bonar@pitt.UUCP (Dr. Jeffrey Bonar) (12/19/88)
I have an invitation for net readers - create a metaphor for computing systems that goes beyond the desktop cliche. Four years ago, Apple had something with the Macintosh desktop: a new way to think about computing. Now, everyone is copying the desktop: Microsoft, IBM, AT&T. Even the new NeXT machine provides little more than a desktop with some cute simulated depth. Marshall McLuhan said that a new medium always began by imitating the old medium: cow paths were paved to make roads for the "horseless carriage", film began by putting a camera in front of a play, and finally, computer screens now look like a desktop. What if we really let go into our new medium; what should a computer work space really look like? William Gibson described a cyberspace where computer cowboys shared a: "consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation, by children being taught mathematical concepts ... A graphic representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding ..." (pg 51, Ace paperback edition of Neuromancer) What does your cyberspace, or whatever you would call it, look like. I'm interested in suggestions that are practical and serious, in particular, suggestions constrained by current technology in screens, keyboards, mice, etc. I'm also interested in suggestions that are fanciful and poetic. We get to create a medium from scratch - what should it look like. Note: please mail your suggestions to me directly. I will post a collection of the results. Send suggestions to: Internet: bonar@vax.cs.pittsburgh.edu or, using normal mail: Jeffrey Bonar 708 LRDC University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 15260
cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) (12/21/88)
Sorry that this is so long. In article <4362@pitt.UUCP> bonar@pitt.UUCP (Dr. Jeffrey Bonar) writes: > >I have an invitation for net readers - create a metaphor for computing >systems that goes beyond the desktop cliche. [...] > what should a computer work >space really look like? > >William Gibson described a cyberspace... (I ignored the request to e-mail on the subject, 'cause I think that this needs a wider discussion) Up until about four years ago, all interaction to a computer was through a single linear path (well, two actually). The characters were typed on the keyboard, and characters appeared on the screen. The UNIX especially is designed around this concept of a serial communication line. It's networking utilities (rsh, rlogin, rcp, etc) are the utilities that are implied by this. About a year ago, there was an idea for networking the mac (actually, I think it was for a multiuser mac) that included the concept of a primative cyber- space. It was based on the desktop metaphor of the mac. The idea was to extend the desktop of the mac they way it is done with multiple moniters on a mac II. Give each user their own mouse/keyboard. If a user wanted, he could walk around the extended desktop with the mouse the same way that is done with Close View. Also, the user could pass a window to someone else's desktop so that they could work on the application as well. Each user could of course customize their own desktop much the way that is done now. What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say for example, an office. You would have a desktop, a trashcan, a phone, an inbasket/outbasket, a filesystem, etc. Each of the services that are offered by the system are represented as an object in the office. If you go out through the door, you find yourself in the hall (network), and from there can go into someone else's office (the outbasket & phone act in a predictable manner). It'll be expensive (in terms of cpu time/bandwidth) but I think that it will be worth it in the long run. The way that you interact with the computer in part determines the ways that you will consider using it. (ex: desktop publishing out of the Mac) Comments? -- Cory (...your bravest dreams, your worst nightmare...) Kempf UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory "...it's a mistake in the making." -KT
remy@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Remy Sanouillet) (12/22/88)
