From: cyberoid@hitl.washington.edu (Bob Jacobson)
Subject: Re: sci.vw.tech
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 19:44:48 GMT
Organization: HIT Lab, Seattle WA.



In article <1991Dec2.193156.3866@milton.u.washington.edu> jim@baroque.
stanford.edu (James Helman) writes:

>Regarding:
>
>        sci.virtual-worlds              general discussion
>        sci.virtual-worlds.homebrew     "low-end" technical
>        sci.virtual-worlds.professional "high-end" technical
>
>The "high-end"/"low-end" distinction is one of the most artificial I
>can imagine.  
>
>[Argumentation deleted]
>
>... [I]f a new group must be formed, I agree with Dave Stampe's
>suggestion of adding sci.virtual-worlds.tech as a forum for technical
>discussions and leaving the societal, CHI, CyberSpatial and
>application issues to the parent group.  Yes, there's still overlap
>especially when it comes to software architectures, but I think it's a
>much fairer split.

A split between technology development and applications would not be in
the best interests of the field, either.  It would risk the two never
converging, at least in this forum.  (I don't understand what is meant by
"CHI" in "leaving the societal, CHI, CyberSpatial and application
issues to the parent group.")  I appreciate the need to bind together
high and low end participants, but there are people right now 
working with PowerGloves, MUDs, and other "low-end" devices who want
more explicit discussion and who will not be availing themselves of 
larger systems for some time to come.  And the reverse is true, among
those who want to build sophisticated applications and who are not
involved in 386-based on-screen worlds.

More discussion!

Bob Jacobson
Moderator