Human beings aren't good with 3D. Most of us are uncomfortable manipulating things in 3D because our eyes take the 3D world and make a 2D representation of it.
Yes, folks, we're 2D beings. We live in a 3D world but that doesn't mean we're comfortable with it. We can't go through solid 3D objects. We can't see things behind solid opaque objects. 3D is somewhat of a curse to us because we can't see everything and we have no choice but to go around things to move in 3D space.
A being that lives in the 4th dimension would be able to see and move through everything within the 3D space and would feel totally comfortable manipulating things in 3D but would struggle with 4D.
Someone here said it first...the current OS X (all the way down to System 1) is already 3D in the sense that you can stack a window on top of another and you can stack an icon on top of another. The interface in the patent diagrams would just amplify the 3Dness.
But really...we all know that 3D isn't a human being's forté. If it was, we wouldn't need things like 'Exposé' and 'Clean Up'.
With all due respect ... What a load of hogwash!
We are 100% 3D beings always have been. Try hunting and gathering in 2D!
I'd suggest the acceptance of dealing so much in 2D is quite recent in our evolution. One small example; It took a while for primitive natives to understand what a photograph was as they could not understand a 2D representation of the real world at first.
I will grant you some are weak at mentally translating between the artificial representation of 3D shown as 2D into 3D. While some are just weak at spacial perception. None of this takes away from the fact we are 3D beings and operate in a 3D world all the time and that 2D is the artificial representation created by man.
It's 2008. Why can't I just speak to my computer, for example, "Computer, how many emails do I have waiting?" and "Computer, how important is it for me to reply to them?"
*THAT* is what the next level of "Human Computer Interaction" should be.
Bring on the AI...!
"Computer, please pose as myself, and then lie through text messages to my girlfriend about where I will be tonight..."
"Yes Nvidia... Would you like the same hookers you went with last week?"
"Yes, but I want a bit more leather rather than vinyl this time..."
You've tried the Speech Preferences in OSX, right?
Granted they haven't been expanded upon in 6 years... I would have thought Apple could have improved on that feature, even if it is just a gimmick. Add some ear-candy to go with all the eye-candy
I'm not sure if "leather" and "Vinyl" are in it's vocabulary though.
I loved Sun Microsystem's 3D workspace, especially the way he flips over the browser and writes a note on the back! The "walls" were also neat, now that I saw it in action I believe this is exactly what Apple has in mind:
First glance, it looks like an involution of a 3D cube paradigm, only you're inside the cube.
Disregarding the ceiling surface, it looks like a cluttered cubicle. Who in there right mind wants to immerse themselves in a virtual cubicle to escape working in one?
It's 2008 and I'm still waiting for Nvidia to manage RayTracing in real-time to scale it's resolution dpi on the fly, with the ability to assign bit depth, color depth and more, on a per object basis, while keeping the GPU < 50C and being able to play any OpenGL accelerated Networked game at absurd framerates.
I have a better shot at dating a centerfold than I do for what I mentioned to happen.
Given that frantic little uber-Geek rant, I actually think you actually have more chance of NVIDIA coming up with the goods!
First glance, it looks like an involution of a 3D cube paradigm, only you're inside the cube.
Disregarding the ceiling surface, it looks like a cluttered cubicle. Who in there right mind wants to immerse themselves in a virtual cubicle to escape working in one?
Ouch.
Why the assumption it is limited to a cube? Is Second Life limited to the inside of a cube the same dimensions as your screen? Of course not, your desktop could be the Smithsonian or Grand Canyon. Aliases to folders become teleport stations to location, List views can be book shelves ... there is no limit. I joked earlier about the use of an Avatar but for collaboration in shared mode it makes sense, i.e. to meet with and share the same visual experiences as a co worker anywhere in the world. At any time a 'revert to Classic View' could be invoked.
Once the leap of imagination is taken the inside of your Mac could be anything you want and as large as you want. There could be ready made Apple designs or you could design your own or modify existing designs. Looking at Second Life's model it not necessarily limited by your own computer as it could be partially stored by Apple.
The future of computing is surely going in this direction.
