Thread: "Announcing MC4D for Android"

Roice

--001636c5b0a00dc0fe04960b8418--

---

From: Melinda Green <melinda@superliminal.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:01:07 -0800
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Announcing MC4D for Android

Andrey,

Yes, the UI could be implemented as you describe; I just don't like
moving more towards the 2^4 interaction model. While I don't like that
interaction model, I must admit that it does work for the 2^4 and so I'd
rather just offer that puzzle instead, especially as I found that it is
much more amenable to such a small touchscreen display.

It's interesting to hear you talk about the challenge of dealing with
one face that is always invisible. I didn't think much beyond convincing
myself that It would still be possible to solve, but now that I think of
it as an interesting challenge in itself I find it kind of intriguing.
I'm wondering just how interesting we could make it if it were the main
focus of an Android puzzle. for example, we could also hide the opposite
central face because its controls are not really needed, plus it is too
small to be very useful on a small screen and removing it would help to
declutter the display. You could still stash pieces on the central face,
you just wouldn't see part of it. Next I think it would be fun to only
color the stickers on the pieces that are part of the outer face and
just render the rest of the stickers as gray. The challenge is then
simply to solve the invisible outer face. It is a completely different
puzzle from the full cube but it sounds sort of magical to solve an
unseen puzzle and it lends itself perfectly to this new platform. It's
easy enough to try so I think I will!

-Melinda

On 11/27/2010 1:31 AM, Andrey wrote:
> Melinda,
> Isn't it possible to consider face of the cube 3x3x3 as one large sticker without cracks? I don't know how you find the sticker for the point of click - if you use some graphic features for that, then "large stickers" will be difficult, but if it's pure mathematics (in my programs it's the case), then there should be no problems in implementation and in the usage.
> 3^4 with one hidden face should be very different puzzle - with its 2 kinds of 4Cs and 3 kinds of 3Cs... and with invisible stickers that will be discoverable by twists only :) Interesting. And I'm sure that the set of scrambled positions for this puzzle is the same as for 3^4 without restrictions - so everybody can try it in MC4D :)
>
> Andrey
>
> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green wrote:
>> Andrey,
>>
>> I like your idea for double click rotate-to-center. I don't think that
>> Android touch events recognize double clicks but I could try to detect
>> that. For now I'm going to not introduce 4D rotations just to try to
>> keep this as simple as possible while trying to make it somewhat useful.
>> I've updated the app to not add scramble twists of the outer face, and I
>> only use slice mask = 1 so all scrambles should be possible for users to
>> undo. I also tried to make the autorotation less sensitive. I think
>> these are good improvements. Clearly this is still difficult to use with
>> any accuracy but see what you think.
>>
>> It is an interesting suggestion to try to restrict to only 90 degree
>> rotations and just go by the 2D sticker polygons like with the 2^4. I
>> don't think that will avoid all the miss-clicks because it would still
>> easy to click between the cracks and hit some completely unexpected
>> sticker. I spent some time tonight experimenting with switching to the
>> 2^4, and with the above improvements (plus only using 90 degree scramble
>> twists) I found it to be quite workable. The simplicity may make users
>> happier but then I balked when thinking about how to explain the
>> polygon-based twist UI. Thinking of the typical user who doesn't read
>> instructions I worry that they'd have even less chance of figuring out
>> what's going on. I started feeling that it might be impossible to make
>> the UI both discoverable and useful. That made me leave it as a 3^4
>> which is mostly just good for demos but not really good as any sort of
>> puzzle, practice or otherwise. The 3^4 just has too many stickers for a
>> smartphone screen, and the 2^4 UI works pretty well but is screwy. I'm
>> very open to any suggestions.
>>
>> -Melinda
>>
>> On 11/26/2010 9:35 PM, Andrey wrote:
>>> Melinda,
>>> I think that I can suggest a couple of things for Android version.
>>> First, it may be better to keep only 90-degrees twists. And select axes of twists by large faces of cubes, not by stickers. That is if you click a corner sticker, axis of rotation will depend on the face of this sticker that you clicked.
>>> Second, 4D dragging is a funny thing, of course, but for the real puzzle it's enough to give users "recenter" command. I don't know possible Android commands, but something like double-tap could do the trick (if such thing exists there).
>>> With this two options (and without autorotation!) it may be very possible to solve a puzzle in one session before phone's battery goes empty :)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

---

From: Melinda Green <melinda@superliminal.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:03:04 -0800
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Announcing MC4D for Android

--------------050703020305090605000206
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Roice,

Android does give you all the low-level events for any number of
simultaneous fingers, though at present only up to two are supported. It
is difficult to use that data and really needs to be wrapped in an
utility service, but the data is there. I had to implement the
pinch-zooming from scratch which seemed odd.