In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes: [Previous article omitted.] > >About a year ago, there was an idea for networking the mac (actually, I think >it was for a multiuser mac) that included the concept of a primative cyber- >space. It was based on the desktop metaphor of the mac. > >The idea was to extend the desktop of the mac they way it is done with >multiple moniters on a mac II. Give each user their own mouse/keyboard. >If a user wanted, he could walk around the extended desktop with the mouse >the same way that is done with Close View. Also, the user could pass a window >to someone else's desktop so that they could work on the application as well. > >Each user could of course customize their own desktop much the way that >is done now. > >What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say >for example, an office. You would have a desktop, a trashcan, a phone, >an inbasket/outbasket, a filesystem, etc. Each of the services that are >offered by the system are represented as an object in the office. If you >go out through the door, you find yourself in the hall (network), and from >there can go into someone else's office (the outbasket & phone act in a >predictable manner). > >It'll be expensive (in terms of cpu time/bandwidth) but I think that it will >be worth it in the long run. The way that you interact with the computer >in part determines the ways that you will consider using it. (ex: desktop >publishing out of the Mac) > >Comments? > >-- >Cory (...your bravest dreams, your worst nightmare...) Kempf >UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory > "...it's a mistake in the making." -KT This is basically the subject of my PhD dissertation. It extends Fred Thompson's "New World of Computing (tm)" natural language system to a host of networked users. Each user works in a "context", basically his environment with his customized slang based on his native language, (currently the system understands English, French and Italian but other tongues are in the works.) But the user can open up his context to the rest of the world using several different methods. One is called "basing" and involves incorporating another context (i.e. Dow Jones, Sears catalog) by creating virtual links to it. My role is allowing users to share their contexts which contain data base objects in several different mediatic forms (entities, texts, pictures, sound recordings, etc...) by opening up a common window where each user retains his/her means of control. They each have a cursor, mouse pointer or whatever pointing device their computer supports, and a voice link is opened for direct communication. This allows, for example, a team of designers scattered all over the world to all lean over the same blueprint, give advice, make changes, querry the data base to find who is affected by the change, get them in on the meeting and send the revised project to manufacturing. If all goes well, my prototype should be working in a few months. The way we see it, this is going to be the next mutation of the telephone and computer into one standard device in every home. Seing how the previous mutation (the Minitel in France) has generated such a thrill in the general french user community, there is little doubt that we are heading for some exciting days. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Remy Sanouillet | E-mail: remy@caltech.BITNET 256-80 Caltech | remy@csvax.caltech.edu Pasadena, CA 91125 | ...seismo!cit-vax!remy Tel. (818) 356-6262 |
timd@cognos.uucp (Tim Dudley) (12/22/88)
In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes: >Sorry that this is so long. > >In article <4362@pitt.UUCP> bonar@pitt.UUCP (Dr. Jeffrey Bonar) writes: >> >>I have an invitation for net readers - create a metaphor for computing >>systems that goes beyond the desktop cliche. >[...] > >What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say >for example, an office. You would have a desktop, a trashcan, a phone, >an inbasket/outbasket, a filesystem, etc. Each of the services that are >offered by the system are represented as an object in the office. If you >go out through the door, you find yourself in the hall (network), and from >there can go into someone else's office (the outbasket & phone act in a >predictable manner). > etc... This looks to me like an application of the Rooms metaphor proposed by Card and Henderson out of Xerox PARC (and more recently Europarc). As I remember, the Rooms metaphor presented a means of linking desktops through "windows" and "doors", in such a way that if you wanted to look at another application, or view of an application, you did it through a "window", but if you wanted to launch an application, you did it by going through a "door" into the "room" in which the application was resident. Seems to me that the idea of having one of the "doors" lead into a hall (network) is a good one. The Rooms metaphor has been published in several places, including ACM Transactions on Graphics (don't remember which one, but it's relatively recent). It strikes me as being more closely related to hypermedia than to 3D... -- Tim Dudley Cognos Incorporated (613) 738-1440 3755 Riverside Drive, P.O.Box 9707 uucp: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!timd Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1G 3Z4 "It's a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word."