Why the assumption it is limited to a cube? Is Second Life limited to the inside of a cube the same dimensions as your screen? Of course not, your desktop could be the Smithsonian or Grand Canyon. Aliases to folders become teleport stations to location, List views can be book shelves ... there is no limit. I joked earlier about the use of an Avatar but for collaboration in shared mode it makes sense, i.e. to meet with and share the same visual experiences as a co worker anywhere in the world. At any time a 'revert to Classic View' could be invoked.
Once the leap of imagination is taken the inside of your Mac could be anything you want and as large as you want. There could be ready made Apple designs or you could design your own or modify existing designs. Looking at Second Life's model it not necessarily limited by your own computer as it could be partially stored by Apple.
The future of computing is surely going in this direction.
But the drawings in the patent filing didn't show exactly that !!! The patent filing only allows for an interface that looks like a pencil drawing of the inside of a cardboard box ! It just can't possibly be representative of something useful. It MUST be taken literally!!!
But the drawings in the patent filing didn't show exactly that !!! The patent filing only allows for an interface that looks like a pencil drawing of the inside of a cardboard box ! It just can't possibly be representative of something useful. It MUST be taken literally!!!
Sorry you are right. I was talking about the logical development far beyond that limited and now pretty much out of date design.
It makes sense now about Apple's push for OpenCL. The OS will need the GPU power to render the OS landscape. Snow Leopard is laying the foundations but this 3D OS in full form will probably be the version afterwards and dropping all legacy ties.
I don't think that is correct. OpenCL is specifically created to enable *general purpose* computation on the GPU. Although one could certainly use it to write their own renderer for 3D graphics, that would be pointless and a huge waste of time when OpenGL works just fine. In fact, OSX's windowing environment already uses OpenGL for it's transitions and animations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman
Hence why all new Mac's, starting with the portable line will have two GPU's instead of one. The current Mac OS cannot handle using them in parallel but with Snow Leopard (....and beyond!), one GPU will be used for the OS and the second will be used as it is today.
What do you mean? The only reason the Macbook Pro has two GPUs is because it was easier to just use the same integrated-graphics chipset as the macbook in which Nvidia has created a one-chip solution for northbridge/southbridge and integrated GPU. additionally, they get to advertise the feature of being able to switch between them to save power when necessary. Similarly, going forward there is no reason for two GPUs when one is MORE than enough to handle most tasks. The 9600M GT on the Macbook Pro has 32 stream processing cores, whereas the current top-of-the-line mobile nVidia card (which itself is relatively dated) has 112, and their newest desktop card 240.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
The reason that 3D is a good choice for Time Machine is that the third dimension actually has a use, beyond simply being flashy. The third dimension is used to represent time; the further along the third dimension in the interface (into the screen) you go, the further back in time you go.
With the general desktop environment, there is simply no need for a 3D interface on a 2D monitor. When was the last time you did anything in Windows Explorer or OS X Finder and thought "damn, this could work so much better if it was 3D"? I'm guessing never. 3D for the desktop would be there simply to look flashy. In most situations, it
creates clutter, reduces useable workspace, is harder to use/navigate, and uses additional computer resources. All in all, it's a bad, bad idea.
Excellent point. I'm sure some day we will have a 3D or quasi-3D computer interface paradigm, but I haven't seen any conceptual example, whether from a hollywood movie or an academic research laboratory, that is actually practical for daily, general purpose interaction with a computer. Projects like "BumpTop", the old Sun
"Project Lookinglass", and some of the 3D desktop multi-touch demos from Jef Han are certainly innovative and exciting from a technology standpoint, but it's got a long way to go before making it on a Macbook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
It's 2008 and I'm still waiting for Nvidia to manage RayTracing in real-time to scale it's resolution dpi on the fly, with the ability to assign bit depth, color depth and more, on a per object basis, while keeping the GPU < 50C and being able to play any OpenGL accelerated Networked game at absurd framerates.
I have a better shot at dating a centerfold than I do for what I mentioned to happen.
I know there is a lot of strong debate about this, but from all I've read, a hybrid solution that combines aspects of both rasterization and some form of raytracing/global illumination is probably going to be the future of 3D. It will be interesting to see Intel's Larabee and Nvidia/ATI's use of OpenCL open up new avenues for specialized graphics pipelines implemented in software.
