier to use.

Our whole life we're accustomed to using 2D interfaces, and it works great. Some examples of 2D interfaces that we're used to are:

- Keyboards
- VCR control panels
- TV Remotes
- Car Dashboards (you could argue that this is 3D since some things stick out. that may be the case, but ever notice how sometimes the steering wheel gets in the way of something you're trying to look at on the dashboard? that's an example of a shortcoming of a 3D interface)
- Microwaves
- Books (well, each page of a book is 2D, the 3D structure of a book only serves to save space)
- Maps (although we walk around in a 3D world, most often it's easiest to find our way when we look at a 2D overhead map of that world)
- Vending Machines

You might argue that, since we live in a 3D world, 3D interfaces would be more intuitive. I disagree with that. The fact that we live in a 3D world makes it extra difficult for us to make and use 3D interfaces. It's equivalent to a 2D person in a 2D world trying to use a 2D interface - how are you going to arrange that interface on a planar surface that makes it easy to use for someone who's stuck on the surface? In that case, a 1D interface would make more sense - they can go left and right along it, and push vertical buttons on it. Similarly, we use one of the dimensions of our 3D world to give ourselves (the user of the interface) space to move around in front of the interface, so that we can see it all at once. If we tried to use the remaining dimension for interface space, we would be making it unecessarily more difficult to get to a certain part of the interface.

An example of a 3D interface would be a refrigerator. Ever notice how difficult it can be to work with a refrigerator? When you want the thing in the way back corner, you have to spend like five minutes just moving things out of your way. The reason we use a 3D interface instead of a 2D interface (which would be lots of long thin shelves) is to save space in the kitchen, and to save energy by keeping all the cooled items in a concentrated area.

So, I think in most cases, the disadvantages of 3D interfaces outweigh the advantages.

That's a very good argument, Slime, and I would tend to agree. While a 3D interface might be interesting in a video-gamish sort of way, I don't imagine it would be all that practical. Then again, they might come out with an improved 2D interface and call it 3D just for marketing purposes (specifically I'm thinking of the interface in Minority Report, which was really just a glorified Windows; I'm also wondering about the interface in Johnny Mnemonic, but it's been so long since I've seen that movie that I can't remember exactly what it was like...).





www.liminality.org

Johnny Mnemonic, Matrix, 'nuff said.

And all the things you mentioned Slime, are in fact 3D interfaces...

Humans have depth perception for a reason. A 'realistic', intiuitve 3D interface, works almost seamless...

I think of the video revolution from the Super Nintendo to the Playstation, as games moved into the 3D world...

The point is, the browsers that we now use, don't really use our hands...we mostly use a mouse, with either the right, or left hand...and type on a keyboard...we do not have a direct connection to the browser with our hands, in that sense...it is not seamless. We also do not have a 360 degree view...we therefore do not feel immersed...

Interesting, I was searching for a map over the internet for a seminar last week and stumbled over this site: http://www.cybergeography.org/atlas/info_landscapes.html There are some really nifty ideas going on for sure.
/Dan

{cell 260}
-{ a vibration is a movement that doesn't know which way to go }-

I think 3D has its uses but for the most part, I agree with Slime.

The games argument for the migration to a more day to day 3D computing life is highly questionable. After all, the primary reason that modern games lend themselves so well to 3D is because their more of a simulation than a "game" in the contemporary sense. The "game" elements so to speak can't really be classified in 2D or 3D terms but the parts of the game that try to "simulate" something sertain phyical elements on the other hand can be considered in dimensional terms. 3D games try and simulate the rules of the real world in order to create a certain degree of difficulty that you must learn to navigate and control in order to win. The third dimension adds to the difficulty, it doesn't reduce it. Lets face it, Super Mario was hell easy compared to most of the 3D action plat formers of today. 3D also adds the ever plaguing liability of camera angels, 1st person views limit your POV to one fixed point, as does using fixed cameras at various points in the world and free floating cameras are clumsy to control.

Although many people may argue this, every OS is still 2D. Overlapping windows don't count as true 3D, period. In fact, every program (with the exception of games and 3D modelling programs) your ever likely to use will use a 2D interface yet the ability to use 3D in terms of software and hardware support has been around for years but why does Photoshop still use a 2D interface? Why are spreadsheet programs or Word Processors still 2D? Simple really, because the designers and developers know that trying to use a 3D interface to move around and not only interact but be productive with program like that would be a useability nightmare.