roberts@cognos.uucp (Robert Stanley) (12/22/88)
In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes: >In article <4362@pitt.UUCP> bonar@pitt.UUCP (Dr. Jeffrey Bonar) writes: >> >>I have an invitation for net readers - create a metaphor for computing >>systems that goes beyond the desktop cliche. >[...] >>what should a computer work space really look like? >What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say >for example, an office. You would have a desktop, a trashcan, a phone, >an inbasket/outbasket, a filesystem, etc. Each of the services that are >offered by the system are represented as an object in the office. If you >go out through the door, you find yourself in the hall (network), and from >there can go into someone else's office (the outbasket & phone act in a >predictable manner). The HyperCard Navigator II stack is an interesting experimental example of structuring a familiar metaphor for the work space. It presents a full office, complete with a desk which has both a desktop and a set of drawers for files and for miscellaneous bits and pieces. It is clearly a richer metaphor than the simple desktop, even though this example is full of cutsie-pie off-the-cuff symbology which turns out not to completely capable of generalization. (Some of the symbols work, some don't, and most are specific rather than generic. Of course, with HyperCard you can roll your own anyway, so perhaps this is a specious argument). However, in keeping with the concept of HyperCard as a personal data-access manager, there is no provision in the Navigator II example to wander out of your office. It ought to be real easy to do, however (just another card, right?), and tied into AppleTalk (sorry, LocalTalk) there are some nice possibilities. The big, big problem with any of this stuff is that in order for environment A to report to its user what is going on in environment B absolutely requires environment B to expend some resource in telling environment A what is going on. What is more, this has to be done when environment A wants it, not when it is "convenient" for environment B. In practical terms, it must be possible for any active environment to continuously support a back- ground task with the sole purpose of supplying local information to remote requestors. Not impossible, but it raises the spectre of security, and it's not the nicest kind of app to try and write on the Mac, even under multi-finder. On the subject of how such a metaphor might actually work, there are currently a couple of interesting lines of work at Xerox (remember them? Created that Star thingy...): they are devoting considerable attention to the whole field of computer support for co-operative working, and on the Interlisp machines they have a really interesting meta-windowing system known as Rooms. Each full-screen display is simply a room, and a meta- navigational system allows you to open and close doors between rooms, and to move from room to room. I am too lazy to open my filing cabinet and look right now, but if anyone cares I can dig out formal references. There's lots of stuff on rooms, which you can buy if you have the right kind of hardware, and the co-operative working was shown as one of the video sessions at the Washington DC 'CHI conference earlier this year. Robert_S -- Robert Stanley - Cognos Incorporated: 3755 Riverside Drive, P.O. Box 9707, Compuserve: 76174,3024 Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3Z4, CANADA uucp: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!roberts Voice: (613)738-1338 x6115 arpa/internet: roberts%cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net FAX: (613)738-0002
hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) (12/23/88)
In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
#
#What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say
#--
#Cory (...your bravest dreams, your worst nightmare...) Kempf
#UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory
# "...it's a mistake in the making." -KT
I have heard about a VERY interesting though likely to fail new method of
3-d displays. It basically is like a crt except that a mirror *vibrates*
at 60hz (probably audible) back and forth, producing a "scanned" block
of apparent display space left on the retina. I would be cheap, but the
moving part aspect will probably kill it.
Any other Cheap <read Practical> ideas [Until Holograms can be dynamically
projected]?
### C.H. ###jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) (12/23/88)
In article <5486@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, hassell@tramp (Christopher Hassell) writes: >I have heard about a VERY interesting though likely to fail new method of >3-d displays. It basically is like a crt except that a mirror *vibrates* >at 60hz (probably audible) back and forth, producing a "scanned" block >of apparent display space left on the retina. I would be cheap, but the >moving part aspect will probably kill it. Not at all. You have described the BBN Spacegraph. It is not new at all; maybe almost 10 years old by now. It is a PC (as in IBM) board plus a reasonable-performance oscilloscope with very low persistence phosphors. A rigid plexi mirror is energized by a good ol' woofer at 60 hz, causing it to change its focus and move the reflected image of the oscilloscope face through an apparent depth of a few inches. The 60hz is essentially inaudible (it may be 30 hz; you can paint both comin' and goin' for an effective 60hz refresh). The mirrors hold up just fine. I can provide a contact if anyone cares. -- /jr jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr
timd@cognos.uucp (Tim Dudley) (12/23/88)
In article <8951@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> remy@cit-vax.UUCP (Remy Sanouillet) writes: > >This is basically the subject of my PhD dissertation. It extends [etc...] >My role is allowing users to share their contexts which contain >data base objects in several different mediatic forms (entities, >texts, pictures, sound recordings, etc...) by opening up a common >window where each user retains his/her means of control. They each >have a cursor, mouse pointer or whatever pointing device their >computer supports, and a voice link is opened for direct communication. >This allows, for example, a team of designers scattered all over the >world to all lean over the same blueprint, give advice, make changes, >querry the data base to find who is affected by the change, get them >in on the meeting and send the revised project to manufacturing. > This is the idea of the common information space, which was a high profile project at Bell-Northern Research in the early 70's, pioneered there by Gordon Thompson and funded largely by Bell Canada. You might want to save yourself some work and find out what they did there. It's interesting. Thompson was always referred to as a "futurist", and he figured that meant he was about 20 years ahead of everybody else. In this case, he's pretty close. -- Tim Dudley Cognos Incorporated (613) 738-1440 3755 Riverside Drive, P.O.Box 9707 uucp: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!timd Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1G 3Z4 "It's a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word."
ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) (12/24/88)
In article <5486@boulder.Colorado.EDU> hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) writes: >In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes: ># >#What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say >#-- >#Cory (...your bravest dreams, your worst nightmare...) Kempf >#UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory ># "...it's a mistake in the making." -KT > >I have heard about a VERY interesting though likely to fail new method of >3-d displays. It basically is like a crt except that a mirror *vibrates* [Edited...] >Any other Cheap <read Practical> ideas [Until Holograms can be dynamically > projected]? >### C.H. ### Yes. Design your graphical interface to alternate rapidly between two perspective images of the same object. Interface that with a special pair of glasses whos lenses are made of a rapid acting LCD material. Set the glasses so that the lenses alternate clear/dark in synch with the display. The result of this is that your eyes each see only the perspective view appropriate for that eye, and persistence of vision causes you to see it in full color 3-D. (None of this red/green junk!) Such glasses and graphics already exist. They are being used in at least one video game (some sort of driving game); and are available on the open market (not sure who from, check with comp.sys.amiga, since that's where I saw it mentioned most recently). I've also seen at least one NOVA program that talked about them (computer graphics). Enjoy! -- ...!hadron\ "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles ...!sundc\ Schedule: (n.) An ever changing | NetExpress Comm., Inc. ...!pyrdc\ nightmare. | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 ...!uunet!netxcom!ewiles | Vienna, VA 22180
c60a-2di@e260-2d.berkeley.edu (The Cybermat Rider) (12/24/88)
In article <1116@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: [Misc. stuff deleted] >>Any other Cheap <read Practical> ideas [Until Holograms can be dynamically >> projected]? >>### C.H. ### > >Yes. Design your graphical interface to alternate rapidly between two >perspective images of the same object. Interface that with a special pair >of glasses whos lenses are made of a rapid acting LCD material. Set the >glasses so that the lenses alternate clear/dark in synch with the display. > >The result of this is that your eyes each see only the perspective view >appropriate for that eye, and persistence of vision causes you to see >it in full color 3-D. (None of this red/green junk!) > >Such glasses and graphics already exist. They are being used in at least >one video game (some sort of driving game); and are available on the open >market (not sure who from, check with comp.sys.amiga, since that's where >I saw it mentioned most recently). I've also seen at least one NOVA program >that talked about them (computer graphics). > Enjoy! For those who don't read comp.sys.amiga, here's the scoop (stolen from Amazing Computing V3#9 - and I'm not affiliated in ANY WAY whatsoever with the company mentioned): The Product: X-Specs 3D (as described above) The Game: (probably referring to) Space Spuds, a shoot-em-up type game, included with the X-Specs package The Company: Haitex Resources 208 Carrollton Park Suite 1207 Carrollton, TX 75006 (214) 241-8030 The Price: $125 The Note: If you don't have an Amiga, you're out of luck! (Then again, if you DO, you probably already know this!) >-- >...!hadron\ "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles > ...!sundc\ Schedule: (n.) An ever changing | NetExpress Comm., Inc. > ...!pyrdc\ nightmare. | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 > ...!uunet!netxcom!ewiles | Vienna, VA 22180 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Ho a.k.a. The Cybermat Rider University of California, Berkeley c60a-2di@web.berkeley.edu Disclaimer: Nobody takes me seriously, so is it really necessary?