That is a good idea to use the extra finger data to somehow implement 4D
rotations but I think that people are too used to pinch-zooming for me
to do much else with multi-finger gestures. I would like to allow Z
rotations at in addition to zooming, however, and I could even imagine
applying that sort of rotation gesture applied to individual faces,
which would definitely be cool, if a bit tricky to implement.

Thanks,
-Melinda

On 11/27/2010 8:41 AM, Roice Nelson wrote:
>
>
> Hi Melinda,
>
> One nice feature I've seen on laptop touchpads is the use of
> multi-touch dragging to control browser panning. If Android can
> distinguish between normal single-finger dragging and multi-touch
> dragging (and it seems like it might since it has pinching), the
> latter might be a viable way to support a 4D rotation mode.
>
> On my laptop, browser panning (both horizontal and vertical) is
> controlled by single-finger dragging along the edges of the touchpad,
> so that could be another option.
>
> Take Care,
> Roice
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Melinda Green
> > wrote:
>
> Andrey,
>
> I'm glad that you got it installed and have been playing with it.
> There
> are certainly several big usability problems with the first
> version and
> I intend to address some of them but it is really not meant to be
> anything but a toy to fool with and show off. I would feel somewhat
> horrified if anyone attempted a real solution with it, especially as
> there is no way to save and load log files. I don't want to encourage
> that and almost didn't include a "full" scramble option for that
> reason.
> Still, I would like it to be somewhat useful as a portable practice
> tool. I don't want to add a control panel or menu modes for this
> reason.
> The one mode I would love to support is the 4D shift-dragging
> which is a
> wonderful way to show off the 4D nature of the puzzle and to get
> at the
> invisible face. I just don't see a good way to do any of these things.
>
> Note too that there is no control, shift, or other modifier keys
> supported since there is no natural way to do that in Android that
> I can
> see. I implemented counter-clockwise twists as long taps, so if
> you hold
> your finger down for more than a quarter second before releasing,
> it is
> supposed to twist CCW, but obviously that's difficult to do without
> triggering 3D rotation.
>
> I definitely want to tune the autorotation threshold which I agree is
> too sensitive. It makes me crazy too.
>
> I also need to not perform scrambling twists on the outer face because
> there is no way for the user to deal with them.
>
> I'm considering just turning this into a 2^4 puzzle because it is so
> hard to accurately select from such tiny stickers, even with
> pinch-zooming, and it's very hard to twist on the central face because
> of this and the difficulty of reaching between the other faces. I
> would
> appreciate anyone's opinion on the choice of puzzle because I would be
> sad to not offer the full 3^4 but it may just be too un-fun.
>
> The tablet platform seems like another thing altogether. Large puzzles
> may be usable there, and a large, high resolution plus a multi-touch
> interface may provide a much more direct experience with the
> puzzle than
> our current desktop applications. When I went back to the desktop
> app I
> found that I missed that sort of direct, tactile connection with the
> puzzle. I definitely need to think about the possibilities for this
> platform a lot more.
>
> One nice thing is that I have gotten the better part of 1,000
> downloads
> in less than 48 hours, so it is generating a good bit of interest.
> Much
> more so than my other apps so there is certainly some interest out
> there
> which I hope will lead more people to try the full-featured app and to
> join our nice little community of hyper-puzzlers!
>
> Thanks for testing and for your suggestions,
> -Melinda
>
>
>
>

--------------050703020305090605000206
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




http-equiv="Content-Type">


Roice,



Android does give you all the low-level events for any number of
simultaneous fingers, though at present only up to two are
supported. It is difficult to use that data and really needs to be
wrapped in an utility service, but the data is there. I had to
implement the pinch-zooming from scratch which seemed odd.



That is a good idea to use the extra finger data to somehow
implement 4D rotations but I think that people are too used to
pinch-zooming for me to do much else with multi-finger gestures. I
would like to allow Z rotations at in addition to zooming, however,
and I could even imagine applying that sort of rotation gesture
applied to individual faces, which would definitely be cool, if a
bit tricky to implement.



