From: jwtlai@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai)
Subject: Re:  Definition of Virtual Reality
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1991 19:27:27 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Oct25.192727.4988@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Organization: University of Waterloo


In article <1991Oct25.062115.6320@milton.u.washington.edu> salnick@dejavu.spk.wa.us (Bob Salnick) writes:
>In article <1991Oct21.075940.625@milton.u.washington.edu> mck@YP.melb.bull.com
>(Mike Kitchen) writes:
>>I attended a short (2 hour) seminar last week entitled "Be There And Here:
>>Telepresence and Virtual Reality" presented by Dr Brenda Laurel of
>>Telepresence Research, Inc.
>>
>>Early in her presentation she discussed the label *Virtual Reality* and
>>said that she wasn't too happy with it.  She has no problem with *Virtual*
>>but with *Reality* she was not comfortable at all.  If I understood her
>>correctly, she felt *reality* was too ambiguous a term.  One person's
>>reality is another's fantasy, etc.  She preferred the term *Telepresence*
>>to more adequately (?) label what the work in this new field is trying to
>>acheive.
>>
>Not to re-start this (it has already restarted itself!), I agree entirely with
>the
>term virtual reality.  Telepresence is an accurate description of experiencing
>presence at a distance...

How about virtual telepresence?  We could then talk about VT and force the
would-be hypers in the media to start from scratch again.