From: mbernat@gel.ulaval.ca (Marc Bernatchez)
Subject: Re: DESIGN: Is there really such a thing as text-based VR?
Date: 29 Mar 1996 22:13:55 GMT
Organization: Departement de genie electrique, Universite Laval


From: mbernat@gel.ulaval.ca (Marc Bernatchez)

>: >>: 	1- 3D imagery -> 0% in text based MUDs
>: >>: 	2- Immersion   -> 0% or very poor
>: >>: 	3- Interaction (real-time response) -> 70%
>: >>
>: >>: average score: 23%
>: >

>I understand what you're _trying_ to do in terms of "numerical sense."
>You're trying to establish a common ground of discussion.  But if your
>numbers are so wildly inaccurate, then I don't see that you've added
>any precision to the discussion.  Why not just admit that the domain
>being argued is qualitative, and deal with it in terms of qualitative
>discussion?  When I first read your numbers, I took them to be a mere
>paraphrase of what you had already said qualitatively in full English
>sentences.


Not really. Even if the number I used are not very accurate, they can
still express better the weighing I'm giving on each item
above. Saying 70% of interaction is better than saying "MUDs have a
certain degree of interactivity" even if the 70% is quite
unprecise. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not the kind of person who
loves mathematics and put all in terms of numbers. It may look that
way but it's not the case. Though, some times, I find the use of
number to be quite practical. You know, there's nothing wrong in
trying to make a bridge between qualitative datas and more numerical
(quantitatives ones). There are many fields which use much of this
qualitative <-> quantitative conversion. Economist are only an
example. How do you put numbers on workers efficiency or learning
curve? Very controvertial it can be, but it has been done.

I do understand your concerns Brandon. Either ways of attacking the
problem may be good. It's a question of tastes. Seing that
qualitatives talk don't seems to make it, I thought that a
quantitative approach could be better.

>: The numbers are just my numeric
>: representation of subjective impressions. To get better figures, it
>: would be necessary to get a large sample of people putting their
>: numbers on each item above. Then it would be much tighter.
>
>What you have just described is a Democracy, not analytical insight.

It's more than democratic. It's a Statistical way of doing
things. Statistics are exactly the kind of scientific branch which
tries to link qualitative to quantitative.

>I guess I'm just soap-boxing from my anthropology background.  We
>can't/don't need to put numbers on everything.  There's nothing wrong
>with qualitative analysis - it is often the right tool for the job.  I
>think it's definitely the right tool for answering "is text-based VR
>really VR."  Measurements have their place, as long as you actually
>have something to measure.  If you can't, then ethnographies are a
>better tool.

It's okay. I understand your point of view and it's quite
respectable. There is no unique way of attacking a problem. Often,
many solutions are possibles.

>
>: Robin, I'm not convinced about the last statement. You can't argue
>: that the better the FOV, the better the immersion feeling you will
>: get... And the presence feeling too will be enhanced. If you could get
>: a high resolution 180 degrees FOV HMD, I'm sure you would jump on it
>: and throw the lower FOV HMD away. True? So your feelings tells you to
>: go for the better hardware device. It's not about content. Well it's
>: content because the image quality is a part of this content. Better
>: resolution and FOV leads to better content (more info, more
>: interesting, etc.).
>
>And yet just because your images have a higher frequency resolution,
>doesn't make them have better "content."  Content is a problem for
>artists.

Then again, it's a matter of what you understand by content. But, if I
remember the way that Robin expressed it, you are probably right about
the interpratation of "content". I think that we used "immersion" on a
more technical stand point (FOV and resolution) and "content" as the
more artistic point of view. Probably, yes.

>  We might as well admit that "better resolution and FOV"
>leads to better resolution and FOV, and not anything else in
>particular.  i.e. we talk about FOV because it's a quantifiable and
>tractable problem, not because it implies any qualitative result.
>
>That's really been the whole nature of this "textual VR" discussion.
>On the one hand: people who only wish to discuss the quantitative.  On
>the other, people who wish to discuss te qualitative.  Why mix and
>match?

I didn't felt that way Brandon. I, for one, welcome such qualitative
inputs even if I opted for a more numerical approach. Well, yes, I do
admit that I tend to be more on the technical side. By example, to me,
VR is a very technical thing. You must use technological means to
achieve VR in my mind. An artist claimming that his paints are virtual
worlds don't understand the term VR as I do. This kind of spreading of
the term VR is what caused so much hype around. At the limit, every
thing is VR. That's the way it goes, VR is soo much cool (century's
buz word could we say) that every one want to take advantage of the
momentum and call their product VR by example. This tendency must be
controled by firmly describing and imposing a definition of what a VR
system is and what it is not. Most importantly, once a definition has
been reached, we must educate the public so that they are able to
discriminate by themselves. This way only would the hype diminish and
hopefully dissapear.

Thanks for your inputs Brandon, 

Bye.

 Marc Bernatchez             |  E-mail: mbernat@gel.ulaval.ca
 C.O.P.L. (local plt-00307)  |============================================    
 Dep. Genie electrique       |  http://www.gel.ulaval.ca/~mbernat
 Universite LAVAL            |  http://www.imaginative.com/VResources
 Quebec, Canada              |============================================
 G1K 7P4                     | Virtual Reality is the future of computers