AI: Summary
In this meeting the participants discussed concepts for spatial computing interfaces, focusing on “frames” and “rings” as interaction metaphors. Frode Hegland introduced the concept of frames as 2D containers in XR that could be positioned on virtual “walls” and would maintain their position when switching between VR and AR environments. Fabien Bénétou demonstrated his Ring interface concept, where users can pull objects through rings to transform them (changing colors, sizes, etc.). The group debated terminology, with Mark Anderson questioning the utility of using physical metaphors like “frames” and “walls” in spatial computing. The conversation revealed tensions between structure versus freedom in interface design and the balance of functionality versus intuitiveness.
Frode Hegland, Fabien Bénétou, Mark Anderson, Peter Wasilko
AI: Decisions
It was decided to focus on the “ring” interaction prototype that Fabien has been developing rather than getting too caught up in debates over terminology right now.
The frames concept will move forward as a working idea despite some reservations from Mark about using physical metaphors in spatial computing.
The group will schedule another session specifically focused on exploring ring interactions for the following Wednesday.
The Future of Text Social event will take place in the first week of June, with location still being decided between Norway and London.
AI: Speaker Summary
Frode Hegland shared his concept of “frames” as containers for content in XR environments that could be placed on virtual walls and would maintain their position between VR and AR sessions. He emphasized the importance of having some structure while allowing for freedom, showing examples of his software’s interface with tabs and toolbars. Frode was particularly excited about the visual aspects of interfaces and how they communicate meaning. He showed physical books to illustrate different ways text could be presented beyond typical typography. He was very interested in Fabien’s ring interaction demonstration and suggested that the number of vertices on a ring could correspond to the number of options available.
Fabien Bénétou demonstrated his “ring” interaction prototype where users can pull objects through rings to transform them, such as changing text color or object size. He explained that this provides an intuitive way to apply transformations without complex menus. He discussed how the rings could be arranged in spirals or other formations to provide different options, and how pulling through multiple rings could create compound transformations. He emphasized composability as a key principle – having a small set of interactions that can be combined for powerful results. Fabien also provided physical demonstrations using Tupperware containers to illustrate how containers/frames could work as organizational elements.
Mark Anderson expressed concern about using physical metaphors like “frames” and “walls” in spatial computing, suggesting they might unnecessarily constrain thinking. He emphasized that in spatial hypertext, the most important aspect is “delaying formalism” – allowing users to arrange items in meaningful ways without imposing structure too early. He noted the difference between personal sense-making (like mind palaces) versus curated experiences (like museums). Mark stressed that different people prefer different arrangements, and interfaces should support this flexibility rather than enforcing rigid structures.
Peter Wasilko suggested that virtual walls could be projected in front of real-world objects like bookcases in AR to provide clean surfaces. He was particularly interested in representing functions in spatial computing, especially “pure functions” that don’t modify the original object but create a transformed copy. He proposed having different gesture modifiers to distinguish between transforming the original versus creating a copy. Peter also broke down computing concepts to their essential components: primitive values, bindings, functions, and special forms.
AI: Topics Discussed
WebXR: Fabien explained that they are using a web framework for WebXR development because there are more web developers than 3D developers. He mentioned that the framework they’re using is DOM-inspired, which some developers think is brilliant while others consider it overhead. He described how the A-Frame framework attempts to bridge the gap between web development and 3D development by using familiar DOM-like structures. They discussed the advantages of building on web standards to make their work more accessible and easier for others to build upon. Frode noted the importance of conforming his commercial software to fit what Fabien is doing with web standards.
Gestures: The group extensively discussed gesture interactions in XR, particularly around Fabien’s “ring” concept. The primary gesture involves pinching to grab text or objects and pulling them through rings to apply transformations. Fabien demonstrated how pulling text through colored rings would change the text color, and how pulling the sky element through rings would change the environment color. They discussed adding additional gestures like using a third finger tap while pinching to trigger different actions. Peter suggested using gesture modifications to distinguish between applying transformations to the original object versus creating a transformed copy. They also discussed spiral arrangements of rings that would allow users to perform series of transformations with continuous gestures.
Symposium: Frode mentioned a “Future of Text Social” event planned for the first week of June, with the location still being decided between Norway and the UK. He mentioned they’re trying to decide who to invite, noting it needs to be people comfortable with “nerdy talk.” Fabien indicated he would attend regardless of location. Mark mentioned he probably wouldn’t attend as he needs to take a break after finishing a paper.
Book: There was brief mention of a potential book publication when Frode mentioned meeting with someone from Voyager Japan who “wants to publish a compendium of Future Text articles in Japanese.” This appears to be a separate project from the main discussion topics.
Timelines: Mark mentioned he often works with temporal axes when organizing information, though he clarified he uses “subjective time” rather than publication dates, as publication dates are often “grossly unrelated to the actual time that’s in the object.” No other significant discussion of timelines occurred.
