Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Exploring 3D Desktop and Application Interfaces
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And how useful are 3d displays going to be? I really don't see them being any use at all for general-purpose work-flow type stuff, such as word-processing, e-mail, browsing etc. For games they could be cool, for 3d-design they could be incredibly useful, but for common use I very much doubt 3d displays will be much more than a novelty that bring practical benefits to specialised areas and "wow factor" to a few others.
It's all well and good to see 3d displays in sci-fi where they have a limited set of cool use-cases, but for anything practical they are actually not that interesting IMO. Even in things like Minority Report, that's actually just a 2d interface on a curved visible area. 2d displays that can appear in the air out of a thin strip would be pretty sweet for saving space and weight, but the concept of the 3d display is overrated.
The images in the patents look a lot like Leopard, and may explain the design changes such as the 3D dock and stacks. These changes would be necessary in a 3D workspace. I also feel that multi-touch would be really useful in performing many of the functions in a 3D environment.
i cant see a functional reason to implement this, though apple normally does a good job of implementing something in a way that makes it useful, or easy to disable. I dont use spaces, I turn it off, it doesnt bother me.
I think to make it kind of practical it would be good if you could sort of zoom in on the back wall of the 3d environment to view a 2D environment windows and application that you are using. Then like expose, you invoke the 3D view, that will allow you to move backwards away from the 2D desktop to the 3D environment. From there you can manipulate the window from the current working pane and drop it to the bottom, stick it to the top or sides and out of your current work space, much like the way spaces allow you to move windows from your desktop to another one. Then if you could rotate the 3D environment to make another pane of the cube the active pane, and zoom in to see the application windows on it that side of the cube. Though this would seem to me just to be an eye-candy-ish way of displaying the basic function of Spaces.
I think to make it kind of practical it would be good if you could sort of zoom in on the back wall of the 3d environment to view a 2D environment windows and application that you are using. Then like expose, you invoke the 3D view, that will allow you to move backwards away from the 2D desktop to the 3D environment. From there you can manipulate the window from the current working pane and drop it to the bottom, stick it to the top or sides and out of your current work space, much like the way spaces allow you to move windows from your desktop to another one. Then if you could rotate the 3D environment to make another pane of the cube the active pane, and zoom in to see the application windows on it that side of the cube. Though this would seem to me just to be an eye-candy-ish way of displaying the basic function of Spaces.
Maybe if the used a real 3D display I would be interested.
Or at least one that tricks your eyes like the Stereographic Laser in the Time Traveler arcade game. That game was awesome but very few arcades could afford it. I only remember it at Disney land and it was over $1 per game, unheard of at that time. I assume even Packman is a dollar since I have not been to an arcade in years.View attachment 147965View attachment 147966
edit: They should use the above cabinet design and size too
Dude! I remember that game - the 3D illusion was totally amazing! I only saw it in one place, and never saw it again. But I wonder why they type of 3D appearing display never became popular and never was further developed for any other uses. Because to my young-kid sensibilities, the 3D effect seemed almost totally real.
As someone who gets sick playing FPS shooters...
I hope they have an OFF switch. I would hate to get sick because my brain doesn't like to be fooled into processing "3-D"
I hope they have an OFF switch. I would hate to get sick because my brain doesn't like to be fooled into processing "3-D"
Very good point. I have seen many of the 3D desktops for Linux, and the Apple version depicted at the start of the thread is more 3D than those. The linux ones are mainly mapping the desktop onto a 3D shape, but doesn't go into the "depth" that the Apple diagrams show.
If Apple and the all-mighty Jobs finds this new desktop style not to be practical, I am sure we will not see it in the MacOS. If it does get added, some people will find it useful. Others, however, won't find it useful and will have it turned off like Spaces or Time Machine.
You're not thinking outside the Box enough. Think brain implants! No need for crude lasers!
Why couldn't this be included with a revised Spaces? The 'box"or whatever you call it serves as a home screen with a variety of self-chosen items, but when Spaces is used, a work surface or traditional desktop swoops in or emerges from the launches app?
I like Apple's use of space beyond the monitor so far-- Time Machine, etc where it feels like the OS is allowing you access to a reality that already exists, just out of view. That's actually a powerful metaphor that could continue to be exploited, methinks.
I like Apple's use of space beyond the monitor so far-- Time Machine, etc where it feels like the OS is allowing you access to a reality that already exists, just out of view. That's actually a powerful metaphor that could continue to be exploited, methinks.
While I can understand why some people would think this is a bit dumb to have a "3D" interface, the thing that struck me was the 3-d dock. Its really irritating when I have so many windows minimized and the dock gets smaller and smaller........ when in one of those pics, the windows etc are all neatly organized in 3-d near the bottom....... depth gives more space to stash stuff.... so I'm all for that.....
i agree this is sort of eye candy, but i also think it could have some great function too. this would work better on larger displays, but maybe as on option you would only see 2D, but by pressing one of four tilt keys, the screen shifts back to reveal the 3rd dimension, but only to that side or top/bottom of monitor. over all it seems like a pretty cool new thing, and whose to say it wouldn't be touch as well?
I think we are going to see a lot of things going 3D in the future and not just computer UIs.
This will be OS XI mark my words. It is only obvious after the 3D dock and Steve saying that Snow Leopard is laying the foundation for the next 20 years and Open CL and Multi-Touch etc.
I really think we will see Snow Leopard, and then OS XI which will be something like this joined by new hardware over the next 3 years that have some serious multi-touch going on with secondary input screens etc.
Can't wait!
This will be OS XI mark my words. It is only obvious after the 3D dock and Steve saying that Snow Leopard is laying the foundation for the next 20 years and Open CL and Multi-Touch etc.
