From: madsax@milton.u.washington.edu (Mark A. DeLoura)
Subject: FAQ Regarding Definition of VR (Was Re: VR defined)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 02:10:31 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle



In article <1991Oct16.144950.23580@milton.u.washington.edu> Christopher Fry 
<70353.3056@CompuServe.COM> writes:

>Excerpts from an as-yet unpublished article by me on nanotechnology and 
>virtual reality:
>
>"Virtual reality is the study of interfaces between human and machine. VR 
>takes these interfaces to their logical extreme, forcing the interface to make
>the machine appear as simple and natural as possible without sacrificing 
>flexibility and functionality. In a sense, VR is nothing new, just an 
>extension of the millennium-old endeavor of making better axe handles for rock
>"machines." Better interfaces have allowed us to reliably control more and 
>more complex machines. Now, the only machine worth considering is the 
>computer." 
>...
>"It's easy to equate VR (or nanotechnology) with the study of everything 
>humans and machines can do. To be useful though, I'm limiting the definition 
>of VR to pertain to our immediate senses. Let's be careful to include, 
>however, those physical senses within our body as well as those without."
>...
>
>When the article comes out, I'll let sci.virtual-worlds know where.

Not to offend, but this definition to me sounds more like hype than
much else.  We need an *objective* definition, not a *subjective* one.
That's difficult.  I've been pondering over it for about the past
month, as I think about what would be appropriate for the FAQ.

We need to make a difference between VR and AR and EV,
and it would be nice to talk about the enhanced sense of presence
which you get in VR as opposed to the others.  Other good things
to have in a definition would include common setups which people
most commonly term VR.  The VPL setup is the most common in 
this regard-- Head-Mounted Display, Glove... though it should
be definitely pointed out that not all VR systems are so
intrusive.

It seems a lot like a technology is most easily defined by the
equipment people use to produce it-- perhaps that's the route
we should take here.

===============================================================================
Mark A. DeLoura    madsax@milton.u.washington.edu      University of Washington
               sci.virtual-worlds co-moderator/librarian