From: sharp@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Maurice Sharp) Subject: Re: Computerized Reality: Better than VR Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 02:05:37 GMT Message-ID: <1991Jul19.020537.28904@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> Organization: U. of Calgary Computer Science In article <1991Jul18.183614.7808@milton.u.washington.edu> Harry Fearnhamm writes: >And then again the virtual piece of paper will kill no trees, will not >need a separate OCR device to convert into some other textual >representation, will be parseable as a source of commands for the same >reason.... I agree with the trees comment. The rest I am not so sure about. All are good arguments, though they are more general that VR. for instance, the input could be via keyboard, via a pen based interface, ... All of that also bypasses trees, OCR, etc. The statement about 'source of commands' is interesting. However, given the almost complete lack of success in natural language understanding in anything except highly constrained domains (and grammers), I hardly think the average person (perhaps even user) would be able to use that form of input. >There are many benefits for doing something which not only >needs no new learning, but which also is more or less instantly >changeable into something else, because it will only exist as a >sequence of bytes somewhere. If we imagine a virtual control console, >it is quite obvious that this can be upgraded (more inputs, more >processors, more outputs) with very little physical effort (I mean the >`copying', not the software development), possibly being downloaded >from the distributing company. There is no new learning in using the pen and paper paradigm, however there is new learning in any new functionality attached to the information. After all, what use is the information if there are no new ways of dealing with it, and new ways equals learning. >Having said that, I for one would be most disappointed if no one >bothered to try out new ways of interacting with information.... I do not disagree with learning new ways of interacting or new ways of dealing with information. What I said in my original posting is that VR was *not* a silver bullet. And so far no one has disagreed. VR as a computer simulated reality is no easier to use for the first time person as a Macintosh or a PC. It will be just as difficult to use any features that give a user leaverage on what they need to do. maurice Maurice Sharp Technical Coordinator, Art and Virtual Environments Project (403) 289 5462 / 762 6194 FAX (403) 281 0204 / 762 6659 #206 - 2010 Ulster Road N.W. sharp@cpsc.UCalgary.CA Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4C2 AOL: FSAMaurice -- Maurice Sharp MSc. Student (403) 220 7690 University of Calgary Computer Science Department 2500 University Drive N.W. sharp@cpsc.UCalgary.CA Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 AOL FSAMaurice [MODERATOR'S NOTE: Looking for a silver bullet in any field is a neces- sarily frustrating experience. R&D costs a lot and takes a long time because it is difficult to create the perfect anything. However, I will take an exception to Maurice on a central point: the pencil and paper paradigm itself incorporates a number of personal learning skills, most of which most people cannot manage sufficiently accurately. Handwriting is often completely erratic from person to person, and written language is mishandled by at least 20 percent and maybe more adults in North America. Sketching and artistic expression, while common for youngsters, appears to be a skill that atrophies quickly as one "learns" how to com- municate as an adult. So neither is pencil and paper a silver bullet. [I have been through an architectural walkthrough that, rendered in 3D, totally surpassed the onscreen performance of a model with greater 2D fidelity. I *knew* where I was at. If you will specify spatial problems, you will find VR to be a remarkably adept interface, even with today's limitations. -- Bob Jacobson]