Oh and I don't want to stereotype them, but I think you'd probably want a woman that *looks like a centerfold" without the egocentricity and narcisscism.
Just as an example, my housemate is a logician and "thinks" in numbers and words. They never forget anything they heard and can repeat it back including the date and time they heard it. On the other hand, they have trouble with face recognition and have several times walked right past their own relatives in the street, failing to recognise them.
That may not be to do with thinking style: there's a recognised condition called prosopagnosia that is a specific impairment in the recognition of faces (with other visual attention skills unaffected). I suffer from it myself. I discovered this when at a psychology conference and watching a presentation about it: the lecturer showed some example tasks that test for prosopagnosia and mentioned that sufferers wouldn't be able to match the faces. Before that, I wasn't aware there was a problem, because I had nothing to compare it against.
That actually supports your main point, that people are different and require different interfaces etc. The important thing is, people often aren't aware that other people's cognition can be quite different from their own. How was I to know other people could recognise people based on their face? If I hadn't been studying for a psychology degree at the time, I would probably never have found out.
For everyone calling me wrong about humans being 2D creatures...stop being so obtuse.
Take a few people off the street and tell them to draw 3D objects, most can't do it. I'm not saying that everyone can't draw 3D objects. I'm saying most can't. Ask anyone to draw a pentagon, then ask them to draw dodecahedron.
Tell someone to draw a 4D object. Almost no one can visually represent 4D on paper.
Things become noticeable more complicated when you have to take into account a new axis.
3D games killed the casual gamers crowd. Not everyone is comfortable with 3-axes of freedom. In fact, most people aren't. I see a lot of people that just don't get 3D first-person-shooters. I even see people that get 3D first-person-shooters that totally lose it when they play something like the Descent serie or Alien in the Alien vs Predator serie. And then some just simply stop thinking when they're confronted by 4D-space like in the original Marathon. The more axes people have to deal with, the more unconfortable they get.
Quote:
Not true. Humans understand things in 3D better than in 2D even on 2D surfaces. I am an architectural engineer and I work with plans, sections, elevations, and 3D rendering of structures on both paper and computers and there is nothing better than 3D for visual communications. Almost every structural engineer I know uses 3D to better model their structures for analysis. It is true that we start building models in 2D but that only because the current software interface limitations not because we uncomfortable manipulating things in 3D.
When me and my fellow architects prepare a presentation we always have plenty of 3D renderings on paper and computers because clients have hard time relating plans to sections and elevations (2D objects). If perspectives done properly, 3D objects will look realistic.
Nasser, Nasser, Nasser, if humans understood things in 3D better than in 2D, you'd be out of a job. Everyone would be an architectural engineer by nature. Think of yourself as being someone special that does understand 3D better than 2D. Just because you're an architectural engineer doesn't make everyone an architectural engineer.
I don't think Apple is going to introduce a user interface that is going to alienate a large portion of people.
By 3D, we mean that it has or appears to have Width, Hight, and Depth. The 3rd D is the appearance of depth. The 4th D would be time (really hard to draw time, virtually impossible to see time. Time Machine has layers of 2D screenshots drawn in perspective to illustrate time, but technicaly, it is only the depth dimention that is represented and time is alluded to.
We have two eyes to distinguish depth, so we are made to view 3D environments. If we get a different image in one eye than the other, objects can appear supra-realistically 3D, where as an object drawn in perspective can be interpreted by the brain as being a 3D object, it doesn't look 3D. It would be possible to add to the drawings a slightly duplicated image with colors that would be interpreted by 3D glasses in such a way that the optical illusion of this design would be seen to jump out at you as well.
By 3D, we mean that it has or appears to have Width, Hight, and Depth. The 3rd D is the appearance of depth. The 4th D would be time (really hard to draw time, virtually impossible to see time. Time Machine has layers of 2D screenshots drawn in perspective to illustrate time, but technicaly, it is only the depth dimention that is represented and time is alluded to.
We have two eyes to distinguish depth, so we are made to view 3D environments. If we get a different image in one eye than the other, objects can appear supra-realistically 3D, where as an object drawn in perspective can be interpreted by the brain as being a 3D object, it doesn't look 3D. It would be possible to add to the drawings a slightly duplicated image with colors that would be interpreted by 3D glasses in such a way that the optical illusion of this design would be seen to jump out at you as well.
