Sun's Project Looking Glass (was: Os X 10.5)

jade

This year we have been talking a lot about future directions Apple may take. Sun has bounced around as a potential takeover/merger candidate. What if Apple and Sun collaborated with Sun's Looking glass concept. These links were floating around a few months ago, but this could be a logical next step for Apple. It is in the really early stages but seems to be very intriguing and possible. And users with fairly recent Macs could take advantage of it.



As Apple moves towards a 64-bit OS, the 3D desktop could be an excellent model to harness and differentiate this OS from previous versions. We all know apple has the experience creating and polishing GUIs, and this is an intriguing concept.



Check out the links and think about it.



Looking Glass



Another article

powerdoc

Wrong forum. I move it to general discussion, since the 3 D sun project is not related to OS X yet.

ghost_user_name

I'm changing the title to more appropriately fit the first post.



FYI, this was discussed here a couple months ago when Project Looking Glass was first previewed:



Project Looking Glass and OS XI

rok

i have to admit that sun does have some interesting ideas (i especially like the idea of attaching notes to the backs of windows/files, as opposed to glomming on comments in a get info box. and the demo video (which i just watched for the first time) clubs microsoft over the head early and often in the realm of innovation.



i mean, look at expose, then look at his 3D approach to windows and such on a sun box, and then go back to those "demo videos" of longhorn, where the best... the BEST microsoft could come up with for a new graphics engine is "let's make these movies twirl in a pinwheel... and look, when i move this window, it floats and tugs like a handkerchief." of course, jackholes at electronics shows eat that crap up.



the only thing i wonder about is that whatever "metaphor" for the desktop is modified, it still has to be "faked" through the dominant output device... the static, landscape monitor with semi-fixed resolution (yes, you can change it, but it's always been a clunkier affair than the ever-sought zoom-in/out effect... universal access gets close).



until someone finds a way to change the window through which we view all of this information, or derives a new metaphor, i think all innovation will be subject to workarounds for 2D.

bunge

Granted I haven't watched the whole video, but how does this differ significantly from Quartz? I mean, the things happening in the video aren't in production in X yet, but they're not doing anything Quartz can't do. So yes, Apple or 3rd party companies would need to implement more ideas, but I think that's why Apple has created X in the way they have. These ideas can be added fairly quickly once someone has the ideas.

hmurchison

I hate to threadcrap a bit here but lets be honest. What do people want?



Are they really asking for 3D interfaces? Or do they merely want a stable system with a good UI and easy access to their files?



I'm all for 3D interfaces if they can do better than what we have today. Sometimes this industry if funny because they are constantly selling solutions to problems that don't exist. We'll see.

buonrotto

I just don't get the point of a so-called "3D" UI. At the end of the day it's not really 3D, it's projective geometry on a 2D surface. It's necessarily deformed and incomplete so long as we use 2D monitors to display stuff. 3D on a 2D screen just makes thing more complicated. It tries to add more info in the screen area and/or conserve screen real estate, but in fact a 3D environment would necessarily hide much if not most info from the user anyway, distort it, and seriously complicate navigation to that info. I think the negatives far outweigh the positives.



People should try jumping into a 3D modeling application and see how quickly they get lost and disoriented when any real amount of work and data goes into it. The learning curve for this stuff is pretty high, and navigation is arguably the hardest part to deal with. Most 3D apps use 3 mouse buttons and series of keyboard/mouse combinations to dolly, roll, pan, zoom, turn and orbit in 3D space.



When we get actual 3D displays and something better than a mouse to use as a control and navigation tool, then we can talk.

amorph

As long as the "3D" part of an interface is just something that makes the 2D objects clearer (e.g., the shadows "cast" by windows, or the sheets "on top of" documents) it's acceptable. The ability to "flip" windows around to take notes is really just a pretty way of popping up an info or notes window, but it adds to the illusion of the window as a thing, which is consistent and intuitive and basically Good(TM).



Actual navigation through 3D space will suck as long as flat screens, keyboards and mice are the hardware interface of choice. You can't offer capabilities in terms that your interface can't handle, or handle well.

anders

The only really interesting idea seen in that video was the transparency when you moved the cursor away from a window. I liked it when I saw it with the exposé blue dot.

akumulator

Well, somehow I was not impressed at all by this video. The dock at the bottom was very OSXish and nothing else was at all new and exciting. So what if the windows flip around and appear to be in 3D space... big deal. I see no advantage to a 3D OS to what can be done today. It's a gimmick.

barto

I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand just because it wasn't something Apple made.... they are not the be all and end all of user interface design.



Apologies if that didn't factor in your thinking at all.



Barto

michael wilkie

Assuming that the 3D interface is a good idea, I don't think Apple needs help from SUN to make it happen. Looking Glass is crumby, at best. Windows and take-up way to much screen space when "minimized" and that CD-analogous music player is just plain stupid. SUN has virtually no experience developing an effective GUI. Even the Java Desktop System is just a crappy blend of Windows and KDE written in Java built for people with even less money than taste. Apple, on the other hand has over twenty years of experience developing the best, most intuitive user interfaces the world has yet seen. If Apple feels that 3D interfaces are the future, they should go at it alone.

bunge

Quote:

Originally posted by Barto

I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand just because it wasn't something Apple made....

Well regardless of who designed it, what about it was innovative or even good? All I can see is Quartz Extreme implemented in a slightly new ways.



The transparent windows are not good as they're implemented in the video. They would only be helpful if the user has control, like with WindowshadeX (a non-Apple technology.) Do you really want windows to go transparent when you move off of a document and into the empty space before a palette? I would guess no. It doesn't serve a useful purpose.



The notes on the back of a window? Interesting, but without permanent visual feedback an average user would never look on the backside of a window for info like that. It's 'cool', but no intuitive. Unfortunately the most useful ways of implementing this idea are probably the most boring too. Like the dot in the red close button that signifies a document is unsaved, perhaps the name in the title bar of any given window could indicate that there's info associated with the window. An italicized 'i' as in 'information' like the symbol you see on an information booth. Click it and the separate info window opens up (or the window does a 180 and shows the backside because it's cooler that way...whatever.)



I just don't see any specific features that are innovated, and the technology is nothing new anymore.

talksense101

Quote:

Originally posted by BuonRotto

I just don't get the point of a so-called "3D" UI. At the end of the day it's not really 3D, it's projective geometry on a 2D surface. It's necessarily deformed and incomplete so long as we use 2D monitors to display stuff. 3D on a 2D screen just makes thing more complicated. It tries to add more info in the screen area and/or conserve screen real estate, but in fact a 3D environment would necessarily hide much if not most info from the user anyway, distort it, and seriously complicate navigation to that info. I think the negatives far outweigh the positives.



People should try jumping into a 3D modeling application and see how quickly they get lost and disoriented when any real amount of work and data goes into it. The learning curve for this stuff is pretty high, and navigation is arguably the hardest part to deal with. Most 3D apps use 3 mouse buttons and series of keyboard/mouse combinations to dolly, roll, pan, zoom, turn and orbit in 3D space.



When we get actual 3D displays and something better than a mouse to use as a control and navigation tool, then we can talk.

Well said. That pretty much sums up my view on the topic. There is little to be gained by increasing load on your CPU or graphics card when the basic interface still remains 2D. I would rather have more ways to interact with my computer and focus on simplicity.