From: sharp@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Maurice Sharp) Subject: Re: Computerized Reality: Better than VR Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 23:04:16 GMT Message-ID: <1991Jul17.230416.16895@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> Organization: U. of Calgary Computer Science In article <1991Jul17.220228.14074@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u. washington.edu (Bob Jacobson) writes: >In fact, most people do NOT use computers to get work done. Most people I think the original poster meant that most people who USE computers, do use them to get some sort of work done. That is, there is a task or tasks they are trying to accomplish, and the computer is (possibly) aiding them in completing these tasks. >Virtual worlds are not a substitute for the onscreen (usually visual, >non-aural) interface. They are a replacement for that inadequate inter- >face. This is an unwarrented/unjustified blanket statement. Yes, current interface technology is not the best it could possibly be. But then no one has determined what that 'best' is. Some people say it is making the computer as toollike as possible. After all, who actually thinks about the hammer they are using ? Another camp talks about making the computer as 'human' as possible. That is, interact by speech, or whatver, in a way that humans currently interact. Also, in some cases the interface is perfectly adequate. I would say there are definate areas where VR (I prefer the nomen Computer Simulated Environments) can be of great use, but these should be identified (see below for why it is not likely to be all pervasive). >They are a design paradigm that comes at information collection, >manipulation, and management from the standpoint of the person, not the >machine. Of course this is an ideal, which is why the current round of >virtual interface technology feels so disappointing: it is still operat- >ing on the margins of acceptability (although the new VPL Eyephones HRX >are pretty smooth, and 3D sound works now). In the future, virtual worlds >will increasingly come to resemble the real world, which computer terminals >never can. Perhaps one thing to bear in mind is that the community does not agree on just what VR *is*. A simple perusal of the 2nd (or even 1st) conference on Cyberspace will show you that. You are talking about a particular approach to VR that is based purely in technology. >But the main point of my little dialogue with Pierre is that virtual >worlds are more than a better way to use computers. They are conceived >as a better way to do many things, in which computers are involved but >not necessarily the central issue. Computo-centrism is a lot like >auto-centrism: it occludes alternative solutions to basic human >problems, like how to learn, to commmunicate, and to do the everyday >things that provide for a good life. Perhaps a better term for this is Computer Enhanced Reality. For a wonderful example of what could be done, see the paper/talk by Wendy Kellogg and John Carroll from the First Conference on Cyberspace. I believe it is called 'Making Reality a Cyberspace'. I do not see the utility of a VR that is so close to reality that for all practicle purposes it is one. That is, why should I bother using compute time to jot down notes on a virtual piece of paper when I could jot them down on the real thing ? Will I be able to find that little bit of information any easier ? Perhaps, perhaps not. If my perception and interaction with the VR is what controls how I find the information, I will still have to dig through all those piles of virtual paper to find that one note. If I do not think about new ways of dealing with information, I do not gain anything from VR. Under the view you seem to have, the emphasis should be on new ways of information handling. And on user training (oops, there is that training again). What I am trying to say is that *ANY* new way of dealing with information or the world requires training. The more unusual the method, the more training it requires. If you want to have some neat ways of finding information in a virtual space, you have to learn how to use them (possibly even make them work). VR is *not* a silver bullet. It is another possible way to approach a far older problem. It may even make the information problem much worse than we ever imagined. My contention is we need more theory. How do people deal with information ? How do people act and interact ? How do people view themselves (certainly not as a disembodied hand) ? How will people react to a persavice immersive computer technology (just look at the Frankenstein Complex) ? How do we produce VR in a socially responsible way ? What about gender, minorities, ... ? Some of these questions came up at CyberConf, some will come up. Some have partial answers. All of them can be investigated now, despite the primitive state of the technology. In fact, the Banff project is about investigating some of these points (more on that at a later date). The bottom line is that discussions like this (and forums like this) are great places to come to terms with what VR is. And to try and decide what the real issues are, and even how to approach them. So post your ideas here, and be ready for constructive crit (I know I am :-)) maurice Maurice Sharp Technical Coordinator, Art and Virtual Environments Project (403) 289 5462 / 762 6194 FAX (403) 281 0204 / 762 6659 #206 - 2010 Ulster Road N.W. sharp@cpsc.UCalgary.CA Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4C2 AOL: FSAMaurice Maurice Sharp MSc. Student (403) 220 7690 University of Calgary Computer Science Department 2500 University Drive N.W. sharp@cpsc.UCalgary.CA Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 AOL FSAMaurice