[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: [OT] Tim Bray on Slashdot

• To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <clbullar@i...>, "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: [OT] Tim Bray on Slashdot
• From: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@i...>
• Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:14:21 -0400
• Organization: http://www.ideaspace.net/users/wkearney/foaf.xrdf
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC56F@h...>
• Reply-to: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@i...>

> Why are 3D systems such miserable market failures?

Probably because making truly engaging 3D visuals requires genuine artistic
talent.  It's one thing to cobble up some 2D vector art.  It's another thing
entirely to make something in 3D that also doesn't confuse the heck out of the
operator trying to navigate within it.  Combine this with the bleating mobs
still trying to limp along on crappy-ass 300mHz machines running Win9x and
you've a recipe for disaster.

From a different perspective (pun intended) not everyone has the same
visualization skills.  It's extremely hard to present 3D data in a way that
appeals to all members of an audience.  Some folks just don't 'get it' when they
look at certain forms of data visualized in 3D.  So by the time their aging
machine cranks out the picture they won't even understand it.  By having much
faster boxes, perhaps with genuine 3D hardware, it become possible to quickly
shift between different visualizations such that the users aren't bored to tears
waiting and then [expletive deleted] off because the picture made no sense to them.  Faster
iron makes it possible to let them pick/switch between different styles until
they find one that's suited to their visualization skills.  For example, look at
sound waves.  In 2D the oscilliscope style of display doesn't make much sense to
most folks.  Use a bar chart of frequencies (graphic equalizer style) and it
seems to make a lot more sense to most folks.  Take that same style and shift it
out into 3D and it loses some folks.  Likewise, some data shown in 2D polar
charts completely loses folks.  Shift that onto a topographical style and
suddenly things start to leap out.  Same thing goes for scatter charts in a
sparse cube (think dots clumped, fog-like, inside a cube) and it really makes
some datasets just LEAP out in obvious detail.

But bottom line, 3D is just danged hard to setup and navigate, and too slow on
most boxes out there today.  At least from a data visualization standpoint.
Even vector art, a la SVG, remains a pain in the ass to navigate with current
plug-ins.

-Bill Kearney

• References:
  • RE: [OT] Tim Bray on Slashdot
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: [OT] Tim Bray on Slashdot
• Next by Date: RE: [OT] Tim Bray on Slashdot
• Previous by thread: RE: [OT] Tim Bray on Slashdot
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread