From: "Genevieve Engel" <GENOL%UCCMVSA.BITNET@uccvma.ucop.edu>
Subject: Re: Danger of Immersive VR (Was Re: Any report on Bay area SIGGRAPH 
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 01:22:11 PST



From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)...

> reality in which the user (poor word choice!) *can't* get away

Thanks for mentioning this point about word choice.  I work in
(of course) User Services and I think I have come to view all of
society as The Users, myself included.  This was my word choice.
In fact, I can't really remember what word anyone at the SIGGRAPH
meeting was using <- there's that word again, or close!  I see you
prefer "participant" ... better, but it's a little long for me to
use <-! comfortably.  If your fears about manipulating the consumers
of VR prove true, maybe it would be most apt to call them "victims."
Although I must say, ever since the movie Tron, "user" has more
of a charming ring to it, for me, than it would otherwise have had.
We could always borrow from library terminology and call the
people who make use <-!! of VR services "patrons."

> In fact, it seems to me that the total immersion created by VR
> makes it incredibly corruptible...all it takes is a little
> experience in how to control the participants and lead them to what
> you want them to "want to experience".  The illusion of control in
> VR could be dangerous because

Yes, this sort of question was brought up by an audience member
in the q-&-a which followed.  Jaron Lanier allowed as how VR
wasn't strictly incorruptible but he was definitely convinced
that it is inherently more dependent on the creativity of the
person experiencing VR than are media such as TV.  And of course
Brenda Laurel was equally convinced that it would be entirely
too easy to corrupt the entire VR field.

Genny Engel
GENOL@UCCMVSA.BITNET <- preferred
gen@magnum.ucop.edu  <- last resort


[MODERATOR'S NOTE:  Is it the technology or the people behind the
technology whose corruptibility is at issue? -- Bob Jacobson]