3D interfaces to 2D stuff: a baseless recurring trend or better than reality?
There seems to be a new wave of interest in interface design with regard to the use of 3D environments for 2D data and applications. Is it happening because there is new research that backs it up or is it just a baseless, recurring (ooooh…shiny) trend?
There have been many attempts to do this on the computer desktop over the years, none of which have garnered much market share.
It was not until recently that this concept reached a mainstream market. Apple’s Cover Flow is likely the first mainstream instance of such technology. What we don’t know is what research and resulting usage statistics look like for this design choice.
Besides Apple software, there is also recent experimentation happening on the web.
These blips on the radar could be happening for a number of reasons.
Maybe Papervision3D, a tool for creating 3D environments in Flash without additional browser downloads, has renewed the interest in this concept. Maybe web developers are taking stock in the growth of the virtual world sector. Or, maybe developers are experimenting with ways to make their projects more game-like.
Better than reality is the goal of computer interfaces according to usability pundit Jakob Nielsen. Many attempts to force the use of 3D “put the interface in the way of the users goal.”
While he is known for caring little for “eye appeal” in his theories, Nielsen chimed in on the subject of “3D for 2D stuff” in 1998:
“Evolution optimized homo sapiens for wandering the savannah - moving around a plane - and not swinging through the trees. Using 3D on a computer adds a range of difficulties:
[1] The screen and the mouse are both 2D devices, so we don’t get true 3D unless we strap on weird head-gear and buy expensive bats (flying mice).
[2] It is difficult to control a 3D space with the interaction techniques that are currently in common use since they were designed for 2D manipulation (e.g., dragging, scrolling)
[3] Users need to pay attention to the navigation of the 3D view in addition to the navigation of the underlying model: the extra controls for flying, zooming, etc. get in the way of the user’s primary task
[4] Poor screen resolution makes it impossible to render remote objects in sufficient detail to be recognizable; any text that is in the background is unreadable
[5] The software needed for 3D is usually non-standard, crash-prone, and requires an extra download (which users don’t want to wait for)”
Solutions to these problems are in the works, but as of today, Nielsen’s arguments 1,2,3 and 4 still hold true in 2008 and his 5th argument was only recently dismissed.
So when should we use 3D?
Nielsen says 3D is great for visualizing… well… 3D stuff.
“When you visualize physical objects that need to be understood in their solid form. Examples include surgeons planning where to cut a patient: the body is 3D and the location of the tumor has a 3D location that is easier to understand from a 3D model than from a 2D X-ray, mechanical engineers designing a widget that needs to fit into a gadget, chemistry researchers trying to understand the shape of a molecule, planning the layout of a trade-show booth.”
He also saw a place for 3D in entertainment:
“Entertainment applications and some educational interfaces can benefit from the fun and engaging nature of 3D, as evidenced by countless shoot-them-up games. Note that 3D works for games because the user does not want to accomplish any goals beyond being entertained. It would be trivial to design a better interface than DOOM if the goal was to kill the bad guys as quickly as possible: give me a 2D map of the area with icons for enemy troops and let me drop bombs on them by clicking the icons. Presto: game over in a few seconds and the good guys win every time. That’s the design you want if you are the Pentagon, but it makes for a boring game.”
Touché.
The killer 3D application for interacting with 2D stuff will either prove out in the very near future or will disappear again for a while. We certainly have the technology now to display it, it is now just a matter of making it better than reality.
If anyone reading this has seen any usability tests or research on this topic, I would love to get the opportunity to review it.
April 11th, 2008 15:41
John,
Point 2 mentioned above is really just a matter of technology penetration, though.
Products like
http://www.3dconnexion.com/3dmouse/spacenavigator.php
let you navigate 3D worlds way more easily, but are not well known and don’t have drivers for every virtual world, because of lack of standardization in virtual world API’s.
– Ben G
April 11th, 2008 19:05
Of course I can’t remember for the life of me which “famous usability expert” mentioned it *digs through stacks of books*, but I do remember reading on several occasions that 2D desktop “windows” had been a large hurdle when it came to new/inexperienced computer users.
The issue being supposedly, that when “windows” would start piling up on top of one another, users would get confused about where their previous window went. They thought they just “disappeared” or somehow were closed… they didn’t understand how to “get them back”.
I actually heard a great RL story of this happening to someone’s mother, and to illustrate the concept of windows, he spread out a stack of magazines on the floor and said “See, the windows are like these magazines. Just because you can’t see them all, doesn’t mean they’re not there *proceeds to drag magazines out of the way*”.
IMO, this is just one example of where a 3D content navigation system might be helpful (I say that with a big “might”). In some of your examples above, we see panels that are skewed allowing more to be seen by the user at once. Perhaps this is more natural navigation to some folks?
I’m a big believer in catering to the users’ mental model when it comes to software. Apple has obviously been very successful with this, using real-world metaphors throughout their interfaces. If 3D can better accomplish this- great!
I also would be very interested to find some good research on the subject tho, myself.
April 12th, 2008 09:43
Amanda’s point about 2D desktops reveal that they *are*, in fact, a very simplified 3D representation. The current Apple and Vista ones come complete with shadows and transparency. What the examples cited above add are simply perspective and rotation transformations.
Programs like PicLens, Apple’s CoverFlow, and the desktops are successful because they aim at specific kinds of tasks (browsing large numbers pictures, selecting albums, or shuffling papers on your desk). The examples you cite at the top have struggled because they try to shoehorn all tasks into a single metaphor.
If you haven’t seen it, Apple recenty introduced 3D transforms into their supported CSS profiles, to augment the 2D transforms they already had, and plan to support 3D manipulation of web content in Safari on all platforms. Expect much (sometimes awkward) experimentation.
For a fine reference on how the mind uses physical metaphors for even the most “abstract” concepts, I recommend George Lakoff’s linguistics work, especially “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things” and “Where Mathematics Comes From.” Lakoff’s arguments posit that even our most abstract concepts are really built-up from our experiences in the physical world, and those metaphors reveal themselves in our language: whether spoken natural language or complex idioms like math, politics, or design. It’s just how primate brains work.
I’m confident is the growth of 3D. Compare the variety of not-quite-there examples, say, to the incredible variety of attempted flying machines at the beginning of the 20th Century, or the diversity of body plans in the Pre-Cambrian period. Succeed or fail business-wise, all these 3D interfaces reflect a natural desire to shape information in ways that are closer to how we naturally think and act. Ben’s reference to physical interaction devices mirrors this desire perfectly.
kb
May 13th, 2008 11:27
right on target john
btw-
http://www.virtuworlds.com/3DeZine_01/features/interface.php
heres the essay article i originally wrote for a Virtual worlds magazine- that never got past its bubble.. in 1996.
I was asked to update it for this usage, and i again updated it for 2001 web3d rebirth at the DUX conference in SF then.
time again.
the basics never die:)
Production value for Marketing/ Media does rise as medias offer more capabilties, and then they become a fashion of acceptable- as flash did vs. painted animation cells, and as realtime 3d as machinima now has as an animation “style”.
the best usability test i can offer is the last decade:)
best
c3
May 31st, 2008 09:04
touche?
“It would be trivial to design a better interface than DOOM if the goal was to kill the bad guys as quickly as possible: give me a 2D map of the area with icons for enemy troops and let me drop bombs on them by clicking the icons.”
um, ok.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Command
now on your xbox 360 arcade!