However, I will reserve judgement because I think it is obvious that they are not showing their hand on the pattent application which they know will be public. They put in only what they have to to protect their ideas, but they DO NOT want to give MS or anyone any ideas of what they need to catch up to.
I don't know if if will be possible to come up with a clean 3-D interface, but I do have some hope that Apple will not implement it if they cannot...
I think you nailed it here.
Lots of people like 3D interfaces and this is Apple nailing down the metaphor in a patent so that someone else can't beat them to it. It's likely that this doesn't reflect actual product at this point, or even a product direction.
I don't really like this idea either but I was struck by the fact that the comments here about how awful it is are soooo similar to what folks said when 2D computing came out. Perhaps that means something, perhaps not, but even if it doesn't, it's kind of humorous.
Personally, I think the "room metaphor" has been done to death 2D or 3D. I liked it when General Magic did it, but it never caught on did it? Microsoft Bob anyone?
What would be better for me in terms of 3D environments is an actual 3D environment. A 3D space that you actually teleport into with an avatar and manipulate 3D objects that correspond to the programs would be much more useful IMO.
I have the feeling Apple will offer this in OS 11, and will likely allow users to switch between 2D view and 3D view cause they wont want people suddenly to be shock with the changes. And like some user posted, it is certain that Apple will find a way to make this as un-obstructive as possible. I like the concept though, it will be nice if you press or tap a certain key it will auto switch to 3D mode where all the docks, stack and etc is shown. Toggle back the key and you will get a full screen view of the app.
Here is something to help you image.
Imagine you run a full screen safari, without the dock or the top menu bar. Press a button/move the mouse to a corner and it switches to the 3D view where you can access your documents and etc.
TimeMachine so far is an excellent example of a good way into using 3D. I also like to see Apple use of 3D display will encourage apps to be able to use HUD display as toolbars. I love HUDs!!!
I already have the dock on the right of my screen (in 2d) as I do not like how it takes up screen space (in fake 3D) at the bottom even though it is pretty.
If you'd rather have the dock at the bottom in 2D, see here.
well why couldn't this be the new version of expose? It looks like you could do stacks, widgets and window management all in one place. It would be awesome and a lot more simple than what we have now with dashboard, expose, multiple desktops and the like.
This would never work full time because people would complain that the screen could be larger. But as a modal view then i think it has big potential
Time Machine turned out pretty good for a 3d-ish environment.
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.
While that would suck on a 17 inch display .... and maybe even on a 20 inch... When you start getting into larger displays on the desktop, some of those ideas might turn out to be rather useful.
I'm using a 20" iMac sitting about 18" from my face and I just don't see how a 30" display (in the same location) would be all that comfortable, unless a large portion of it were not really "dedicated workspace", as my field of vision just isn't that wide at this distance. But using the edges as more "dock space" could work well.
Will be interesting to see just how it gets implemented in the future.
Like others have said... those drawings are just to get the idea across for the patent... not to show exactly how it will be implemented.
With Vista's Areo, and Leopard's Gui Gimicks (3D dock, transparent menu bar... etc)... I wish to see more done in ways of making things more stable (I'm really hoping for Snow Leopard to be rock solid OUT of the box). A desktop doesn't need to be 3-D to be usable and beautiful.
Its like video editing. Use too many effects and your film is lost, looks cluttered and uninspiring. Use the right amount, and it looks great. Often the right amount would be a few dissolves here and there, with the rest being cuts. Add on a color correction to make sure all your shots look the same, and when you want to go crazy, throw in a rack focus to separate your characters. Make your titles simple too. Unless you are making a music video which for then, definitely, throw everything you've got into it!
Same for GUIs. Too much whiz-bang, and the user feels lost and confused. Compiz Fusion and all its 3D effects are cool and all, but when in Linux, I often turn all of it down to simple fades as to make it more pleasing and natural to the eye.
And don't get me started on bloat associated with this. Lets wait a little while.
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.
One thing that would be great, expanding on the ideas of Time Machine and Stacks would be a desktop mechanism that demonstrates version control of a document. That would work very well in 3D. Especially if you branch off different versions.
I was hoping Stacks would be something like that. Until then, all we have is folders with v1, v2, v3, etc. suffixed documents that can get hairy if you branch in multiple directions. Seeing what they did with Time Machine has me hoping that Apple will include some sort of version control of docs in an OS release and - more importantly - applications will not get screwed up by it. I'm talking to you Adobe!
