
This 3D Desktop Was Born at Microsoft - Libertatea
http://www.wired.com/business/2013/02/amazing-3d-desktop/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Top+Stories%29
======
simonholroyd
I'm not sure why press, media, futurists insist on pushing the idea that the
future of user interaction is via replicating 3-dimensional physical
interaction. There's a reason the keyboard, mouse and (small) touch screen are
so successful as input devices. They each create an huge degree of meaning
with a high level of precision, for relatively tiny physical movements.

While a 3-d interface that mimics reality might be more intuitive to a first-
time user, it is vastly less efficient for an experienced user trying to get
work done. A 3-d desktop is an accurate mental model but it doesn't need to
exist on a screen if it exists in my head. I can move through the z axis of my
desktop faster with alt-tab than I could ever move, shuffle, re-order a stack
of documents with my hands in a 3-d environment.

* EDIT: tv and movies (eg. minority report) probably have a clear incentive to favor input devices where the audience can more easily see what's happening. 3-d works better there.

~~~
mixedbit
I agree and I think it is impossible to create an interface that is optimal
for both inexperienced and power users. For users that are using a piece of
software frequently, say few hours a day, intuitiveness of an interface should
not matter, just efficiency.

I'm often surprised when I see professional programmers turning on some fancy
3D destop effects. Sure, these look nice, but they are only distracting and
counter productive when you are using an environment several hours a day.

tl;dr xmonad rocks

~~~
chimeracoder
For power users, the word 'intuitive' doesn't even make sense. There's nothing
'intuitive' about hjkl, but when I tried switching from wmii to i3, the _very
first thing I did_ was switch their navigation keybindings back from jkl; to
hjkl. Yes, the reasons for hjkl are historic and arbitrary, but I don't care -
I don't want to relearn yet another set of muscle memories when I don't have
to.

Even vim on the whole is completely 'unintuitive'. That's the whole reason
vimtutor exists. But, the couple of hours I've spent (combined) over the last
few years learning how to use it has paid off in full and with dividends in
terms of my productivity - and I hopefully have many more decades of life to
recoup that investment many more times over.

> I'm often surprised when I see professional programmers turning on some
> fancy 3D destop effects. Sure, these look nice, but they are only
> distracting and counter productive when you are using an environment several
> hours a day.

I couldn't find these more annoying. Web interfaces tend to be the worst
(because they're highly uncustomizeable). I don't want a slick, 3 second
animation where the tab wiggles and slides every time I want to change the
page (I'm looking at you, AmEx). I know where I want to go, and I just want to
get there immediately. Every second that I'm delayed by flashy animations in
something that I need to use several times a day just makes me despise the
product a little bit more each time.

Outside of very specific applications/domains (gaming, simulations, etc.), I
don't want anything to replace my keyboard. As GP said, nothing (including the
mouse) can beat the keyboard for allowing maximum control and precision with
minimal movement.

~~~
JasonFruit
Maybe a better word than 'intuitive' is 'obvious', or even 'blatant'. For a
user inexperienced with the application and unfamiliar with interface
conventions, the most effective interface is one whose most basic features
scream, "Here I am!" A skilled, experienced user needs the opposite —
everything should be available at the press of a key, and he or she _knows
which key it is_ ; anything that calls attention to itself and is not the work
at hand is a distraction, and needs to go hide.

------
arocks
> People are used to gently flicking computer mice and grazing keyboards and
> tablet screens; do they really have the stamina to reach into their
> computers and flail their arms around?

That's not the key question. Traditional interfaces have some sort of physical
contact. Moving from physical keys to touch screen removed most of the tactile
feedback. But still many phones simulate it via haptic vibrations.

Imagine trying to grasp an object in the air purely out of visual feedback. I
would imagine it to be extremely strenuous especially in 3D space. Unless
there is a breakthrough sci-fi _skin_ which can simulate this tactile
feedback, we would be, quite literally, hand-waving in the air.

~~~
quarterto
[http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Technology#Computers:...](http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Technology#Computers:_Haptic_Adaptive_Interface)

~~~
ferongr
Mass Effect "lore" tries to justify graphical rule of cool (displays projected
into thin air with a few shades of orange as their only colors etc.). I
wouldn't take it seriously as something exploring the practicality of such
things.

------
adventured
The best 3D interface isn't going to look like a computer interface at all.

It's going to be a small patch on your skull that lets you look at a link and
think : click / go. Your eyes and focus will make your hands almost entirely
pointless for using a computer.

Within 10 to 20 years it'll be possible to wear said small patch, look at a
url bar, think google.com, then think: go or enter, and it'll all just work. I
think it'll be available in 10, but larger consumer adoption within 20.

That same patch will enable true interfacing with your physical environment.
Walk into your house and think kitchen lights on (plus a safe confirmation
word or phrase to make sure you mean it), and they'll come on based on the
associated phrase.

By the time companies like Microsoft get around to trying to perfect a
ridiculous hand > 3D interface, this concept will already have destroyed it.

Minority Report interfaces also will never become mass consumer adopted
because of this.