The 4th dimension is not time. I've been told a countless number of times as a child that the 4th dimension is time. It isn't. 4th dimension is simply another axis that we cannot perceive.
Some might argue that it might have some relation to time because you could be in two places at the same time but that explanation would be a stretch.
The brain extrapolates data from both eyes to construct a 3D scene...in the mind! Eyes are nothing more than lens on a camera. An eye takes a 2D snapshot of the world. The brain then takes the snapshots from both eyes and tries to determine depth. But don't think that this means that you're seeing in 3D.
Seeing things in 3D would mean that you can at all moments *know* the shape of a object by staring at it. Human beings cannot do this. You can look at something and *think* you know the shape but you could never be sure of the parts that you *can't* see without going around it and taking a 2D "snapshot" of the parts of the object that you couldn't see.
The mind has to take 2D snapshots of every side of an object and reconstruct the 3D shape in the mind. But that still doesn't mean you are seeing in 3D. The part of the object that you can't see could have changed...and while your brain visualizes the object in a certain way, if the object has changed, you'd be wrong in assuming the object was the way you're visualizing it.
For example...you look at a car from all sides. You have a mental 3D visualization of this car. Without your knowledge, someone puts a huge dent on the side that you can't see of this car.
A being that could see in 3D would have immediate knowledge of this dent without having to go around the car. But as a human being, you wouldn't know this dent was on the car unless you went for another walk around the car.
As for 2D, the eyes can take in full information from 2D. Nothing is hidden. If something could be hidden from view, then it isn't really 2D.
The mind is a beautiful thing but it's limited to what the eyes can capture. Nothing's stopping someone from imagining how it would be like to view things in 3D or even in 4D. Anyone can try to work the shape of an object with the mind or even imagine physical space shared by another dimension (superimposed physical spaces)...it doesn't mean that we can see in 3D or 4D.
And for the miserable out there, I love this patent application. It looks GREAT!
I hope it is the interface for Snow Leopard or a surprise for 10.7. Be a nice bombshell. I could see myself using that. Looks quite useable and super sexy in teh time machine kind of way...
And for the miserable out there, I love this patent application. It looks GREAT!
I hope it is the interface for Snow Leopard or a surprise for 10.7. Be a nice bombshell. I could see myself using that. Looks quite useable and super sexy in teh time machine kind of way...
Yay twinky cakes for apple!
Lemon Bon Bon.
Don't hold your breath. Most patents never actually materialize.
For example...you look at a car from all sides. You have a mental 3D visualization of this car. Without your knowledge, someone puts a huge dent on the side that you can't see of this car...
A being that could see in 3D would have immediate knowledge of this dent without having to go around the car. But as a human being, you wouldn't know this dent was on the car unless you went for another walk around the car.
Umm... you've lost me there. That's a being that is able to assimilate 3D information from two particular points in space at the same time. If a machine/robot/creature was taking in 3D information from one particular point in 3D space, if operating only in the visible wavelength, at one particular point in time, how the heck is it going to see the other side?
To simultaneously see both sides of the car, if it has no x-ray vision, etc, it has to be in two points in 3D space at the same time. Just because light can be occluded in a 3D space does not suddenly make everything 2D...
Too bad the implementation seen in the patent diagrams would be utter garbage.
Stick with a 2D UI for 2D displays, Apple. When the time is right, a 3D interface for 3D displays will make sense. And hopefully, it won't be that pseudo-3D (read 2.5D) crap seen in the diagrams.
You can't give away the store in the patent filing - just enough to have the rights to it. Don't think so much of the filing specifics, but the idea itself!
The 4th dimension is not time. I've been told a countless number of times as a child that the 4th dimension is time. It isn't.
Nonsense. Some believe a 4th spacial dimension exists, others disagree and believe the 4th dimension is time. In either case, it is fair to consider time a dimension and since the 4th potential spacial dimension has yet to be known, time is the 4th known dimension.
We have theories suggesting more than one more. But this doesn't preclude the fact that we only know of three spatial dimensions and time.
So you sir are wrong, even if there is another spatial dimension for two reasons: (a) it's an argument of semantics counter to the norm and (b) following a, time would remain a recognized dimension even with another spatial dimension.