I think all the features that could make their way out of that research and into the real world has already been added to OS X, in the form of Leopard.
Do you remember the patents we saw a few months ago? Take the pieces and build the puzzle. If not for use in the same product, at least there's a common theme.
I think this is awesome! Don't look at this as a final presentation for a project because patents drawings are intentionally done this way to make some elements confusing and unclear. . These are basically schematic designs sketches that can be taken further and have the potential of solving some of todays limited 2D computing environment if done correctly. However, this can also be a disaster if done wrong.
This is what came to mind first - it is ugly and wastes precious screen real estate. I already have problems with the lack of screen space on my MBP and frankly I don't see how this would help that issue. If anything Apple should be working on methods of hiding information and interface elements on screen based on context. Frankly I'd like to see a layered approach instead of multiple desktops. For example a layer for the desktop, a layer for dashoard and a layer for user grouped apps. Make the layers viewable and switchable through a time machine like interface. The goal would be to make each layer totally user confgurable but accessible from others.
In any event my singular opinion won't stop Apple. That will require a ground swell of resistance. The problem is I'm not sure if the patent gives us enough reason to complain yet.
What really bothers me about this is that they where actually able to get a patent on the work. Let's face it they patented the inside of a box. I find this to be sad. Sad that Apple can't do better and even sadder that anyone could actually expect to get a patent for the inside of a box. It is no wonder there is such a negative opinion of the patent office. When it comes right down to it this isn't innovation nor is it all that original. It is nothing more than looking at the inside of a box!
Sometimes I think Apple has fallen off the deep end looking at some of the patents applications they have presentented lately. Maybe there is a method to their madness but I've yet to see it. Maybe they think a flood of patents makes it easier to get the better stuff through or questionable stuff. I don't really know, what I do know is that this is another example of a need to reform the patent process.
This wouldn't just be useful for a 2D environment. It could define a way to navigate 3d environments as well. It's not hard to imagine a time when the walls and ceiling would be covered by a display material with you and your Mac left to determine it's use.
I suppose using real-time tracking software and some kind of very accurate proximity sensors (akin to LIDAR/echolocation) built into a pair of stereovision glasses, this would allow a screen, keyboard and work surface of any size to be "projected" onto any available surfaces or into the air to perform real gestural computing. Like the old Jaron Lanier VR experiments, but refined to near perfection. Actually, the only pieces of equipment that would be necessary would be the glasses and a keyboard for haptic feedback.
Apple's mission seems to be to "make the computer disappear" and this would be pretty close from a design standpoint.
May I just remind all those that are complaining about ugliness/clutter etc, that these are patent filings, not the actual designs... Come on people, you've seen all this before. These are proof of concept sketches, if you're taking them literally, then you're not really seeing what's going on here. Apple is exploring alternate ways to represent the desktop, this is big.
Comments
I agree.
However, I will reserve judgement because I think it is obvious that they are not showing their hand on the pattent application which they know will be public. They put in only what they have to to protect their ideas, but they DO NOT want to give MS or anyone any ideas of what they need to catch up to.
I don't know if if will be possible to come up with a clean 3-D interface, but I do have some hope that Apple will not implement it if they cannot...
I think you nailed it here.
Lots of people like 3D interfaces and this is Apple nailing down the metaphor in a patent so that someone else can't beat them to it. It's likely that this doesn't reflect actual product at this point, or even a product direction.
I don't really like this idea either but I was struck by the fact that the comments here about how awful it is are soooo similar to what folks said when 2D computing came out. Perhaps that means something, perhaps not, but even if it doesn't, it's kind of humorous.
Personally, I think the "room metaphor" has been done to death 2D or 3D. I liked it when General Magic did it, but it never caught on did it? Microsoft Bob anyone?
What would be better for me in terms of 3D environments is an actual 3D environment. A 3D space that you actually teleport into with an avatar and manipulate 3D objects that correspond to the programs would be much more useful IMO.
Here is something to help you image.
Imagine you run a full screen safari, without the dock or the top menu bar. Press a button/move the mouse to a corner and it switches to the 3D view where you can access your documents and etc.
TimeMachine so far is an excellent example of a good way into using 3D. I also like to see Apple use of 3D display will encourage apps to be able to use HUD display as toolbars. I love HUDs!!!
I already have the dock on the right of my screen (in 2d) as I do not like how it takes up screen space (in fake 3D) at the bottom even though it is pretty.