magik@chinet.chi.il.us (Ben Liberman) (12/24/88)
In article <1116@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: >In article <5486@boulder.Colorado.EDU> hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) writes: >>In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes: >>#What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say >># "...it's a mistake in the making." -KT >>Any other Cheap <read Practical> ideas [Until Holograms can be dynamically >> projected]? >Yes. Design your graphical interface to alternate rapidly between two >perspective images of the same object. Interface that with a special pair >of glasses whos lenses are made of a rapid acting LCD material. A simpler solution might be to start with cheap polarized lenses 90 deg. out of phase (movie 3-D glasses), and a very short persistance phospher on your screen, and rotate a polarized filter, at 15 r.p.m. in front of the screen. -- ------------ ---------------------- Ben Liberman magik@chinet.chi.il.us
phaedra@blake.acs.washington.edu (J. Anderson) (12/24/88)
I see the discussion on going beyond the desktop has concentrated primarily on the display. While I have some complaints about my own display, there's nothing wrong with it that a plain old two-dimensional Sun workstation monitor wouldn't deal with nicely. What I'm much more interested in are means of entering data rather than displaying it. The desktop metaphor attempted to solve one perceived problem with the then current generation of computers, namely replacing the often cryptic commands of command line driven operating environments with icons which were mentally easy to mnemonize. While this made the learning curve appreciably steeper, has it increased the throughput rate at which users enter data? I think not. In my case, it slowed it down quite a bit. Like most computer users, my input comes from a keyboard, and while I do all right as a typist, I still type appreciably slower than I compose my thoughts. If I were to design the user interface that I would want, it would likely be in three parts: 1) A voice-recognition system with a clear grasp for idiom and affections of speech. 2) A "Heads-Up" style display system (as I believe they are referred to in military parlance) which could be used as a pointer device by measuring the angle at which my corneas are in relation to the screen using a low-power laser or some similar method. 3) A keyboard with LCD or similar technology key caps, so that not only What-I-See-Is-What-I-Get but What-Button-I-Push-Is-What-I-Get (Note: If there are any system designers reading this, READ THIS FIRST. This I would believe to be in the "Realizable Fantasies" column, and after countless hours of using cheat sheets to locate Control-Alt-Meta-Prime functions, something I would pay good money for) On the output side, a speech synthesizer with a healthy contralto voice would be nice so that I may "read" Usenet while doing something useful (like cooking) And... Oh yeah, how about that Sun Monitor? :-) My $0.02 (probably closer to $0.10) worth for this morning. Jeremy Anderson-- There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. || phaedra@blake.acs.washington.edu
jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (12/25/88)
In article <454@blake.acs.washington.edu> phaedra@blake.acs.washington.edu (J. Anderson) writes: > 3) A keyboard with LCD or similar technology key caps, so that >not only What-I-See-Is-What-I-Get but What-Button-I-Push-Is-What-I-Get It's been done, by a number of vendors. It's not all that useful, as it turns out, because the user has to keep looking at the keypad to see what the keys mean now. It's hard to type ahead when the keys are being remapped under you. It doesn't take advantage of the ability of humans to memorize standard object positions in the working environment at a low level, the ability that makes keyboards, typewriter or musical, work. Touch screens are an extension of this concept, but they have not been popular except for public-access applications, and even there, they do not dominate. The HP 150, the "going nowhere fast" MS-DOS machine, offered a touch screen. But it didn't sell. Strange though it seems, you don't really want the visual output area in the same place you put your hands. Your hands get in the way. This is why mice and tablets have replaced lightpens and touchscreens. But it took years before this became clear. John Nagle
gorin@mit-amt (Amy Gorin) (12/26/88)
KT talks about walking around the cyberspace office, as a natural extension of the desktop metaphor. there is a network and network management system by Torus called Tapestry which comes damn close. I believe it is unix based. personally, I would prefer to be able to walk through library stacks - choose a book, and have it downloaded onto my blank WORM CD. Royalties to be charged to the account, of course. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- gorin@media-lab.media.mit.edu Just your basic east village bloom-beacon!mit-amt!gorin vegetarian thanksgiving
mthome@bbn.com (Mike Thome) (12/27/88)