Comments
Let me just say this:
Human beings aren't good with 3D. Most of us are uncomfortable manipulating things in 3D because our eyes take the 3D world and make a 2D representation of it.
Yes, folks, we're 2D beings. We live in a 3D world but that doesn't mean we're comfortable with it. We can't go through solid 3D objects. We can't see things behind solid opaque objects. 3D is somewhat of a curse to us because we can't see everything and we have no choice but to go around things to move in 3D space.
A being that lives in the 4th dimension would be able to see and move through everything within the 3D space and would feel totally comfortable manipulating things in 3D but would struggle with 4D.
Someone here said it first...the current OS X (all the way down to System 1) is already 3D in the sense that you can stack a window on top of another and you can stack an icon on top of another. The interface in the patent diagrams would just amplify the 3Dness.
But really...we all know that 3D isn't a human being's forté. If it was, we wouldn't need things like 'Exposé' and 'Clean Up'.
With all due respect ... What a load of hogwash!
We are 100% 3D beings always have been. Try hunting and gathering in 2D!
I'd suggest the acceptance of dealing so much in 2D is quite recent in our evolution. One small example; It took a while for primitive natives to understand what a photograph was as they could not understand a 2D representation of the real world at first.
I will grant you some are weak at mentally translating between the artificial representation of 3D shown as 2D into 3D. While some are just weak at spacial perception. None of this takes away from the fact we are 3D beings and operate in a 3D world all the time and that 2D is the artificial representation created by man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV_tuV3nH3E
cannot get worse than this
It's 2008. Why can't I just speak to my computer, for example, "Computer, how many emails do I have waiting?" and "Computer, how important is it for me to reply to them?"
*THAT* is what the next level of "Human Computer Interaction" should be.
Bring on the AI...!
"Computer, please pose as myself, and then lie through text messages to my girlfriend about where I will be tonight..."
"Yes Nvidia... Would you like the same hookers you went with last week?"
"Yes, but I want a bit more leather rather than vinyl this time..."
You've tried the Speech Preferences in OSX, right?
Granted they haven't been expanded upon in 6 years... I would have thought Apple could have improved on that feature, even if it is just a gimmick. Add some ear-candy to go with all the eye-candy
I'm not sure if "leather" and "Vinyl" are in it's vocabulary though.
I loved Sun Microsystem's 3D workspace, especially the way he flips over the browser and writes a note on the back! The "walls" were also neat, now that I saw it in action I believe this is exactly what Apple has in mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV_tuV3nH3E&NR=1
This one has to be the coolest though "Most Original OS"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_CSR...eature=related
It's 2.5D.
It's 2.5D.
and a month later 2.5.1 3D
First glance, it looks like an involution of a 3D cube paradigm, only you're inside the cube.
Disregarding the ceiling surface, it looks like a cluttered cubicle. Who in there right mind wants to immerse themselves in a virtual cubicle to escape working in one?
Ouch.
It's 2008 and I'm still waiting for Nvidia to manage RayTracing in real-time to scale it's resolution dpi on the fly, with the ability to assign bit depth, color depth and more, on a per object basis, while keeping the GPU < 50C and being able to play any OpenGL accelerated Networked game at absurd framerates.
I have a better shot at dating a centerfold than I do for what I mentioned to happen.
Given that frantic little uber-Geek rant, I actually think you actually have more chance of NVIDIA coming up with the goods!
...And should it?
First glance, it looks like an involution of a 3D cube paradigm, only you're inside the cube.
Disregarding the ceiling surface, it looks like a cluttered cubicle. Who in there right mind wants to immerse themselves in a virtual cubicle to escape working in one?
Ouch.
Why the assumption it is limited to a cube? Is Second Life limited to the inside of a cube the same dimensions as your screen? Of course not, your desktop could be the Smithsonian or Grand Canyon. Aliases to folders become teleport stations to location, List views can be book shelves ... there is no limit. I joked earlier about the use of an Avatar but for collaboration in shared mode it makes sense, i.e. to meet with and share the same visual experiences as a co worker anywhere in the world. At any time a 'revert to Classic View' could be invoked.