So unless your using a program that needs to "simulate" something about the real world then using 3D is only going to make things harder. After all, I much prefer to have a bunch of icons on my desktop then a 3D interface of my real world desk which, like most peoples desks, is covered in crap and I can never find anything I want to find.

Oh and lets not forget, no matter how 3D you get, it's all still displayed on a 2D screen and in this transition from a meta-physical 3D form to a 2D image on screen your loosing a certain amount of the data. When we have true 3D input and output devices for our computers then 3D will likely be a better option for various tasks but for now, with our 2 axis mouses and 2D screens, 2D interfaces will dominate.

one with penguins.... that would be awesome.... the penguin browser ..its belly could display webpages... and umm.. ok ill shut up now

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

WS: While the interfaces that I mentioned are, in fact, 3D, their 3Dness isn't that crucial to their functionality. A keyboard for instance: if we could develop a 2D keyboard that could still detect whether or not you tapped a key, it would be just as useful as the 3D keyboards that we now use. The vertical dimension is only necessary for finger movement.

See, although all of those objects are 3D, their interfaces could be described using 2D coordinates. Their 3Dness is quite simple. So simple, in fact, that you could describe them in two layers:

1. The layer that buttons are on
2. The layer in which your hands move

This aspect of real world interfaces, however, is already simulated in GUI's via "z-indices". Layer 1 is the majority of the screen, and layer 2, which always resides on top of layer 1, is the cursor/pointer. We could simulate this 3Dness further by somehow displaying the windows on flat screens at different layers, and make the pointer on the closest one, and when you click the mouse, the pointer could move in and actually push a 3D button - but all this is unnecessary since we've already simulated it with 2D.

quote:

---

The point is, the browsers that we now use, don't really use our hands...we mostly use a mouse, with either the right, or left hand...and type on a keyboard...we do not have a direct connection to the browser with our hands, in that sense...it is not seamless. We also do not have a 360 degree view...we therefore do not feel immersed...

---

I agree that it would be a major advantage to be able to reach out and grab windows on the screen and rearrange them, rather than using the mouse. Being able to position objects around us in all directions would also be helpful. However, this could all still be simulated with Z-indices - the 3rd dimension would still be only used for your hand to reach into the screen and pull a window to the front z-index, and then move it around in 2D. Even the spherical 360-degree view only needs 2 dimensions (theta, phi) and a Z-index to keep track of an object's position.

In any case, if these things are what you meant by 3D interfaces, then I agree that they would be great to have - I just don't 100% agree that they're "3D".

One last point -

quote:

---

I think of the video revolution from the Super Nintendo to the Playstation, as games moved into the 3D world...

---

The difference here is that video games are made to be challenging, while interfaces are made to be as easy as possible. Adding a 3rd dimension to video games made sense because more complex levels/mazes/worlds could be created that were harder (and cooler) to navigate. Interfaces benefit from just the opposite - simplicity, ease of navigation, and the ability to see the whole thing at once are key goals of interface design.

In my professional opinion as a man whom will often go for days without leaving his computer, I'd have to say that 2d interfaces would be a lot more user friendy. Everything you need is right in front of you. A six-year-old can play an incredibly complex game using only a keyboard. An 80-year-old can look around the web with a mouse. Adding a third dimension to interfaces would overcomplicate things, leaving the little people scratching their heads in confusion.

3d interfaces don't work, so don't use them.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

hhmmm.... 3D interfaces would be nice, but hard to understand at first. I understand most peoples point about 3D interfaces and how wrong it would be to use them. But just think how hard it was to use the OS when you first started to learn computers, it was hard and took time to learn, that's how I'll see 3D as. Hard to learn but once learnt it, you?d be fine, just like when learning all things 2D.

I'll admit that 2D is easier, because you have learnt how to navigate around 2D for years. Think of a stack of paper and you want to get too the bottom sheet. In 2D you have to move all the other paper out of the way, to get to the bottom. In 3D you can just rotate it 180 degrees, or move around it to the side and get to the bottom that way. But saying that, that is just one thing, you know where the thing you want is, so you get to it easily, right? Now searching for things is going to hard as hell, I think. Think of you lose your car keys and try and find them in you house, it?s hard isn?t it. Now think of that as the keys as your web page/info?.. oh the problems would start, right there.

