[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
> >From a different perspective (pun intended) not everyone has the same
> >visualization skills.
>
> Yes. It would be interesting to see if Tufte applies.
I don't know if we even need to go as far as Tufte: Ben Schneiderman's
"direct manipulation" ideas will probably do. You want your interface to
present actions tightly bound to the objects that the user is interested in:
this is why IMHO the underlined links in webpages are successful:
the object of interest is the phrase and the action is directly linked to it.
When we don't have computers, we rarely make 3D communications:
globes, anatomical models, and pop-up books are pretty rare and specific.
So 3D seems good for modelling 3D artifacts, but humans have never
taken it up for communication (except to try to represent multi-access
data, and even then often the needs of precision eventually overweigh
the joys of perspective and the visualation gets flattened). Even things
like transparent pages in books to allow layered diagrams are really just 2.5D.
I wonder how much of this is hardwired? If we were wired differently,
so that we preferred 3D to 2D, would our lecture theatres have, instead
of the flat whiteboard, mechanical arms with great reach and several
degrees of freedom, so that lecturers can put their 3D teaching artifacts
on them, allowing placment of the objects in 3D around the lecture
theatre? That we don't do that kind of thing suggests not a lack of
imagination or finance, but that it is not the way we usually communicate
(perhaps even if only because the theatricality swamps the communication.)
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
|