Thanks,

-Melinda



On 11/27/2010 8:41 AM, Roice Nelson wrote:
cite="mid:AANLkTi=OOgDAWz2j=p8TLoeNhMuQ9E-eAGhjXvdL0mKv@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">


Hi Melinda,

--------------050703020305090605000206--

---

From: "Andrey" <andreyastrelin@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 05:31:01 -0000
Subject: [MC4D] Re: Announcing MC4D for Android

Melinda,
I don't think that it's good idea to hide controls of the central face. I=
f you can't twist both central face and invisible face, it gives the next l=
evel of difficulty - and in this case i'm not even sure that all scrambles =
of "unrestricted" cube are solvable.
To solve the invisible face only is the same as solving of the first laye=
r of 3^4. May be it will give interesting puzzle - I'm not sure. For me it =
doesn't look elegant enough.
But 2^4 (with recentering!) may be good puzzle for Android - not very lar=
ge and not very difficult, easily can be solved in one session :)=20

Andrey

--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green wrote:
>
> Andrey,
>=20
> Yes, the UI could be implemented as you describe; I just don't like=20
> moving more towards the 2^4 interaction model. While I don't like that=20
> interaction model, I must admit that it does work for the 2^4 and so I'd=
=20
> rather just offer that puzzle instead, especially as I found that it is=20
> much more amenable to such a small touchscreen display.
>=20
> It's interesting to hear you talk about the challenge of dealing with=20
> one face that is always invisible. I didn't think much beyond convincing=
=20
> myself that It would still be possible to solve, but now that I think of=
=20
> it as an interesting challenge in itself I find it kind of intriguing.=20
> I'm wondering just how interesting we could make it if it were the main=20
> focus of an Android puzzle. for example, we could also hide the opposite=
=20
> central face because its controls are not really needed, plus it is too=20
> small to be very useful on a small screen and removing it would help to=20
> declutter the display. You could still stash pieces on the central face,=
=20
> you just wouldn't see part of it. Next I think it would be fun to only=20
> color the stickers on the pieces that are part of the outer face and=20
> just render the rest of the stickers as gray. The challenge is then=20
> simply to solve the invisible outer face. It is a completely different=20
> puzzle from the full cube but it sounds sort of magical to solve an=20
> unseen puzzle and it lends itself perfectly to this new platform. It's=20
> easy enough to try so I think I will!
>=20
> -Melinda
>=20
> On 11/27/2010 1:31 AM, Andrey wrote:
> > Melinda,
> > Isn't it possible to consider face of the cube 3x3x3 as one large st=
icker without cracks? I don't know how you find the sticker for the point o=
f click - if you use some graphic features for that, then "large stickers" =
will be difficult, but if it's pure mathematics (in my programs it's the ca=
se), then there should be no problems in implementation and in the usage.
> > 3^4 with one hidden face should be very different puzzle - with its =
2 kinds of 4Cs and 3 kinds of 3Cs... and with invisible stickers that will =
be discoverable by twists only :) Interesting. And I'm sure that the set of=
scrambled positions for this puzzle is the same as for 3^4 without restric=
tions - so everybody can try it in MC4D :)
> >
> > Andrey
> >
> > --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green wrote:
> >> Andrey,
> >>
> >> I like your idea for double click rotate-to-center. I don't think that
> >> Android touch events recognize double clicks but I could try to detect
> >> that. For now I'm going to not introduce 4D rotations just to try to
> >> keep this as simple as possible while trying to make it somewhat usefu=
l.
> >> I've updated the app to not add scramble twists of the outer face, and=
I
> >> only use slice mask =3D 1 so all scrambles should be possible for user=
s to
> >> undo. I also tried to make the autorotation less sensitive. I think
> >> these are good improvements. Clearly this is still difficult to use wi=
th
> >> any accuracy but see what you think.
> >>
> >> It is an interesting suggestion to try to restrict to only 90 degree
> >> rotations and just go by the 2D sticker polygons like with the 2^4. I
> >> don't think that will avoid all the miss-clicks because it would still
> >> easy to click between the cracks and hit some completely unexpected
> >> sticker. I spent some time tonight experimenting with switching to the
> >> 2^4, and with the above improvements (plus only using 90 degree scramb=
le
> >> twists) I found it to be quite workable. The simplicity may make users
> >> happier but then I balked when thinking about how to explain the
> >> polygon-based twist UI. Thinking of the typical user who doesn't read
> >> instructions I worry that they'd have even less chance of figuring out
> >> what's going on. I started feeling that it might be impossible to make
> >> the UI both discoverable and useful. That made me leave it as a 3^4
> >> which is mostly just good for demos but not really good as any sort of
> >> puzzle, practice or otherwise. The 3^4 just has too many stickers for =
a
> >> smartphone screen, and the 2^4 UI works pretty well but is screwy. I'm
> >> very open to any suggestions.
> >>
> >> -Melinda
> >>
> >> On 11/26/2010 9:35 PM, Andrey wrote:
> >>> Melinda,
> >>> I think that I can suggest a couple of things for Android version=
.
> >>> First, it may be better to keep only 90-degrees twists. And selec=
t axes of twists by large faces of cubes, not by stickers. That is if you c=
lick a corner sticker, axis of rotation will depend on the face of this sti=
cker that you clicked.
> >>> Second, 4D dragging is a funny thing, of course, but for the real=
puzzle it's enough to give users "recenter" command. I don't know possible=
Android commands, but something like double-tap could do the trick (if suc=
h thing exists there).
> >>> With this two options (and without autorotation!) it may be very =
possible to solve a puzzle in one session before phone's battery goes empty=
:)
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