And thinking about the web sites/info, it's not just the browsers it?s the content as well. If the content is hard to understand what's the point? The web to me is already hard to navigate around as it is and find what you want, in 2D. Really adding 3D would just over compacted things even more. Ever watched you mum, dad, or anyone that is not all with on computers and the web? Watch them get over confused and just give up. Just think of all that in 3D, it would be like a big maze.

So I?ll just wait and see with all that 3D stuff, and as InI says it?s been done before, so it?s a start, but maybe they noticed but problems with people using it and that?s halted it.

I still want to know more of macromedia?s first class flash app, cos right know I still don?t see the point of it, just yet?.hhmmm?.

:::COPEY + CELL + DA + GFX:::

I've often thought about how I use the 2D/3D nature of things in my own interface and design work. For me, what I'm always shooting for is at most, 3-4 "layers" of information, floating over each other. If you think of how youd use this in an interface, it's mostly about just hiding the parts you don't need *right now* just slightly out of the scene, easy to call back as needed, but still "there".

A 3D interface would work (to use Slime's refrigerator metaphor) if, for instance, the butter would sense your need of it and move closer to the front for you, and recede when not wanted or needed. Sounds cool, but I've been trying to guerss what people will want to see next for years now, and seldom get it exactly right.

I know if I had a full immersive environment for my OS, I'd constantly be putting things "behind me", and then not being able to find them. If I *did* have a full 3D OS, probably ther first thing I'd do is drag everything into nearly one place, in the "front" of me. I'd probably have them all offset just a bit so I could see slices of each, and then I'd call each one to the front as needed.

Kinda like I use Windows and Mac today, as a matter of fact! But, it'd look cooler, maybe?

The flatland metaphor, (ie: 2D people with a 1D interface) is a great argument, but maybe we *could* work with a 3D interface if we consider that we really kinda live in 4 dimensions, if we include time. Could this change the parameters, and what would a 3D interface be if we used x, y and [that symbol for time] instead of z for depth? Don't we already have that with DHTML and Flash? I'll have to think about this. (But, now I'm thinking about databases more often than not, heh. =) Interesting discussion.

Your pal, -doc-

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

As long as we use a 2D monitor to display the information I think it will be easier and more natural to use a 2D browser as well. Moving the browser to 3D, while keeping the 2D display, would only make it harder to navigate as others have pointed out. But if(/when) we move to a 3D-'monitor', browsing and navigating in 3D will probably become easier than using a 2D interface...

This isn't a browser, but there is a 3D workspace manager beeing developed under the LGPL. From what I see from the screenshots it looks rather confusing...

_________________________
"There are 10 kinds of people; those who know binary, those who don't and those who start counting at zero"

[This message has been edited by Veneficuz (edited 04-21-2003).]

quote:

---

what would a 3D interface be if we used x, y and [that symbol for time] instead of z for depth?

---

Interesting.

That's exactly the metaphor that works best for me in both the real and computer worlds. On my desk I call it "filing in archeological order" with depth in the pile representing time. On my PCs it's far easier for me to find something by date. I've rearranged the columns in Windows Explorer to put the date in the first column and keep the directories sorted by date. If you want to hide something from me, simply file it alphabetically or by subject. I'll never find it.

As for the 2D vs. 3D discussion, we humans have a tendancy to reduce 3D to 2D for the purposes of organization, even when organizing 3D objects. Think of the canned goods section of your supermarket. The shelves have height and width which we use to separate products. Depth is used only to facilitate extra storage of things in the x,y grid. The store would never put the peas behind the beets behind the peaches.

Slime has pointed out some excellent other examples. I disagree with WS on the issue of a keyboard being a 3D device. Yes, we push the keys in the z direction to activate them. Movement in some direction is required to work the switches. Moving the keys in x,y to activate them presents an engineering and utility problem, so we use z. A true 3D keyboard would have the keys stacked one on another in layers and would be a real knuckle-buster if you ask me.

This 3D to 2D reduction is also seen in databases. A list is 1D. A table is 2D. Relational databases *by definition* require three or more dimensions, but the way we represent them is by a group of related 2D tables. <edit>Interestingly, this process of reducing database dimensions from three or more to a group of 2D tables is called "normalizing" the database. Think about it.</edit>

This, I think, will keep 3D interfaces--even 2D abstractions of them--as nothing more than curiosities and interesting exercises.



[This message has been edited by brucew (edited 04-21-2003).]