I really think we will see Snow Leopard, and then OS XI which will be something like this joined by new hardware over the next 3 years that have some serious multi-touch going on with secondary input screens etc.
Can't wait!
Hmm, I think this would be something that we will see in OS XI or OS 11... Take a look at when OS X came, it had a completely different look. So, this wouldn't surprise me if apple does do this.
any chance this could be some weird prototype desktop environment for the far off but eventually inevitable multi-touch mac? navigating a cube with a mouse and keyboard is difficult as it is, and to do it fluidly and efficiently is out of the question.
i'm sure that there would be some great gesture controls. dynamic expanding/shrinking, flipping, rotating, moving the contents of the cube, switching cubes, etc, etc.
assuming that the screen is big enough to accomodate 5 finger gestures, or possible more than 5 from multiple hands, the possibilities are nearly endless.
just a thought...
i'm sure that there would be some great gesture controls. dynamic expanding/shrinking, flipping, rotating, moving the contents of the cube, switching cubes, etc, etc.
assuming that the screen is big enough to accomodate 5 finger gestures, or possible more than 5 from multiple hands, the possibilities are nearly endless.
just a thought...
I hope they're not seriously thinking about putting the menubar anywhere other than where it belongs, at the top of the screen.
One of the areas where OS X's UI kicks Windows' interface to the kerb is the placement of the menubar. In Windows, the menubar is at the top of the window, which can be anywhere on the screen, meaning you have to "hunt" for it. In OS X, the menubar is always, always in the same place - at the top of the screen, so you can use muscle memory to find it instead of having to "zero in" on it with your mouse (trackpad, whatever).
If they put the menubar on the top of the "back wall" in this 3-D implementation, they'll be sacrificing a pretty important UI advantage. Better to have the menubar stay at the top of the screen; make it a "curtain" if you have to, but keep it at the top edge of the screen.
One of the areas where OS X's UI kicks Windows' interface to the kerb is the placement of the menubar. In Windows, the menubar is at the top of the window, which can be anywhere on the screen, meaning you have to "hunt" for it. In OS X, the menubar is always, always in the same place - at the top of the screen, so you can use muscle memory to find it instead of having to "zero in" on it with your mouse (trackpad, whatever).
If they put the menubar on the top of the "back wall" in this 3-D implementation, they'll be sacrificing a pretty important UI advantage. Better to have the menubar stay at the top of the screen; make it a "curtain" if you have to, but keep it at the top edge of the screen.
I think people are getting a little too worked up on how cluttered this is by examining the images in the article.
The trouble with patent images is that they tend to represent all the potential options switched on. This is a defensive patent so they are covering all basis.
I could see Apple implementing some of this in a useful and logical way. For instance, any application that has inspector windows ie, photoshop, aperture, iPhoto, Office etc, these could all be displayed on the side walls in such a way that they are easily identifiable yet take up very little space and not cover the primary window. When one is needed click on the docked window on the side wall and it comes to the front, as soon as you click off of it, say back on the primary window, the inspector re-docks.
I've noticed that when you maximise most apps in Mac OS there tends to be unused space at each side on a wide screen monitor, why not keep inspector windows there?
NB. inspector windows are my greatest bugbear with macos, there are apps that depend far to much on these UI irritations, anything that gets them out of the way is good in my book.
M.
The trouble with patent images is that they tend to represent all the potential options switched on. This is a defensive patent so they are covering all basis.
I could see Apple implementing some of this in a useful and logical way. For instance, any application that has inspector windows ie, photoshop, aperture, iPhoto, Office etc, these could all be displayed on the side walls in such a way that they are easily identifiable yet take up very little space and not cover the primary window. When one is needed click on the docked window on the side wall and it comes to the front, as soon as you click off of it, say back on the primary window, the inspector re-docks.
I've noticed that when you maximise most apps in Mac OS there tends to be unused space at each side on a wide screen monitor, why not keep inspector windows there?
NB. inspector windows are my greatest bugbear with macos, there are apps that depend far to much on these UI irritations, anything that gets them out of the way is good in my book.
M.
I agree with part of this, the majority of users still don't understand the concepts behind spaces and expose. I use them and they just go whoa, what just happened?
However i think the side wall, as it's always visible might be something they could pick up on. ie. why has my window ended up turned side ways like that, oh right it's tucked out of the way.
M.
I think a functional 3D desktop interface cannot be successfully implemented without dramatic advances in display technology that would allow real depth as opposed to apparent depth. If it necessitates goggles, so be it.
More important that just improving the desktop paradigm, will be the fact that such a 3D hardware supported interface would be friendlier to our ocular focusing mechanisms (fixated on one plane, it quickly gets fatigued; in long term caused more permanent focusing problems).
So I am all for a paradigm shift in the display technology and befitting UI.
BTW, BumpTop as it looks and feels right now, is not gonna really take of. I hope it improves upon itself substantially. I am already glad for what it has achieved so far, in terms of buzz and interest.
More important that just improving the desktop paradigm, will be the fact that such a 3D hardware supported interface would be friendlier to our ocular focusing mechanisms (fixated on one plane, it quickly gets fatigued; in long term caused more permanent focusing problems).
So I am all for a paradigm shift in the display technology and befitting UI.
BTW, BumpTop as it looks and feels right now, is not gonna really take of. I hope it improves upon itself substantially. I am already glad for what it has achieved so far, in terms of buzz and interest.
On a flat screen, yes - it's all just more simulation. However, imagine it in a 3D holographic environment where your screen is all around you..
How about you become handsome, young avatar to wander about in there ... It would make 'Sharing' take on a whole new meaning