If you'd rather have the dock at the bottom in 2D, see here.
This would never work full time because people would complain that the screen could be larger. But as a modal view then i think it has big potential
obviously reversed engineered about 20 years ago from alien technology.
Actually, if you look at the car computer in Men In Black II and compare it with the oval shaped screen layout in the patents . . . . ; )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCcn8prSVdo
Go to 2:11 into the clip.
Time Machine turned out pretty good for a 3d-ish environment.
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.
I'm using a 20" iMac sitting about 18" from my face and I just don't see how a 30" display (in the same location) would be all that comfortable, unless a large portion of it were not really "dedicated workspace", as my field of vision just isn't that wide at this distance. But using the edges as more "dock space" could work well.
Will be interesting to see just how it gets implemented in the future.
Like others have said... those drawings are just to get the idea across for the patent... not to show exactly how it will be implemented.
Actually, if you look at the car computer in Men In Black II and compare it with the oval shaped screen layout in the patents . . . . ; )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCcn8prSVdo
Go to 2:11 into the clip.
You beat me to it!
I've been on MacRumors and they weren't showing the curved diagram.
That's my favorite part of MIB II!
Its like video editing. Use too many effects and your film is lost, looks cluttered and uninspiring. Use the right amount, and it looks great. Often the right amount would be a few dissolves here and there, with the rest being cuts. Add on a color correction to make sure all your shots look the same, and when you want to go crazy, throw in a rack focus to separate your characters. Make your titles simple too. Unless you are making a music video which for then, definitely, throw everything you've got into it!
Same for GUIs. Too much whiz-bang, and the user feels lost and confused. Compiz Fusion and all its 3D effects are cool and all, but when in Linux, I often turn all of it down to simple fades as to make it more pleasing and natural to the eye.
And don't get me started on bloat associated with this. Lets wait a little while.
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.
One thing that would be great, expanding on the ideas of Time Machine and Stacks would be a desktop mechanism that demonstrates version control of a document. That would work very well in 3D. Especially if you branch off different versions.
I was hoping Stacks would be something like that. Until then, all we have is folders with v1, v2, v3, etc. suffixed documents that can get hairy if you branch in multiple directions. Seeing what they did with Time Machine has me hoping that Apple will include some sort of version control of docs in an OS release and - more importantly - applications will not get screwed up by it. I'm talking to you Adobe!
"It's a UNIX system. I know this!"
You are my hero.
Jimzip
Do you remember the patents we saw a few months ago? Take the pieces and build the puzzle. If not for use in the same product, at least there's a common theme.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._displays.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._hardware.html
HMD UI for Apple iPhone+glasses?
In any event my singular opinion won't stop Apple. That will require a ground swell of resistance. The problem is I'm not sure if the patent gives us enough reason to complain yet.
What really bothers me about this is that they where actually able to get a patent on the work. Let's face it they patented the inside of a box. I find this to be sad. Sad that Apple can't do better and even sadder that anyone could actually expect to get a patent for the inside of a box. It is no wonder there is such a negative opinion of the patent office. When it comes right down to it this isn't innovation nor is it all that original. It is nothing more than looking at the inside of a box!
Sometimes I think Apple has fallen off the deep end looking at some of the patents applications they have presentented lately. Maybe there is a method to their madness but I've yet to see it. Maybe they think a flood of patents makes it easier to get the better stuff through or questionable stuff. I don't really know, what I do know is that this is another example of a need to reform the patent process.
This wouldn't just be useful for a 2D environment. It could define a way to navigate 3d environments as well. It's not hard to imagine a time when the walls and ceiling would be covered by a display material with you and your Mac left to determine it's use.
I suppose using real-time tracking software and some kind of very accurate proximity sensors (akin to LIDAR/echolocation) built into a pair of stereovision glasses, this would allow a screen, keyboard and work surface of any size to be "projected" onto any available surfaces or into the air to perform real gestural computing. Like the old Jaron Lanier VR experiments, but refined to near perfection. Actually, the only pieces of equipment that would be necessary would be the glasses and a keyboard for haptic feedback.
Apple's mission seems to be to "make the computer disappear" and this would be pretty close from a design standpoint.
Jimzip
I want to see it for Mac OS XI.
It sorta reminds me of Project Looking Glass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcPIE...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10_QP...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV_tuV3nH3E&NR=1