Once the leap of imagination is taken the inside of your Mac could be anything you want and as large as you want. There could be ready made Apple designs or you could design your own or modify existing designs. Looking at Second Life's model it not necessarily limited by your own computer as it could be partially stored by Apple.
The future of computing is surely going in this direction.
Why the assumption it is limited to a cube? Is Second Life limited to the inside of a cube the same dimensions as your screen? Of course not, your desktop could be the Smithsonian or Grand Canyon. Aliases to folders become teleport stations to location, List views can be book shelves ... there is no limit. I joked earlier about the use of an Avatar but for collaboration in shared mode it makes sense, i.e. to meet with and share the same visual experiences as a co worker anywhere in the world. At any time a 'revert to Classic View' could be invoked.
Once the leap of imagination is taken the inside of your Mac could be anything you want and as large as you want. There could be ready made Apple designs or you could design your own or modify existing designs. Looking at Second Life's model it not necessarily limited by your own computer as it could be partially stored by Apple.
The future of computing is surely going in this direction.
But the drawings in the patent filing didn't show exactly that !!! The patent filing only allows for an interface that looks like a pencil drawing of the inside of a cardboard box ! It just can't possibly be representative of something useful. It MUST be taken literally!!!
But the drawings in the patent filing didn't show exactly that !!! The patent filing only allows for an interface that looks like a pencil drawing of the inside of a cardboard box ! It just can't possibly be representative of something useful. It MUST be taken literally!!!
Sorry you are right. I was talking about the logical development far beyond that limited and now pretty much out of date design.
It makes sense now about Apple's push for OpenCL. The OS will need the GPU power to render the OS landscape. Snow Leopard is laying the foundations but this 3D OS in full form will probably be the version afterwards and dropping all legacy ties.
I don't think that is correct. OpenCL is specifically created to enable *general purpose* computation on the GPU. Although one could certainly use it to write their own renderer for 3D graphics, that would be pointless and a huge waste of time when OpenGL works just fine. In fact, OSX's windowing environment already uses OpenGL for it's transitions and animations.
Hence why all new Mac's, starting with the portable line will have two GPU's instead of one. The current Mac OS cannot handle using them in parallel but with Snow Leopard (....and beyond!), one GPU will be used for the OS and the second will be used as it is today.
What do you mean? The only reason the Macbook Pro has two GPUs is because it was easier to just use the same integrated-graphics chipset as the macbook in which Nvidia has created a one-chip solution for northbridge/southbridge and integrated GPU. additionally, they get to advertise the feature of being able to switch between them to save power when necessary. Similarly, going forward there is no reason for two GPUs when one is MORE than enough to handle most tasks. The 9600M GT on the Macbook Pro has 32 stream processing cores, whereas the current top-of-the-line mobile nVidia card (which itself is relatively dated) has 112, and their newest desktop card 240.
The reason that 3D is a good choice for Time Machine is that the third dimension actually has a use, beyond simply being flashy. The third dimension is used to represent time; the further along the third dimension in the interface (into the screen) you go, the further back in time you go.
With the general desktop environment, there is simply no need for a 3D interface on a 2D monitor. When was the last time you did anything in Windows Explorer or OS X Finder and thought "damn, this could work so much better if it was 3D"? I'm guessing never. 3D for the desktop would be there simply to look flashy. In most situations, it
creates clutter, reduces useable workspace, is harder to use/navigate, and uses additional computer resources. All in all, it's a bad, bad idea.
Excellent point. I'm sure some day we will have a 3D or quasi-3D computer interface paradigm, but I haven't seen any conceptual example, whether from a hollywood movie or an academic research laboratory, that is actually practical for daily, general purpose interaction with a computer. Projects like "BumpTop", the old Sun
"Project Lookinglass", and some of the 3D desktop multi-touch demos from Jef Han are certainly innovative and exciting from a technology standpoint, but it's got a long way to go before making it on a Macbook.
It's 2008 and I'm still waiting for Nvidia to manage RayTracing in real-time to scale it's resolution dpi on the fly, with the ability to assign bit depth, color depth and more, on a per object basis, while keeping the GPU < 50C and being able to play any OpenGL accelerated Networked game at absurd framerates.
I have a better shot at dating a centerfold than I do for what I mentioned to happen.