Other topics discussed:
- The balance between structure and freedom in interface design
- The tension between styling/appearance and semantic meaning
- The concept of “memory palaces” and personal versus public spatial arrangements
- Hierarchical organization of knowledge objects
- The difference between transforming original objects versus creating copies
- The issue of collaboration in spatial environments
AI: Concepts Introduced
Frames: Introduced by Frode Hegland as 2D containers in XR that can be arranged on virtual “walls” and would maintain their position when switching between VR and AR environments. They can contain different “sheets” like outlines, references, or knowledge maps.
Rings: Introduced by Fabien Bénétou as interactive objects in XR through which users can pull items to transform them. For example, pulling text through a blue ring makes the text blue. Rings can be arranged in sequences to allow for compound transformations.
Memory Palace: Discussed by Mark Anderson as a personal spatial arrangement of information that has significance to the creator but may not be meaningful to others. Mark contrasted this with curated experiences like museums.
Subjective Time: Introduced by Mark Anderson as a more meaningful temporal axis for organizing information than publication dates, which may not accurately reflect when the content was actually created.
Pure Functions: Mentioned by Peter Wasilko as functions that don’t modify the original input but create a new transformed output, contrasted with procedures that transform the underlying data directly.
AI: People Mentioned
Tim Cook (also referred to as “Tim Apple”) – mentioned by Frode Hegland as saying AR will be a big deal in the future, Bob Stein – mentioned by Frode Hegland regarding Voyager company and a potential project in Italy, Bob Horn – mentioned by Frode Hegland regarding diagramming, Doug Engelbart – mentioned by Frode Hegland regarding having a messy desk, Stephen Fry – mentioned by Frode Hegland as influencing his UI design, Emily – Frode Hegland’s partner who appeared briefly in the call and was mentioned regarding jewelry made from fingerprints, Dene Grigar – mentioned as having given a presentation in a previous meeting, Paula – mentioned by Fabien as his partner who would be happy to buy more Tupperware for prototyping, Dene – mentioned by Frode as someone who agreed with his approach regarding frames, Les – mentioned by Frode as someone who wanted references to be a first-level thing
AI: Product or Company Names Mentioned
ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) – mentioned by Frode Hegland and Mark Anderson in the context of academic papers, Voyager company – mentioned by Frode Hegland as having a Japanese arm that wants to publish Future Text articles, Apple – implied through reference to “Tim Apple” (Tim Cook), AR glasses – mentioned by Frode Hegland as a potential future technology, Microsoft Word – mentioned by Frode Hegland as his software needing to interact with it, HyperCard – mentioned by Frode Hegland as inspiration for the “frames” concept, Safari – mentioned briefly by Frode Hegland, iCloud – mentioned by Frode Hegland as a way to share documents, Nextcloud – mentioned by Fabien Bénétou regarding document sharing capabilities, LaTeX – mentioned by Fabien Bénétou when discussing document styling systems, remarkable – mentioned as a device Frode is considering purchasing, Tupperware – used by Fabien for physical demonstrations of container concepts, Photoshop – mentioned by Frode Hegland as a tool he was using during the meeting, CSS – mentioned by Fabien Bénétou in the context of styling classes in the virtual environment
AI: Agreements & Disagreements
Agreement:
- All participants agreed that the ring interaction concept demonstrated by Fabien was promising and worth developing further.
- There was consensus that composability is important – having a small set of interactions that can be combined for powerful results.
- The group agreed to schedule a dedicated session to explore ring interactions further.
- Fabien and Frode agreed on using web standards and frameworks as a foundation for their work.
Disagreement:
- Mark Anderson strongly disagreed with Frode’s emphasis on frames and physical metaphors like walls, arguing they unnecessarily constrain thinking in spatial computing.
- There was tension regarding whether to prioritize visual appearance or functionality, with Mark emphasizing that function should come before form while Frode insisted both matter.
- Mark and Frode disagreed on the need to nail down terminology now, with Mark suggesting it was premature to commit to specific terms like “frames.”
- There was some disagreement about how much the interface should guide users versus allowing complete freedom, though all recognized a balance is needed.
AI: Other
The meeting revealed an interesting tension between those focused on pragmatic implementation (Frode and Fabien) versus more theoretical concerns about avoiding unnecessary constraints (Mark). This appears to be a productive creative tension within the group.
The physical demonstrations by Fabien using Tupperware containers highlighted how physical prototyping can quickly communicate spatial concepts that might be difficult to explain verbally.
The discussion of rings as a novel interaction method shows the group’s commitment to exploring new paradigms for spatial computing rather than simply translating 2D interfaces into 3D space.
The meeting had moments of frustration but generally maintained a collaborative spirit even through disagreements, demonstrating that the participants value each other’s perspectives despite differences in approach.
Is there anything someone who reads this which they might miss, but which may be important?
The transcript reveals a fundamental tension in spatial computing interface design: whether to build on familiar metaphors (like documents, cards, walls) to make systems approachable, or to break completely from these constraints to fully leverage the new medium. This tension underlies many of the disagreements in the conversation and represents a core challenge in the field. Additionally, the group appears to be working within constraints of limited resources, making strategic choices about what to focus on first, which influences their decisions about prioritizing functionality over polished interfaces at this stage of development.