---

From: "Andrey" <andreyastrelin@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 05:57:52 -0000
Subject: [MC4D] Re: Announcing MC4D for Android

So it could be the following way:
it you press left bottom corner of the screen by one finger, and drag pic=
ture with another finger, it works as 4D rotation of the picture, and if yo=
u press right bottom corner, then dragging up/down will work as 4D sliding,=
and left/right as Z-rotation? Like virtual ctrl and shift buttons on the s=
creen.
And face rotations... Catch one face with one finger, keep it in place an=
d twist with another finger... It may be 90-deg rotations again (6 movement=
s) or free 3D rotations with positioning to the closest possible orientatio=
n after the twist. It could be great interface! It's pity that screen is to=
o small, may be no room for the second finger movements. Equivalent in the =
desktop application: click some face to define that you'll work with it, th=
en rotate it (as 3D object with fixed point) to the proper position. It may=
be more understandable for common users than current "ticker-based twist d=
efinition. But I'm not sure.
If I find multy-finger events in C# for tablet screen, I'll try to do som=
ething like that. But not sure that it will work in the hyperbolic space...=
=20
Andrey


--- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green wrote:
>
> Roice,
>=20
> Android does give you all the low-level events for any number of=20
> simultaneous fingers, though at present only up to two are supported. It=
=20
> is difficult to use that data and really needs to be wrapped in an=20
> utility service, but the data is there. I had to implement the=20
> pinch-zooming from scratch which seemed odd.
>=20
> That is a good idea to use the extra finger data to somehow implement 4D=
=20
> rotations but I think that people are too used to pinch-zooming for me=20
> to do much else with multi-finger gestures. I would like to allow Z=20
> rotations at in addition to zooming, however, and I could even imagine=20
> applying that sort of rotation gesture applied to individual faces,=20
> which would definitely be cool, if a bit tricky to implement.
>=20
> Thanks,
> -Melinda
>=20
> On 11/27/2010 8:41 AM, Roice Nelson wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Melinda,
> >
> > One nice feature I've seen on laptop touchpads is the use of=20
> > multi-touch dragging to control browser panning. If Android can=20
> > distinguish between normal single-finger dragging and multi-touch=20
> > dragging (and it seems like it might since it has pinching), the=20
> > latter might be a viable way to support a 4D rotation mode.
> >
> > On my laptop, browser panning (both horizontal and vertical) is=20
> > controlled by single-finger dragging along the edges of the touchpad,=20
> > so that could be another option.
> >
> > Take Care,
> > Roice
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Melinda Green=20
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Andrey,
> >
> > I'm glad that you got it installed and have been playing with it.
> > There
> > are certainly several big usability problems with the first
> > version and
> > I intend to address some of them but it is really not meant to be
> > anything but a toy to fool with and show off. I would feel somewhat
> > horrified if anyone attempted a real solution with it, especially a=
s
> > there is no way to save and load log files. I don't want to encoura=
ge
> > that and almost didn't include a "full" scramble option for that
> > reason.
> > Still, I would like it to be somewhat useful as a portable practice
> > tool. I don't want to add a control panel or menu modes for this
> > reason.
> > The one mode I would love to support is the 4D shift-dragging
> > which is a
> > wonderful way to show off the 4D nature of the puzzle and to get
> > at the
> > invisible face. I just don't see a good way to do any of these thin=
gs.
> >
> > Note too that there is no control, shift, or other modifier keys
> > supported since there is no natural way to do that in Android that
> > I can
> > see. I implemented counter-clockwise twists as long taps, so if
> > you hold
> > your finger down for more than a quarter second before releasing,
> > it is
> > supposed to twist CCW, but obviously that's difficult to do without
> > triggering 3D rotation.
> >
> > I definitely want to tune the autorotation threshold which I agree =