I know there is a lot of strong debate about this, but from all I've read, a hybrid solution that combines aspects of both rasterization and some form of raytracing/global illumination is probably going to be the future of 3D. It will be interesting to see Intel's Larabee and Nvidia/ATI's use of OpenCL open up new avenues for specialized graphics pipelines implemented in software.
Oh and I don't want to stereotype them, but I think you'd probably want a woman that *looks like a centerfold" without the egocentricity and narcisscism.
Just as an example, my housemate is a logician and "thinks" in numbers and words. They never forget anything they heard and can repeat it back including the date and time they heard it. On the other hand, they have trouble with face recognition and have several times walked right past their own relatives in the street, failing to recognise them.
That may not be to do with thinking style: there's a recognised condition called prosopagnosia that is a specific impairment in the recognition of faces (with other visual attention skills unaffected). I suffer from it myself. I discovered this when at a psychology conference and watching a presentation about it: the lecturer showed some example tasks that test for prosopagnosia and mentioned that sufferers wouldn't be able to match the faces. Before that, I wasn't aware there was a problem, because I had nothing to compare it against.
That actually supports your main point, that people are different and require different interfaces etc. The important thing is, people often aren't aware that other people's cognition can be quite different from their own. How was I to know other people could recognise people based on their face? If I hadn't been studying for a psychology degree at the time, I would probably never have found out.
Amorya
Take a few people off the street and tell them to draw 3D objects, most can't do it. I'm not saying that everyone can't draw 3D objects. I'm saying most can't. Ask anyone to draw a pentagon, then ask them to draw dodecahedron.
Tell someone to draw a 4D object. Almost no one can visually represent 4D on paper.
Things become noticeable more complicated when you have to take into account a new axis.
3D games killed the casual gamers crowd. Not everyone is comfortable with 3-axes of freedom. In fact, most people aren't. I see a lot of people that just don't get 3D first-person-shooters. I even see people that get 3D first-person-shooters that totally lose it when they play something like the Descent serie or Alien in the Alien vs Predator serie. And then some just simply stop thinking when they're confronted by 4D-space like in the original Marathon. The more axes people have to deal with, the more unconfortable they get.
Not true. Humans understand things in 3D better than in 2D even on 2D surfaces. I am an architectural engineer and I work with plans, sections, elevations, and 3D rendering of structures on both paper and computers and there is nothing better than 3D for visual communications. Almost every structural engineer I know uses 3D to better model their structures for analysis. It is true that we start building models in 2D but that only because the current software interface limitations not because we uncomfortable manipulating things in 3D.
When me and my fellow architects prepare a presentation we always have plenty of 3D renderings on paper and computers because clients have hard time relating plans to sections and elevations (2D objects). If perspectives done properly, 3D objects will look realistic.
Nasser, Nasser, Nasser, if humans understood things in 3D better than in 2D, you'd be out of a job. Everyone would be an architectural engineer by nature. Think of yourself as being someone special that does understand 3D better than 2D. Just because you're an architectural engineer doesn't make everyone an architectural engineer.
I don't think Apple is going to introduce a user interface that is going to alienate a large portion of people.
We have two eyes to distinguish depth, so we are made to view 3D environments. If we get a different image in one eye than the other, objects can appear supra-realistically 3D, where as an object drawn in perspective can be interpreted by the brain as being a 3D object, it doesn't look 3D. It would be possible to add to the drawings a slightly duplicated image with colors that would be interpreted by 3D glasses in such a way that the optical illusion of this design would be seen to jump out at you as well.
By 3D, we mean that it has or appears to have Width, Hight, and Depth. The 3rd D is the appearance of depth. The 4th D would be time (really hard to draw time, virtually impossible to see time. Time Machine has layers of 2D screenshots drawn in perspective to illustrate time, but technicaly, it is only the depth dimention that is represented and time is alluded to.
We have two eyes to distinguish depth, so we are made to view 3D environments. If we get a different image in one eye than the other, objects can appear supra-realistically 3D, where as an object drawn in perspective can be interpreted by the brain as being a 3D object, it doesn't look 3D. It would be possible to add to the drawings a slightly duplicated image with colors that would be interpreted by 3D glasses in such a way that the optical illusion of this design would be seen to jump out at you as well.
