From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: Defining VR : must it be so visual?
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1991 05:19:36 GMT
Organization: eklektix


lro@YP.melb.bull.com (Liam Routt) writes:

>        Maybe I am in the minority here, but I can't help asking "why does
>virtual reality have to be defined with the idea of a visual/tactile, etc.
>representation?"

I'm not sure I'm clear on the sense of your question, but I think the dis-
cussion tends to focus on the interface because that's where we grasp "what
we do with the thing".  The visual interface is big because that's the way
most of us get most of our information.  If you look at one of the problems
of virtual reality as "how do we widen the interface between human and com-
puter to something much larger than the current pinhole?" that problem
tends to become a matter of visual-interface.

>        If we are indeed talking about "virtual" realities, then why do we
>have to limit what we accept to things that have all of the (fancy) visual
>aids?  Is it not the case that a "reality" of some sort can be built and
>maintained without the super visual interface?...

I don't think the "super visual interface" is essential--if one reads the
sense of virtual reality as making enough of your mind think you're in some
situation other than (say) sitting in front of a computer terminal, by
whatever means.  But the metaphors for visual presentation are already all
around us (photos, movies, videos), so that's the way we approach it.

Perhaps it would be easier to get a handle on what you're suggesting we
focus on instead of the fancy visuals if you said more about where you
think we should focus.  I can see part of the point I think you're trying
to make, but not enough.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.