From: vanevery@blarg.net (Brandon J. Van Every) Subject: Re: DESIGN: Is there really such a thing as text-based VR? Date: 2 Apr 1996 04:14:11 GMT Organization: Blarg! Online Services 206/441-9109 From: vanevery@blarg.net (Brandon J. Van Every) Marc Bernatchez (mbernat@gel.ulaval.ca) wrote: : 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% : >: > [stuff about qualitative vs. quantitative deleted] : 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. Sure... I would just like to see statistical tolerances on the order of +- 5% at a bare minimum. In my mind, the scientific purpose of using numbers is to increase accuracy. Also, the "thing" to be measured should be something other than a user opinion poll. I don't know/care whether 10,000 people think that "textual VR" has a "very poor degree of immersion" or whatnot. Used here, the qualitiative definition of "immersion" is too imprecise to support any form of measurement whatsoever. We need to be discussing how to make it more qualitatively precise, and not trying to quantify something which is hopelessly vague. FOV is a stab at the problem, but it has a very narrow focus. It's emminently measureable, but it doesn't really address the "immersion" question. Which is why I said "better FOV leads to better FOV." Also, for methodology: why give a weighted measure to "3d imagery," when it's a binary concept? Are there systems which exist in a hypothetical continuum between text and 3d imagery? As for "interaction or real-time response," are we talking about lag? What sort of lag? The speed at which text appears on the screen? The speed of the typist? What are we comparing this measurement to? The speed at which an HMD can track and deliver an augmented 3d image? We can compare the speeds, but are the information domains comparable? : 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. Ok, but let's get back to this question of "is textual VR really VR." One possibility is to put up strictures like "it must have 3d." That's comparable to saying "we don't really want to deal with the issue." That particular qualitative criteria says "no 3d = no VR." There's no point in trying to add additional authority via statistics. The authority is already vested in a scientific community that doesn't want to discuss non-3d options, as a matter of research perogative. A lot of people get around the problem of needing to talk about 3d and VR hardware, by instead discussing "Virtual Environments" or "Virtual Worlds." This leads to a question: what forms of "immersion" are intrinsic to 3d and/or VR hardware, and what forms are cleanly separable? It is within this latter domain, that people generally attempt to advance the claim that textual MUDs are, in fact, VR. It is also within this latter domain, that people attempt to claim that just about anything and everything, however spurious, is VR. Anyone want to try to put Occam's Razor to this one? :-) : 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. I'm afraid that the marketers will always shout louder and with more dollars than the scientists. :-) Cheers, -- Brandon J. Van Every | Check out Free3d, my 100% efficient, 100% portable | 3d lib, at . 3d Computer Graphics | C++ UNIX X11 Motif | E-mail: vanevery@blarg.net