The 4th dimension is not time. I've been told a countless number of times as a child that the 4th dimension is time. It isn't. 4th dimension is simply another axis that we cannot perceive.
Some might argue that it might have some relation to time because you could be in two places at the same time but that explanation would be a stretch.
The brain extrapolates data from both eyes to construct a 3D scene...in the mind! Eyes are nothing more than lens on a camera. An eye takes a 2D snapshot of the world. The brain then takes the snapshots from both eyes and tries to determine depth. But don't think that this means that you're seeing in 3D.
Seeing things in 3D would mean that you can at all moments *know* the shape of a object by staring at it. Human beings cannot do this. You can look at something and *think* you know the shape but you could never be sure of the parts that you *can't* see without going around it and taking a 2D "snapshot" of the parts of the object that you couldn't see.
The mind has to take 2D snapshots of every side of an object and reconstruct the 3D shape in the mind. But that still doesn't mean you are seeing in 3D. The part of the object that you can't see could have changed...and while your brain visualizes the object in a certain way, if the object has changed, you'd be wrong in assuming the object was the way you're visualizing it.
For example...you look at a car from all sides. You have a mental 3D visualization of this car. Without your knowledge, someone puts a huge dent on the side that you can't see of this car.
A being that could see in 3D would have immediate knowledge of this dent without having to go around the car. But as a human being, you wouldn't know this dent was on the car unless you went for another walk around the car.
As for 2D, the eyes can take in full information from 2D. Nothing is hidden. If something could be hidden from view, then it isn't really 2D.
The mind is a beautiful thing but it's limited to what the eyes can capture. Nothing's stopping someone from imagining how it would be like to view things in 3D or even in 4D. Anyone can try to work the shape of an object with the mind or even imagine physical space shared by another dimension (superimposed physical spaces)...it doesn't mean that we can see in 3D or 4D.
Human beings aren't good with 3D.
Nonsense.
And for the miserable out there, I love this patent application. It looks GREAT!
I hope it is the interface for Snow Leopard or a surprise for 10.7. Be a nice bombshell. I could see myself using that. Looks quite useable and super sexy in teh time machine kind of way...
Yay twinky cakes for apple!
Lemon Bon Bon.
Nonsense.
And for the miserable out there, I love this patent application. It looks GREAT!
I hope it is the interface for Snow Leopard or a surprise for 10.7. Be a nice bombshell. I could see myself using that. Looks quite useable and super sexy in teh time machine kind of way...
Yay twinky cakes for apple!
Lemon Bon Bon.
Don't hold your breath. Most patents never actually materialize.
For example...you look at a car from all sides. You have a mental 3D visualization of this car. Without your knowledge, someone puts a huge dent on the side that you can't see of this car...
A being that could see in 3D would have immediate knowledge of this dent without having to go around the car. But as a human being, you wouldn't know this dent was on the car unless you went for another walk around the car.
Umm... you've lost me there. That's a being that is able to assimilate 3D information from two particular points in space at the same time. If a machine/robot/creature was taking in 3D information from one particular point in 3D space, if operating only in the visible wavelength, at one particular point in time, how the heck is it going to see the other side?
To simultaneously see both sides of the car, if it has no x-ray vision, etc, it has to be in two points in 3D space at the same time.
Too bad the implementation seen in the patent diagrams would be utter garbage.
Stick with a 2D UI for 2D displays, Apple. When the time is right, a 3D interface for 3D displays will make sense. And hopefully, it won't be that pseudo-3D (read 2.5D) crap seen in the diagrams.
You can't give away the store in the patent filing - just enough to have the rights to it. Don't think so much of the filing specifics, but the idea itself!
The 4th dimension is not time. I've been told a countless number of times as a child that the 4th dimension is time. It isn't.
Nonsense. Some believe a 4th spacial dimension exists, others disagree and believe the 4th dimension is time. In either case, it is fair to consider time a dimension and since the 4th potential spacial dimension has yet to be known, time is the 4th known dimension.
We have theories suggesting more than one more. But this doesn't preclude the fact that we only know of three spatial dimensions and time.
So you sir are wrong, even if there is another spatial dimension for two reasons: (a) it's an argument of semantics counter to the norm and (b) following a, time would remain a recognized dimension even with another spatial dimension.