hm, one puts the low point in the middle of act II, the other at the end. Rather important difference.

I did find this rather interesting take on the 3-act structure, though. Not sure if it's what you're looking for :-)
--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?

In an interesting coincidence, just before you posted this, I finally got a loose outline for my novel that I liked.

The reason I mention this is because while looking through the Google results and finding the link I posted in my other comment, I realised that the reason I liked my outline was that it (approximately) followed the three-act structure I was reading about... as do a lot of other stories which I like.

After a couple of days, I've come to the conclusion that it isn't that the three-act structure is right, it's that good stories have certain dramatic elements at certain points in the story. The three-act structure is a formalism that takes those dramatic elements and sets them out in an easy to follow way that is suitable for movies. Novels have similar dramatic elements, and a slightly different formalism for describing them.

While you can't use the two formalisms completely interchangeably (or the one for TV, or for short stories), you can study the formalisms for other media to better understand your own.

So in short, if you're working on a novel, by all means read up on the three-act structure, but don't worry too much about the little discrepancies in the different descriptions of it :-)
--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?