This is a bit categorical. As Alex says, there is the value of being able
to see everything from above and then zoom down.
A 2d aerial view that you swoop down on, is no better than a 2d
GUI desktop view that you click on boxes to expand windows.
You can show structure in
a series of web-pages also, but you'd have to get another page to go from
godseye to detail view.
But you have to ask: what is the informational structure that you are
trying to demonstrate? ***Generalized*** web info has no intrinsic 3d
structure, and there is no value in trying to display it as such.
Stacking box shapes on top of each other in 3d, and having them
partially-to-totally occlude each other as you go farther back in the
distance, may be an aesthetically interesting "structure" to look at.
But it adds no informational access value whatsoever, because you're
making up a structure that fundamentally is not there to be observed.
>It is impossible to determine how much "information" a file holds
>based on its size. *snip*. So it makes no sense for a user to measure the
>available
>content by the sizes of the buildings.
It's just a question of definition. Information might just as well be
'amount of understandable codes/signs' as content, also, if
information=content, who's to say that what's content for me is content for
you.
Because of exactly the same point you make, there is no way to
indicate the informational value of ***generalized*** web info. You
could have "Mecklermedia's View of What We Think is Really Important,"
and you could display that in terms of building size. But that has
little relevance to what a particular user thinks is important. At
best, a schema of size-variant 3d buildings is a form of advertizement
or editorial masquerading as "information." Once again, this is
make-believe and not something intrinsically visualize-able in 3d.
However, to say that 3d visualistation of database structures is not
something to be worked with, is to me pure nonsense. It's like saying that
we have no buisness going over the horizon to America, that is religious
problem. I'd say that the next big potentional for the computerbuisness is
just in 3d visualisation of non-spatial structures. If you read company
reports etc., you'll see that there is a dire need of a more powerful way
of comunicating complex structures/hieracies, which I see as an ideal task
for powerful computers. Also for artist/designers/architetcts, is a very
interesting field as it requires both a sense the sturcures and a grip on
the workings of 3d.
Yes, but see what you have done here. You have limited the problem
domain to instances where 3d spatial information might actually be
useful. You're not talking about "all info on the web" anymore,
you're talking about tri-variate graphs of business info, or the
spatial aesthetics of 3d building design.
My point is very simple. If you have multi-axial data, and you have
significantly more than 3 axes to look at, then don't waste your time
thinking you can visualize the structure of the data in 3d. It simply
cannot be done - you are making pretty pictures instead of dealing
with the actual phenomena at hand.
This is not a religious problem. This is the cold, hard reality of
informational overload.
Cheers,
Brandon J. Van Every | Computer Graphics | The sun attempts
| | to be white,
vanevery@rbdc.rbdc.com | C++ UNIX X11 Motif | as white as
http://rbdc.rbdc.com/~vanevery | HTML CGI Perl TCL/Tk | daytime.