which I believe is better than today's de-facto solution.
Better or worse are subjective terms, one can only compare individual parameters. At least that's how academic work should be. Standards these days are pretty low and rarely used to advance the field.
I seem to remember that such thesis requires one to form a hypothesis, then verify it and attempt to confirm it.
Such work therefore proposes a new technique which improves something. Perhaps the time required to place of boxes on flat surface. Then one would run an experiment, define demographic, the usual workflow, compatibility with existing tools and toolchains, evaluate the responses based on some questionnaire, perform a statistical analysis and finally conclude, if results are statistically significant, that technique improves (or not) certain aspect.
Reason I mention this is because lack of scientific method in favor of empty words keeps computer science from being acknowledged as scientific field, at least one of any relevance.
As it took me 2 years to do my master's degree, believe me, I know the scientific method. I've used it during that time.
Here, all I said is that I believe this method is better - which is my opinion. I didn't say it is better. However, it is better at certain things, as numerous experiments have shown (as outlined in the results section of my thesis). In fact, it's faster by a factor of 2-3x in terms of task execution time, with somewhat higher accuracy - for specific tasks that we've measured it against traditional systems.
That's why I'm pretty open to just say better, because the difference (in task time) is so highly significant. If it were a difference of 10-15% I would use more scientifically-accurate terms.
run into trouble once they see it?
No, they won't break your knees or put you to sleep with the fishes.
But it can cause trouble if the technique is advertised as better, but some designer points out there is a very important reason why UED doesn't use it.
And everything else in between. Trouble is again subjective.
As for usage of UED in video, that's up to legal teams all around the world. Or anyone else - YT doesn't disciminate when it receives a takedown notice and simply declares you guilty until proven innocent.
If trouble applies to losing your only copy, then instead consider buying two USB drives and keeping a local copy there.
I just wonder if I'm breaking any copyright laws by showing a video of UnrealEd. I would prefer if they didn't take down this video.
After all, I could've used any other implementation that uses the standard widgets technique: Valve's Hammer, 3ds Max, Maya, SketchUp, or even my own custom implementation of it. I just happened to use UnrealEd because I liked it.
Like Antheus said better is a relative turn. What if you want to make a map with floating objects, also wall and ceiling objects like lamps need to be floating. The system of ued is a lot more versatile then the one you are presenting.
Yes, it's quite easy to think of exceptional cases where this interface would lose its advantage. However, if you look at most video games and rendered movies, the vast majority has gravity or other attachment mechanisms and very few objects float in mid-air.
Of course, this sliding system has ways of dealing with exceptions. In the end, you can just fall back to the widgets approach and have the same power/control.
The sliding technique is there to be used when you just want to quickly move an object (or hundreds of objects) somewhere and not worry too much about the exact positioning.
I only think this system is a improvement when it is added to the current system of ued. Like a hotkey that switched you to and from your system to the original system.
That's exactly how it's meant to be. It's just another tool you can select for moving objects. I don't want to take out or remove functionality. Just replace the default with one that's more optimized to the average use case.