From: cyberoid@hitl.washington.edu (Bob Jacobson)
Subject: Re: comp.hci.* (was Re: Proposal to create sci.virtual-worlds.
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 20:49:23 GMT
Organization: HIT Lab, Seattle WA.



In article <1991Nov3.203405.3845@milton.u.washington.edu> dmark@acsu.buffalo.
edu (David Mark) writes:

>Personally, I think that VR best belongs under a comp.hci topic, as proposed
>by Craig Hubley.  All of hci, user interface design, 'cognitive engineering',
>etc., needs to have a strong current of behavioral science.  We need to know
>how people deal with the real world if we are to develop 'natural' ways
>for them to interact with computers to solve real-world problems.

David, I sympathize with your desire for an orderly, rationalistic approach
to the virtual-worlds paradigm, but that "strong current of behavioral 
science" (if you choose to believe that there can be a science of behavior, 
which is problematic at best) has yet to manifest itself within the computer 
world.  Observe the demise of the computer industry, partly a result of 
overproduction, partly the consequence of crappy design -- i.e., machinery 
which fits its creators', rather than users', visions and abilities.  This
irresistible tendency of machine builders to translate all issues into
matters of performance is well manifest in comp.human-factors, where the
minutiae of mouse performance and so forth dominate what could become a much
broader and challenging discussion (although anthropology occasionally 
intrudes to add some humor and insight).

For me, the virtual-worlds paradigm is larger than a computer issue or, for
that matter, a science issue -- but we have few hierarchical choices in the
USENET universe.  Where is design?  Where is experience?  Where is perception?
(The psychology newsgroups are awkwardly stuffed into science, also.)  And,
ultimately, where is philosophy and knowledge?  

This doesn't even begin to discuss the myriad issues raised when virtual-
worlds technology starts to be employed in fields like manufacturing and
education, or the arts and medical/emotional therapy.  You really want that
all to be indicated by a comp. designation?  I think not, once you consider
that we may even go beyond computers, as we know them today, in designing
tomorrow's virtual-worlds technology.

We could, of course, start subgroups here -- but I wonder if specialization
is yet merited for such an infant field?  And wouldn't that defeat the 
central premise of an integrated approach to human-centered technology?

Bob Jacobson
Moderator