is
> > too sensitive. It makes me crazy too.
> >
> > I also need to not perform scrambling twists on the outer face beca=
use
> > there is no way for the user to deal with them.
> >
> > I'm considering just turning this into a 2^4 puzzle because it is s=
o
> > hard to accurately select from such tiny stickers, even with
> > pinch-zooming, and it's very hard to twist on the central face beca=
use
> > of this and the difficulty of reaching between the other faces. I
> > would
> > appreciate anyone's opinion on the choice of puzzle because I would=
be
> > sad to not offer the full 3^4 but it may just be too un-fun.
> >
> > The tablet platform seems like another thing altogether. Large puzz=
les
> > may be usable there, and a large, high resolution plus a multi-touc=
h
> > interface may provide a much more direct experience with the
> > puzzle than
> > our current desktop applications. When I went back to the desktop
> > app I
> > found that I missed that sort of direct, tactile connection with th=
e
> > puzzle. I definitely need to think about the possibilities for this
> > platform a lot more.
> >
> > One nice thing is that I have gotten the better part of 1,000
> > downloads
> > in less than 48 hours, so it is generating a good bit of interest.
> > Much
> > more so than my other apps so there is certainly some interest out
> > there
> > which I hope will lead more people to try the full-featured app and=
to
> > join our nice little community of hyper-puzzlers!
> >
> > Thanks for testing and for your suggestions,
> > -Melinda
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

---

From: Melinda Green <melinda@superliminal.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 23:29:21 -0800
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Announcing MC4D for Android

On 11/27/2010 9:57 PM, Andrey wrote:
> So it could be the following way:
> it you press left bottom corner of the screen by one finger, and drag picture with another finger, it works as 4D rotation of the picture, and if you press right bottom corner, then dragging up/down will work as 4D sliding, and left/right as Z-rotation? Like virtual ctrl and shift buttons on the screen.

I like your basic idea but remember that this would ideally be
discoverable without instructions. I'd provide instructions but I have
to assume that most people will not read them and simply decide whether
to delete the app based on whether they can figure it out quickly on
their own or not.

For this suggestion, I suppose it might be made to work if there were a
button with some sort of text that implies "For 4D rotation, hold while
dragging" but that's probably not worth the screen space. I guess it
could be implemented exactly as you describe so long as it's not
required to successfully use the app. Those few who do read the
instructions will find a treat. Similar to right-click options that we
can't assume most users will even try.

> And face rotations... Catch one face with one finger, keep it in place and twist with another finger... It may be 90-deg rotations again (6 movements) or free 3D rotations with positioning to the closest possible orientation after the twist. It could be great interface! It's pity that screen is too small, may be no room for the second finger movements.

We've fantasized about this sort of "snap-to closest twist" idea before.
Ideally this would include a stereo display and a data-glove or haptic
feedback input device to more physically express your intent. Smartphone
screens may be large enough for such a two-fingered approach. It could
certainly be worth a try. The biggest problem appears to me that it
could confuse many users who expect pinch-zooming to be the only
two-fingered gesture. I think that a Z rotate could be added to
pinch-zoom without violating user's expectations, but it seems that your
two-fingered gesture would need to violate user expectations. They may
generally forgive the unexpected behavior but it is a risk.

> Equivalent in the desktop application: click some face to define that you'll work with it, then rotate it (as 3D object with fixed point) to the proper position. It may be more understandable for common users than current "sticker-based twist definition. But I'm not sure.
> If I find multy-finger events in C# for tablet screen, I'll try to do something like that. But not sure that it will work in the hyperbolic space...

