From: Robin Hollands <R.Hollands@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: DESIGN: Is there really such a thing as text-based VR?
Date: 4 Mar 1996 15:50:51 GMT
Message-ID: <4hf3gr$mmf@bignews.shef.ac.uk>
Organization: Automatic Control & Systems Engineering, University of Sheffield 


From: Robin Hollands <R.Hollands@sheffield.ac.uk>

Many of the disagreements between Marc and myself are down to his
imaginitive use of numbers. For a start:

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

The numbers sound very persuading (you can't argue with maths after
all) but where do you get these figures from Marc?

>
>I think something's amiss with your notion of "Immersion" in this
>definition.  Maybe you need a tighter definition?  If by immersion you
>mean, "you have to have an HMD on your head, or a DataGlove, or haptic
>feedback, or some other hardware gizmo" then yes MUDs get a 0%.
>
>On the other hand, you seem to be defining "Immersion" very loosely
>below as synonymous with "Presence."  For those who are not hung up on

I agree with Brandon here. I rarely talk about Immersion or Presence 
since they seem very hard to quantify. For example a 130 degree FOV HMD 
may have more visual 'immersion' than a 20 degree FOV, but ultimately it 
seems that the total 'immersion' in an environment is down primarily to 
content and not interface. 

Cheers,

Robin
(UK VR-SIG Chairman)