From: chalmers@europarc.xerox.com (Matthew Chalmers)
Subject: Re: Computerized Reality: Better than VR
Date: 	Thu, 25 Jul 1991 06:42:02 PDT
Organization: Rank Xerox EuroPARC, Cambridge, UK



In article <1709@cvbnetPrime.COM>, gbooman@feds1.prime.com (Gordon Booman) 
writes:

  In some ways, these examples sound like computerized reality.
> Assuming transparent and portable VR, it seems like VR has most of the
> advantages.  VR objects are there when you need them but can be freely
> destroyed and recreated.  VR objects have no restrictions on
> interaction methods.  VR objects don't have physical connectivity
> problems.  VR objects don't have physical limitations on placement (or
> in any way).  The only advantage I see for CR is that it is inherently
> multi-user.  Perhaps rich people will have VR and the poor will share CR,
> but guessing at the economics of VR vs CR is hazardous.
> 
>   Is it reasonable to assume transparent and portable VR?  I think the
> problems to be solved here are comparable to the networking and
> display problems associated with computerized reality, at least when
> one imagines computerized paper and post-its.  Probably less.
> 
> Gordon Booman  gbooman@feds1.prime.com  Prime/Computervision, Bedford, MA, 
> USA

I don't think that VR objects have "no" restrictions on interaction
methods. They have different ones. For a start, you can't use them
without significant computer support and without using devices which
are specialised to the computer. Pens are good for some things on 
paper that are hopeless with e-Pens on a machine. DataGloves are great
for interacting with other computational models that have no real
counterpart or competitor in the physical world.

One need not imagine computerized paper alone. One can consider the
greater possibilities arising from the combination of, for example,
wood pulp paper as well as electronic notepads as well as electronic
post-its as well as the whole scale of devices on up to a full-blown
VR workstation with goggles, gloves and erogenous tactile feedback.
This compounds the already big problems with networking and display,
of course, but what the hell. My point is that we should be prepared 
for intransigence from lots of less technogeeky folks like ourselves -
intransigence which has fairly substantial bases to do with their
own generally fairly useful non-computer-based skills as well as
their technophobia. They have their own set of "transparent and
portable" tools that serve *some* situations well. Our click will
happen when that natural use extends into the types of systems that
offer better solutions for appropriately VR tasks, not systems for
different and/or weaker solutions for the tasks done *tolerably*
well elsewhere.

Regards,

--Matthew