Hm, I suddenly wonder why I've never seen anyone try creating a
two-mouse UI? You'd feel like you had grasping hooks for hands but you
sure could do a lot more than with one hook. Wild thoughts aside, you
could avoid adding a mode by instead pressing a control key to establish
a center-of-rotation at the middle of whichever face center is closest
to the mouse and then dragging that face with that key held down. Let go
of the mouse or control key to "snap-to twist".

> I don't think that it's good idea to hide controls of the central face. If you can't twist both central face and invisible face, it gives the next level of difficulty - and in this case i'm not even sure that all scrambles of "unrestricted" cube are solvable.
> To solve the invisible face only is the same as solving of the first layer of 3^4. May be it will give interesting puzzle - I'm not sure. For me it doesn't look elegant enough.

Yes but solving a layer that you can't see would be a new challenge. You
could attempt the 3D analog by solving one layer while keeping that face
pointed away from you at all times. You get to look at the side faces
but not the furthest one. Would the added challenge be fun or just
annoying? It seems like this would be a close cousin of blindfold
competitions which some people enjoy.

You may be right about not hiding the central face but that's easily
tested both ways and doesn't need to be decided up front. These
constrained puzzles look the most interesting things for me to fool
around with right now but there is definitely a lot of room for creative
interaction design here! I'm really starting to enjoy Android
development for many reasons and this is a great one.

> But 2^4 (with recentering!) may be good puzzle for Android - not very large and not very difficult, easily can be solved in one session :)

Oh, I'm sure you could solve it without a recentering option, Andrey. ;-)
The 2^4 definitely works better on these small touchscreens. My only
concern is with the discoverability of the polygon-based twisting UI.
What is the likelihood that someone with only some familiarity with the
3D puzzle will figure out how the twisting works? Is that likelihood
greater or less than for the 3^4? These are my main questions, and
without some focus testing, I doubt that I can guess with any accuracy.
If anybody has opinions on these two questions I would love to hear them!

-Melinda

---

From: "Andrey" <andreyastrelin@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:23:48 -0000
Subject: [MC4D] Re: Announcing MC4D for Android

> I like your basic idea but remember that this would ideally be=20
> discoverable without instructions. I'd provide instructions but I have=20
> to assume that most people will not read them and simply decide whether=20
> to delete the app based on whether they can figure it out quickly on=20
> their own or not.
>=20
> For this suggestion, I suppose it might be made to work if there were a=20
> button with some sort of text that implies "For 4D rotation, hold while=20
> dragging" but that's probably not worth the screen space. I guess it=20
> could be implemented exactly as you describe so long as it's not=20
> required to successfully use the app. Those few who do read the=20
> instructions will find a treat. Similar to right-click options that we=20
> can't assume most users will even try.
>=20
Yes, it was just an idea... Actually, for 3^4 you don't need more that rece=
ntering. I guess that nobody likes to play with distorted cubes, and the on=
ly puzzles where I found 4D dragging useful were {3}x{3}, {3,3}x{} and simp=
lex, with their small number of faces. So double-click for recentering shou=
ld be enough.
>=20
> We've fantasized about this sort of "snap-to closest twist" idea before.=
=20
> Ideally this would include a stereo display and a data-glove or haptic=20
> feedback input device to more physically express your intent. Smartphone=
=20
> screens may be large enough for such a two-fingered approach. It could=20
> certainly be worth a try. The biggest problem appears to me that it=20
> could confuse many users who expect pinch-zooming to be the only=20
> two-fingered gesture. I think that a Z rotate could be added to=20
> pinch-zoom without violating user's expectations, but it seems that your=
=20
> two-fingered gesture would need to violate user expectations. They may=20
> generally forgive the unexpected behavior but it is a risk.
>=20
In pinch-zooming you'll expect that both fingers are moving. If one finger =
is fixed, it will be different command. Not a big problem for users.

> Wild thoughts aside, you=20
> could avoid adding a mode by instead pressing a control key to establish=
=20
> a center-of-rotation at the middle of whichever face center is closest=20
> to the mouse and then dragging that face with that key held down. Let go=
=20
> of the mouse or control key to "snap-to twist".
>
In tablet mode there is no ctrl-key... In desktop it may work better, but y=
ou will have to use keyboard all the time. Not the best choise.

