From: chalmers@europarc.xerox.com (Matthew Chalmers)
Subject: Re: military information systems (LONG)
Date: 	Wed, 3 Jul 1991 08:01:07 PDT
Organization: Rank Xerox EuroPARC, Cambridge, UK



In article <1991Jul2.073232.18314@milton.u.washington.edu>, ISSSSM%NUSVM@UWAVM.U.WASHINGTON.EDU (Stephen Smoliar) writes:

> Therefore, for any manifestation of non-physical data, I think it makes sense
> to ask:  "How would we encounter it in the 'real world?'"  Nevertheless, this
> should probably be only a point of departure, rather than a final answer.  
> For
> example, casualty figures may be just that--a sheet of paper with numbers on
> them.  Often it is then necessary to do some demographic analysis.  Where 
> were
> the casualties sustained, for example?  Now you are faced with the problem of
> integrating data you first received on your sheet of paper with your 
> "physical"
> map.  If the map were "real," you might make marks on it to indicate which
> losses were incurred where;  again, you would like to expect to do the same
> in a virtual reality.  The general principle, then, is to start with how we
> would expect to encounter a physical manifestation of the data and then 
> proceed
> to integrate those expectations into the capabilities of the virtual
> environment.

This seems like the most common approach to VR - to always use realism as the
driving metaphor for developing representations of physical entities. I think 
the recent VR and cyberspace conferences have begun to point out the weaknesses of
this approach. This is not to say that modelling 'reality' is not a viable and
informative approach.. it's just that it may not always the best and it may not
compete with the existing physical systems or perhaps some less realistic 
virtual method.

Paper is wierd stuff. It is *everywhere*. Okay, so I do work for Xerox, and it sells
something like 2000 sheets of paper each year for every person on earth. This 
is not
a statement of pride - it seems shocking to me - but things like that make me 
step
back a second to consider to what extent VR can or will compete with paper.

As a graphics display medium paper has some nice properties: the imaging 
resolution
is far better than can be handled by most computer display media; you can take
it just about anywhere; you can scribble and sketch with a freedom and 
expressiveness unmatched by any electronic medium; you can write over it and 
leave 
a history of changes and comments in ways very few electronic systems can; it 
is
fairly cheap and persistent, and finally we have this massive culture 
associated
with its use. Personal libraries are especially interesting things.. just look how
fast some (but not all, I know) people can access relatively small pieces of
information from really quite large bodies of text on their shelves, racks, 
files, etc.

Of course there are negative aspects: paper is just a chunk of mashed-up dead 
wood,
bleach, clay and stuff, and so its capacity for intelligence or variability is
rather limited. Most significantly, the ability to interact with other pieces 
or
repositories of information is very constrained. I realise Pierre Wellner 
and others
may have something to say about this, and I'll leave more of that to them.

Instead I would just say that I am becoming less convinced that *all* our
information will be taken into, and manipulated within, a "virtual information
environment".  Even though I am working on such things I can't help thinking 
that VR is not going to supersede paper and its pervasive use. Instead we 
should
look towards VR systems that - in both display hardware and information 
management
software - work with paper-based information environments (e.g. my desk and my
office). This doesn't just mean half-silvered lenses or desktop scanner/ocr 
machines.
It means tools that swiftly and usefully shift information to and fro over the
virtual/physical border. So swiftly and easily so that the distinction between them
becomes blurred. Sure, certain forms of information representation will be 
better
suited to one medium or another, but that's something we should accept and use.

This is not an appeal to cut down more rainforests. It's an appeal to chip at 
the 
base of the pedestal we put computers on. Make them useful and not just flashy.

 
Or better still, make them useful *and* flashy...

Regards,

--Matthew