Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sundc!potomac!jtn
From: jtn@potomac.ads.com (John T. Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: 2D vs 3D debate
Message-ID: <8330@potomac.ads.com>
Date: 2 Feb 90 16:51:04 GMT
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Arlington VA
Lines: 25


Some ideas concerning the Macintosh 2D or 3D interface debate...

The fundemental problem as I see it is that 2D interfaces make no distinction
betwen text and display regions, buttons, controls and typein regions.
The flat, planar layout of a 2D interface provides no cues regarding
control of the display.

For example, look at an alert box.  A button in an alert box looks for
all the world like an ordinary displayed peice of text.  Other than the
fact that it's shaped like a button it could be anything.

Now give that button a raised 3D look and it becomes rather clear that
it is a metaphorical object (a button) which is sitting ON TOP of a metaphorical
piece of paper (the laert box).  As such it is also something that you
can click on (depress).  So raised objects are typically controls like
scrollbars and buttons.

By putting text and graphics inside a lowered "window" of a panel you
are basically telling the user that this is a special part of the panel
which is used to display things.  Thus lowered regions are displayable
regions and typin regions.

3D look and feel is more than superficial glitz.  It serves a psychological
function.