From: brundage@ipac.caltech.edu (Michael Brundage) Subject: Re: SCI: Systematic Classification of VR Systems Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 23:22:51 -0700 Message-ID: Organization: Infrared Processing Analysis Center, Caltech In article <33688473.2291@artec.uni-bremen.de>, vob@artec.uni-Bremen.de wrote: > I'm currently working on a classification scheme for VR apps. > There are several approaches to classify output devices such > as HMD-based, CAVE-based, or Desktop Systems. On the input level there > is also a range of devices, starting from the conventional mouse, > 6DOF devices upto DataGloves etc. I think, each system configuration > has its advantages, disadvantages and specific areas of application. > > My aim is to identify some criteria for setting up a classification > scheme, and to find a kind of measure for "presence" and object > manipulation capabilities offered in/by virtual worlds. I would observe that you need to define what you mean by VR; it seems that you're including only graphics-rich environments in your list above. However, presence and object manipulation are both present in text-based virtual realities, such as MUDs, as well as other less CPU-intensive kinds of VR. As for literature, I would point you to the MIT-based journal, Presence. One recent article ("Presence in Text-Based Networked Virtual Environments or 'MUDS'" by John Towell and Elizabeth Towell) addresses some of the issues involved in measuring presence. In fact, the introductory paragraph begins: ".It has been suggested that degree of presence in a communication medium is related to two factors, vividness of the environment and interactivity, the degree to which users may influence the form or content of the mediated environment." A key reference cited in their article is Steuer, J. (1992) Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42 (4) 73-93. Cheers, michael brundage@ipac.caltech.edu