From: wellner@europarc.xerox.com (Pierre D. Wellner)
Subject: Computerized Reality: Better than VR
Date: 	Tue, 16 Jul 1991 07:43:44 PDT
Organization: Rank Xerox EuroPARC, Cambridge, UK




Virtual worlds are lots of fun, but the real world is often better for 
real work.  A virtual world can create environments that are completely 
different from anything users experience in the real world.  This can 
have advantages, but if the environments and objects are too unreal, 
users can't rely on their knowledge and experience to use the system.

Users want to learn the *minimum* possible.  The best systems are 
designed to be familiar to users, and it is real world objects and 
environments that are most familiar.  The more a system is like the 
real world, the easier it is to learn, and the easier it will be to use 
(hence the "desktop metaphor,"  "direct manipulation," etc.).   If it's 
good to resemble the real world, then it's even better to *be* the real 
world!

Most people use computers to get work done.  Most computer applications 
are synthetic worlds that users interact with to accomplish a task.  
Even the conventional workstation/PC "desktop" is a kind of virtual world, 
completely seperate from the physical world.   But why force users to 
abandon the real world?  Instead, we can add computer functionality to 
the real world the user is already fammiliar with.

Take the example of computer music.  Traditional musical instruments 
existed long before computers.  They've had a long time to evolve, and 
people know how to use them.  Now with computers we can create all sorts 
of fantastic soundsf and very interesting music.  What should the inter-
face to the computer be like?  Should it use a mouse and pull down menus?  
Should it be "like" the real world and allow the user to mouse-click on 
the screen displaying piano keys?  The whole-hog VR approach would use 
eyephones and a dataglove to play virtual instruments (and it's been 
done with virtual drums).

In this example, the interface to computers for playing music is clearly 
"computerized reality" instead of "virtual reality."  For percussion 
sounds, we put a sensor in a rubber drum pad.  It feels like and can be 
used like a real drum. For other sounds, computerized keyboards and 
guitars are very successful.  This is because musicians can use them 
like the instruments they are familiar with, but with the benefit of 
new electronic features.

Many other applications (both existing and new) benefit from this 
approach. Much of the technology (sensors and display devices) of 
virtual reality can be used for computerized reality  instead (but 
eyephones should be made so you can see through them). If it is pos-
sible to implement an application with virtual reality, it is probably 
possible to implement it with computerized reality instead.  I think 
the second approach (to integrate the computer applicaton with the 
existing real world) is better.  I've been taking this approach in my 
own work: computerizing the physical desk top.  The goal is to allow 
the user to continue interacting with familiar objects almost as before, 
but with added computer functionality.

Pierre

[usual disclaimers apply]


[MODERATOR'S NOTE:  Not to be unfair to "computer functionality," but
you, the reader, are able to interact with this posting because the
moderator took 10 minutes to reformat it for legibility.  I make this
point not to chastise Pierre, who is a new (and welcome) poster, but
to suggest that there is more to the use of computers than just sitting
down and plunking away.  Also, this is a reminder to all participants:
PLEASE FORMAT YOUR POSTINGS with a 70 or 75 character line.  Thanks.
-- Bob Jacobson]