[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I'd argue that for disconnected communications 3D has been impossible. In
face-to-face communication, however, 3D plays a much larger role. If just from
the perspective of gestures and other physical cues.
That current CMC tools have no ability to exchange 3D data says more negative
things about the tools than the lack of value of 3D data. It's quite accurate
to say existing tools have contributed to learned behavior. I'm not sure that
justification for not using 3D visualization tools.
I'm not arguing one over the other here, just pointing out that just because the
tools people have now doesn't mean they wouldn't use others if they developed.
What I have found is that very few populations of users see 3D data
visualizations in the same way. Some folks 'get it' while others do not. I'm
inclined to think this has more to do with the paucity of tools than being only
based on the user's perceptive abilities. That's certainly a factor. But much
like how alphabets and written language must have been problematic to those not
used to it, visualization seems to suffer as well. Think about it, why would
anyone write anything down when you had to mold clay tablets and then scratch on
it with little wood tools? Or kill a sheep, skin it, dry it and then go through
the hassle of making ink. The absense of 3D tools seems more like it's because
they're nearly as difficult to create and use.
-Bill Kearney
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@allette.com.au>
To: "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Why 3D Redux?
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.)
|
