From: "Brandon J. Van Every" Subject: Re: PHIL: Discutions about VR definitions Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 14:33:04 -0800 From: "Brandon J. Van Every" >Well, I do care of what 10,000 people and up would have to >say about this issue. Don't underestimate people's intelligence. >The more people are involved >in such a vote, the greater the chance that the interpretation of the term >"immersion" is correct in regard with the final score I would get. >That is, given that the voters are knowledgeable enough about VR. Actually, I'd be somewhat concerned that "knowledge of VR" would skew the results. If the 10,000 people you ask are scientific researchers within the VR community, and they already have strong biases agaisnt "textual MUDs," then the answer is already a foregone conclusion. The minority voice is probably where the insight lies. I think we have to be very careful about what is Statistics, and what is Democracy masquerading as analytical insight. >It's my opinion. You >know, every term is strongly subject to interpretation. >The thing to see here >is that even if it sounds very vague to you what >these VR related terms really >does mean, they are very focused terms. >Ask people on the streets what is "immersion", "FOV", >"angular resolution". There you will get very sparse > definitions or none because these are very specific VR related terms. >For us, in the field, it sounds large, but for them it is all >the same at the limit. I think it's "immersion" that I'm inclined to pick at, not FOV or angular resolution. The latter 2 are pretty easy to define and measure. I honestly am not sure that the research community has a more definitive answer about what "immersion" really is, than the general public. We certainly have more knowledge... but that's not the same as having a clear-cut criteria for what is and isn't VR. >I totally agree and would never ask people to vote just like that >[on immersion.] I would >first define each terms qualitatively prior to asking them to take >a vote. Right, we agree. :-) I'm hoping that people on sci.v-w will attempt to come up with a more precise qualitative definition. >>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." >Sorry but I disagree. FOV and immersion are strongly related. >Let's take an HMD for example. Under a certain degree of FOV, >you see the borders of the images the HMD produces. >If the FOV is large enough, these boundaries disappear. >It is qualitatively known that somewhere near that point where the >boundaries disappears, the immersion level begin to increase dramatically. >There exist literature about that. Right, sure. But there also exists the "immersion" of a chat channel, of reading a good book, or even reading a relatively lousy book, i.e. sparse adventure-gameish textual descriptions. So perhaps the first refinement we need is "visual immersion" vs. "psychological immersion." Then we need some checking on whether the two are wholly separable, or only partially separable. If you did a CAT scan of a person wearing an HMD, and one of a person playing a MUD, would the same brain regions be stimulated? Does reading a good book cause people to "visualize" a world in a similar way to how people see with their peripheral vision? >>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? >Simple mathematics Brandon... Use 0% (if not present) or 100% (if present) >;) :-) But the point is that you're applying weights to something which is not weighted. You use the average weight as your argument/authority for what is and isn't VR, so essentially you're lying with statistics. It's as though I said "I'm going to make a weighted scale Ax + By + Cz." Now I'm politically very partial to A, so I'm going to make the weight on A very large. B and C are going to be very small because I don't like them so much. What you've done is taken a qualitative argument, and make them look like they have some kind of mathematical authority which they simply don't have. We didn't need a ratings scale to know that you don't like textual MUDs. If you're going to scale things, then the weights should be "proportional" somehow. Which in turn begs the question of whose proportionalities should we be using. In the end, the problem is that you're trying to shoehorn a qualitative problem into a quantitative box, with no basis for making the translation. >Why not? this enables you to mix binary and more gradated data in >your global evaluation. There's nothing wrong with that. There is with respect to the proportionality of the weights. >Not necessarily lag. See it as very general as the term "interaction" is >concerned. I mean that the way immersion may be degraded is not important >here. You evaluate in function of the global "responsiveness" of the whole >VR system. I'm sure you will argue that we can't put that in % >not knowing how 10 ms delay is in regard to X% of interactivity. >I would first try to define a conversion rule with the help of >others in the field. Sounds like a step in the right direction. >Non-3D solutions are not considered a bad approach. >It's just that it's not called VR then. Why would everything >fit in VR? We get back to what I said at the end of my last post. >That is, that everybody wants his piece of the cake in regard >to the actual VR momentum. Indeed, it's a political question. The comparisons between the "academic economy" and the "marketing hype economy" are apt. Some people gain when things are called VR, and other people lose. Reputation, authority, control of the academic discourse, research grants, business.... For my part, I simply use whatever words my current audience wants to hear. When I'm trying to impress a date, I tell her that I do VR and feed all her Cyberspace fantasies. On my resume, I say I'm interested in "networked virtual reality." It's lower-key but the buzzwords help. When talking to an academic researcher, I'm careful to say that I'm into distributed VE's or even VW's, and not VR. When talking on vworlds-biz, I commit the unpardonable sin of saying that Timothy Leary should at least be doing our marketing for us, at least for entertainment applications. I wouldn't want him selling us on airplane repair, though. :-) Research-wise, I see something in the notion of MUDs as VR. Maybe I'd go so far as to say that VE's are what is paramount, and not VR's. What is the point and purpose of immersion, if there is nothing to be immersed _in_? Does FOV matter as much as cultural believability? I've spent 4 years of my life dissecting how human beings construct "reality," and I'm not willing to concede that visual stimuli is the paramount factor. It's certanly a factor, it's certainly a major factor. But we do a _lot_ more with our brains than simply look at things, and the context in which we look at things matters tremendously. >I think it would be a good time at this point of our debate >to tune our WWW browsers to two great sources of definitions >on the net regarding VR. Will do. :-) >>I'm afraid that the marketers will always shout louder and with more >>dollars than the scientists. :-) >Let's keeps our hopes high Brandon :-). You have a point here >but I think that if we show enough determination, >we'll get to have our word to say on that matter. >Let's not forget who brought the VR technology to life... these very >scientists, not the business men. Indeed. Although... don't be afraid to let business people sell the hype for you, IF that hype is actually resulting in workable contracts that turn a profit for "real" VR systems. I think the problem is not so much that the public needs to be educated, as that the right clients with the right money need to be educated. There is some question as to whether the current hype does more damage than good... hard to say, really. But at least the hype keeps the VR industry in a holding pattern, as opposed to crashing and burning the way AI did in the 80's. It gives people time to work out the right messages. This is in large measure how I feel about VRML. It's _not_ a Virtual Reality Modelling Language, not even close. But it will keep people interested long enough for me to kick out something better.