From: fair@whitehead.iss.nus.sg (Kim Michael Fairchild)
Subject: Re: Defining VR : must it be so visual?
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 10:35:35 GMT
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore



In article <1991Oct26.035234.14070@milton.u.washington.edu> lro@YP.melb.bull.
com (Liam Routt) writes:

>        Maybe I am in the minority here, but I can't help asking "why does
>virtual reality have to be defined with the idea of a visual/tactile, etc.
>representation?"
>
>        If we are indeed talking about "virtual" realities, then why do we
>have to limit what we accept to things that have all of the (fancy) visual
>aids?  Is it not the case that a "reality" of some sort can be built and
>maintained without the super visual interface?  Or is it felt that reality
>_must_ have the visual/tactile, etc. interface?  That seems really limiting.
>
> ... I have been more convinced by the work on interactive
>systems such as MUDs and MOOs, than I have by anything I personally have seen
>that is labeled as a VR.  The MUDs (some at least) have a more consistent and
>pervasive definition, for me, than semi-abstract boxes and colors.


I definitely believe that you are in a minority here, but a minority
of which I am also a member. In our Virtual Reality interest group
here in Singapore, I have tried to convince the other 14 or so members
that a head-mount-display is not required to have virtual reality. 

Like you, I have found that text-based, multi-player, and persistent
games currently more persuasive VRs than high-end systems like the Tom
Furness's "Super Cockpit" at Wright-Patterson. I believe there is
something called "buy-in" that influences the acceptance of the
computer technology as reality.

People must invest part of themselves into the virtual space. If they
perceive that there is something in the space that is important to
them then they start "believing" in the space and invest part of their
egos.

The first VR I experienced was a wondrous multi-player game called
"Scepter" at the University of Minnesota about 12 years ago. We all
had 300 baud output and a horrible text-based interface but after many
hours of competing and cooperating with our mostly anonymous
colleagues, we all had complete buy-in. Everything in the VR mattered
to us. I recall waking up the morning after a late-night session
feeling great and then suddenly remembering that I killed myself off
at 3 in the morning. I felt suddenly horrible. 

VRs with more "buy-in" can be built as the hardware technology matures
but I believe that the current HW is somewhat of a cheat. People get
initially excited but no one I know wears a helmet mounted display
everyday. The general public and new people in VR focuses too much on
devices. The devices will come along without all of our participation
in their development. 

>        I guess all I am saying is: isn't there a point to discussing parts
>of VR that are not related to the special interfaces (like the insides of any
>representation of the "real world")?

Yes, I would suggest thinking about group-access, information
visualization, interface styles, application areas, object behaviour,
what supports "buy-in", and other softer issues as more productive for
most of us.


Kim Michael Fairchild
Institute of Systems Science
National University of Singapore