> Yes but solving a layer that you can't see would be a new challenge. You=
=20
> could attempt the 3D analog by solving one layer while keeping that face=
=20
> pointed away from you at all times. You get to look at the side faces=20
> but not the furthest one. Would the added challenge be fun or just=20
> annoying? It seems like this would be a close cousin of blindfold=20
> competitions which some people enjoy.

I've tried it with 3^3 just now. Easy, and not a great challenge at all. Fo=
r 3^4 it'll be good exercise, but no more. Unrestricted 2^4 will be better =
:)
But if you hide all stickers from the external layer, not only the invisi=
ble face, than yes, it's an interesting idea.

Good luck!

Andrey

---

From: Melinda Green <melinda@superliminal.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:50:15 -0800
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Announcing MC4D for Android

>> I like your basic idea but remember that this would ideally be
>> discoverable without instructions. I'd provide instructions but I have
>> to assume that most people will not read them and simply decide whether
>> to delete the app based on whether they can figure it out quickly on
>> their own or not.
>>
>> For this suggestion, I suppose it might be made to work if there were a
>> button with some sort of text that implies "For 4D rotation, hold while
>> dragging" but that's probably not worth the screen space. I guess it
>> could be implemented exactly as you describe so long as it's not
>> required to successfully use the app. Those few who do read the
>> instructions will find a treat. Similar to right-click options that we
>> can't assume most users will even try.
>>
> Yes, it was just an idea... Actually, for 3^4 you don't need more that recentering. I guess that nobody likes to play with distorted cubes, and the only puzzles where I found 4D dragging useful were {3}x{3}, {3,3}x{} and simplex, with their small number of faces. So double-click for recentering should be enough.

I find the arbitrary 4D rotation feature to be most valuable when
demoing the puzzle and explaining its concepts. This is the main reason
I'm fooling around with this port, but of course the more useful I can
make it the better.

>> We've fantasized about this sort of "snap-to closest twist" idea before.
>> Ideally this would include a stereo display and a data-glove or haptic
>> feedback input device to more physically express your intent. Smartphone
>> screens may be large enough for such a two-fingered approach. It could
>> certainly be worth a try. The biggest problem appears to me that it
>> could confuse many users who expect pinch-zooming to be the only
>> two-fingered gesture. I think that a Z rotate could be added to
>> pinch-zoom without violating user's expectations, but it seems that your
>> two-fingered gesture would need to violate user expectations. They may
>> generally forgive the unexpected behavior but it is a risk.
>>
> In pinch-zooming you'll expect that both fingers are moving. If one finger is fixed, it will be different command. Not a big problem for users.

Well I doubt that I will ever get sent events that show movement in more
than one finger, so it will never look like a pinch gesture that way. Of
course I could make some fuzzy estimates of intent based on timestamps
and move speeds but that would make a messy situation even messier.

>> Wild thoughts aside, you
>> could avoid adding a mode by instead pressing a control key to establish
>> a center-of-rotation at the middle of whichever face center is closest
>> to the mouse and then dragging that face with that key held down. Let go
>> of the mouse or control key to "snap-to twist".
>>
> In tablet mode there is no ctrl-key... In desktop it may work better, but you will have to use keyboard all the time. Not the best choise.

You could still use the existing clicking gestures we currently have.
The continuous twisting would be an addition similar to how the 4D
rotation dragging augments the control-clicks.

>> Yes but solving a layer that you can't see would be a new challenge. You
>> could attempt the 3D analog by solving one layer while keeping that face
>> pointed away from you at all times. You get to look at the side faces
>> but not the furthest one. Would the added challenge be fun or just
>> annoying? It seems like this would be a close cousin of blindfold
>> competitions which some people enjoy.
> I've tried it with 3^3 just now. Easy, and not a great challenge at all. For 3^4 it'll be good exercise, but no more. Unrestricted 2^4 will be better :)
> But if you hide all stickers from the external layer, not only the invisible face, than yes, it's an interesting idea.

That is a new thought to hide entire cubies. I just realized that none
of this might add much challenge because I think a user could move all
of the hidden stickers into view using center-swapping sequences, solve
that layer in the open, and then swap them all back onto the outer face,
right? Hiding both the outer and inner faces would at least make it so
that at least some parts of any outer layer are always hidden. You may
be right that the standard 2^4 may be the best puzzle for this platform.

-Melinda

---