From: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson)
Subject: "Virtual Reality"?  Spare Me. (Re: On-screen virtual worlds
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 18:34:54 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle



In article <1991Nov14.012900.9671@sol.cs.wmich.edu> amundson@sol.cs.wmich.
edu (Tugrik d'Itichi) writes:

>As long as that subject is up... I just recently downloaded a free
>demo by a company named "SuperScape Virtual Realities"... 
>
>According to the documentation, this company does small 'virtual designs'
>of projects and sites for people to walk-thru on their 286 or better;
>the demo is an ad for their services somewhat.

Not to put down SuperScape or its product, but this just shows how totally
debased is the term, "virtual reality."  Now, *anything* commercial is a 
virtual reality.  Mark Zobel recently reported on a conference at UCLA
on "Virtual Reality and Health" (I'm paraphrasing) where NOTHING had any-
thing to do with virtual environments, except that computer graphics were
involved.  

I find this not at all disturbing, as virtual reality from its very
inception was a code word with more commercial than metaphysical intent
(intended to attract buyers, that is, not Big Thinkers).  Some people
bought it at face value, including the press (which had its own commercial
inclinations).

So can we now go back and use terms that more meaningfully describe what
it is we are building and hoping to foist on an expectant public?  I still
return to Fred Brooks's useful term, "virtual worlds" and "virtual worlds
technology"; I can buy David Zeltzer's "virtual environments"; and Tom
Furness's "virtual interfaces" has appeal in a limited domain. 

But "virtual reality"?  Spare me.


Bob Jacobson
Moderator