[Note this associates closely with Mind Palace vs. Exploration Space]
Borrowing from behaviour in 2D, it is clear that arranging objects in a space is not a task with consistent aims. The two ends of the axis are exploratory mapping and explanatory diagraming—those both those terms are themselves prone to re-interpretation.
Regardless of titles, key aspects here are ambiguity and malleability of the view. In exploratory work, the view needs to let things move around as position is exploratory. Looseness fosters serendipitous discovery and doesn’t crush emergent structure. In contrast, once a process or narrative is defined, those same factors work in reverse. In a view intended to communicate to others—who doubtless have differing starting assumptions—reducing the possibility of ambiguity in interpretation is important.
Generally, the latter task is also aided by a view that is broadly fixed, in terms of the relative positioning of the information objects. However, on initial or passing presentation it is not always immediately apparent if the view is intended for one particular mode of use.
It is also worth noting that over time the same space may be used for both modes: starting with exploration before transitioning to an explanatory mode. Transition between these modes of work can also occur within a a project or even session.
Back to XR spaces: differing perspectives.