~~~
kristopolous
> Minority Report interfaces also will never become mass consumer adopted
> because of this.

it's actually been built, by the same guy that designed the thing for the
movie, but many express reservations: <http://oblong.com/>

There's also kinect and leap in this space in the "stuff I can buy today"
column. So I wouldn't discount this as "never" quite yet.

~~~
georgemcbay
I don't think the point is that Minority Report type interfaces can't or won't
be invented, but rather that they are more cool looking than they are
practical for doing real work and thus won't generally be used outside of very
niche areas.

------
ebbv
First I want to get off my chest; are we still using the phrase "computer
genius" in 2013? Something about it just rings 1980's to me. I dunno. It seems
quaint and silly.

3D interfaces may eventually be the future, but I don't think this version is
it. First of all, it's gonna eat up your desktop space like crazy, for what
advantage really? Wow factor? That wears out quickly.

Which brings me to my next point; there has been technology to do a variety of
different types of 3D desktops for a while now, but it hasn't been pursued
because so far going 3D doesn't provide much in the way of practical
advantages for most applications. If you're browsing the web and reading
email, 3D is doing nothing for you except "Oh man isn't this cool?"

The one place where it makes sense is where you are dealing with actual 3D
objects, like 3D printing and CAD/CAM software.

~~~
fuzzix
'First I want to get off my chest; are we still using the phrase "computer
genius" in 2013? Something about it just rings 1980's to me. I dunno. It seems
quaint and silly'

Hey, at least they didn't say "whizz-kid".

~~~
wwwhizz
What's wrong with that? ;)

~~~
mediacrisis
Awkwaaaard.

------
yourcelf
This idea goes back further than you might think. The "Stereoscopic
Workspace", from the Architecture Machine group at MIT in 1983, was a
prototype of this idea, surprisingly close to this implementation 30 years
later.

[http://media.mit.edu/speech/videos/?video=Stereoscopic%20Wor...](http://media.mit.edu/speech/videos/?video=Stereoscopic%20Workspace)

[http://media.mit.edu/speech/papers/1983/schmandt_SIGGRAPH83_...](http://media.mit.edu/speech/papers/1983/schmandt_SIGGRAPH83_spatial_input-
display_correspondence.pdf)

------
j_s
The effort put into backwards compatibility at Microsoft is always
interesting... here is a presentation on research into supporting legacy 2D
custom controls on arbitrary 3D surfaces:

[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/wpf3d/archive/2006/12/12/interacting...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/wpf3d/archive/2006/12/12/interacting-
with-2d-on-3d-in-wpf.aspx)

video: [http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Charles/Daniel-Lehenbauer-
and...](http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Charles/Daniel-Lehenbauer-and-Kurt-
Berglund-Interactive-2D-controls-on-WPF-3D-Surfaces)

------
JasonFruit
So the writer's idea of progress runs: command line → WIMP → touch → 3D. I
think at least the first three are in order of effectiveness — descending. I
suspect that the fourth, at least by my understanding of this idea, will
continue the trend.

~~~
corin_
Certainly there are areas where command line beats a GUI, and where
keyboard/mouse beat touchscreen, but that doesn't mean they are less
effective. Would computers be doing as much as they do for many, many people
if they were still 100% command line?

~~~
JasonFruit
You know, I bet they would. I think what's made so many people able to use a
computer is not the new modes of interaction but something more powerful:
time. As people have more exposure to computers, and as they become more aware
of the interface conventions that develop over time, they get better at using
them no matter what the interface style is. I wonder if people might be _more_
useful to people if they had preserved a higher ratio of critical to non-
essential visual data — which I think terminal applications do.

------
leetrout
Here's a link to a demo video

<http://vimeo.com/59231550>

------
dclowd9901
Am I the only one here amazed that is seems to "know" through what perspective
you're looking at it? How is it doing that?

------
ww520
This actually is pretty amazing. It looks like it can become practical.

------
podperson
Amazing? Eh. Useful? Meh.

