From: wellner@europarc.xerox.com (Pierre D. Wellner)
Subject: Re: Computerized Reality: Better than VR
Date: 	Fri, 19 Jul 1991 13:58:15 PDT
Organization: Rank Xerox EuroPARC, Cambridge, UK


Bob Jacobson writes

> In fact, most people do NOT use computers to get work done...

As Maurice Sharp correctly assumed, I originally meant that most
people who use computers are only doing it because they are trying to
get something else done (write a paper, calculate this year's profits
etc.)  But the unintended meaning (that most people use
computers) is true too!  Mark Weiser's classic example is that there
are dozens of computers in an average car. Other examples include
digital watches, microwave ovens and answering machines. And we don't
just use microprocessors:  the ubiquitous telephone is simply a
terminal to what may be the largest computer system in existence.  The
stereo, the cash register, automatic tellers... the list goes on.

Bob Jacobson:

> 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

Yes, we have exactly the same goal: to help people accomplish what
they want to more easily.  Virtual worlds are one way of doing this. 
"Computerized Reality," "Embodied Virtuality," or "Computer Enhanced
Reality" is another.  My claim (and I'll admit that I was trying to
stir up a little controversy here) is that the second approach is
better.  As designers of systems that use computers to help people
accomplish something, we will have the greatest success if we can
integrate computers seamlessly into the familiar real world rather
than force people to enter a separate, unfamiliar, virtual world.

Jack "Black Master" Gerrissen writes

> Does not that *real* world of yours ever change, Pierre?

A good point.  Of course we are always trying to change the world; if
we wanted it to stay exactly the same we wouldn't build new systems.
I am not saying we shouldn't change the real world. But I *am* saying
that we should change it in a way that is upwardly-compatible.  Don't
*replace* the existing world with a virtual world.  Instead, add new
features to the real world.  If the new features are successful and
accepted, then they too become part of the user's real world (e.g.
the car, the telephone).  This new computerized reality can then
itself be further enhanced or "computerized."

Greg Alt - Perp  writes:

>There are many reasons why jotting down info on virtual paper would be
>better than real paper. Imagine having a spelling/grammer checker built
>into your notepad...

Yes, but why use "virtual" paper?  Why not the *real* stuff?
After all, it's what we're used to, its cheap, portable, etc. Phillip
Jay and Tom Barker at the Royal College of Art in London have
designed something they call the "velocity pen."  Phillip says
"What's really special about this pen is that it is just an ordinary
pen." It has some extra "computerized" features, however.  Whenever
you write something with it, it digitally captures what you write. 
The writing can then be transmitted to other places: your TV, fax
machine, etc. He envisions that you could retrieve phone numbers
written weeks ago on a beer mat, or that it could perform
calculations on the things you write.  It's a real pen that works
with real paper, so people already know how to use it, but because it
captures everything digitally, there is a whole new world of things
that can be done with what is written with it. Unfortunately this pen
is just a design at this point and there's not even a real working
prototype.  The ideas and philosophy behind it however, are perfect
examples of computerized reality/embodied virtuality.  

~Pierre