In article <454@blake.acs.washington.edu> phaedra@blake.acs.washington.edu (J. Anderson) writes: >... > 2) A "Heads-Up" style display system (as I believe they are >referred to in military parlance) which could be used as a pointer >device by measuring the angle at which my corneas are in relation to >the screen using a low-power laser or some similar method. I think you are thinking of the technology that allows pilots to aim weapons just by looking at the target... Actually, this is not usually done by eye-tracking, but rather, tracking the motion of the whole helmet - besides the mechanical problems of non-invasive eye-tracking, your eyes jump around a LOT, especially when looking at pictures (i.e. icons?) On the other hand, head-tracking devices are available now - even for micros. There used to be (not sure if they're still around) a company selling just such a device as a mouse replacement (for the Mac?) based on a head unit that looked much like a pair of lightweight headphones. > 3) A keyboard with LCD or similar technology key caps, so that >not only What-I-See-Is-What-I-Get but What-Button-I-Push-Is-What-I-Get >(Note: If there are any system designers reading this, READ THIS >FIRST. This I would believe to be in the "Realizable Fantasies" >column, and after countless hours of using cheat sheets to locate >Control-Alt-Meta-Prime functions, something I would pay good money >for) Here here - a veritable dream come true... especially if one could arrange to not sacrifice the feel of a good keyboard - I dont think I'd enjoy a flat keyboard under any conditions. Certainly, if we retain the keyboard at all, we'd not want to ask the users to need to move thier hands from the keyboard to do anything. Hopefully the keyboard itself should be designed so that all keys are in one group and eaily reachable from "home" position (excellent current examples of this are the Symbolics lisp-machine keyboards). If we want to go a little further, a keyboard layout based on ease of use instead of backwards-compatability with mechanical typewriters would be nice - even non-planar spacial arrangements (two hemispheres of keys, for instance). As far as pointing devices go, I'd have no problem operating a small trackball placed immediately below the spacebar with my thumbs, without my fingers leaving the "home" row. Of course, the head tracker seems ok as long as you don't mind having to put something on to hack. The only other current-technology device that comes to mind which doesn't require moving your hands from the keyboard is the footmouse (or foot-trackball). -mike thome (mthome@bbn.com)
hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) (12/27/88)
In article <1116@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: %In article <5486@boulder.Colorado.EDU> hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) writes: %>In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes: %># %>#What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say %> %>I have heard about a VERY interesting though likely to fail new method of %>3-d displays. It basically is like a crt except that a mirror *vibrates* %[Edited...] %>Any other Cheap <read Practical> ideas [Until Holograms can be dynamically %> projected]? %>### C.H. ### % %Yes. Design your graphical interface to alternate rapidly between two %perspective images of the same object. Interface that with a special pair %of glasses whos lenses are made of a rapid acting LCD material. Set the %glasses so that the lenses alternate clear/dark in synch with the display. % %The result of this is that your eyes each see only the perspective view %appropriate for that eye, and persistence of vision causes you to see %it in full color 3-D. (None of this red/green junk!) % %Such glasses and graphics already exist. They are being used in at least %one video game (some sort of driving game); and are available on the open %market (not sure who from, check with comp.sys.amiga, since that's where %I saw it mentioned most recently). I've also seen at least one NOVA program %that talked about them (computer graphics). % Enjoy! Those are StereoTek glasses; I was going to get a pair for my Atari ST. I've seen a few games written for them, and I think the Cyber line of 3D CAD/animation software supports them as well. Tom Hudson, a well-known (in the Atari world, at least!) graphics programmer just recently had a 3D Life game he wrote published in ST-Log. This program also supported both perspective views and StereoTek 3D rendering. For such a simple thing, the appeal of Life is surprising. It becomes even more engrossing when you add the third dimension... The glasses work pretty well; the disadvantage is that each pair must be attached to the host computer to allow for synchronization of the imaging and the LCD shutter switching. Not bad for just 1 person working on an involved project, but a hassle when trying to show your work to a group of other people... A simpler method might have worked better - recent 3D movies used polarized light/glassses combos, which seemed to work well enough. At least the viewing hardware (2 pieces of plastic with polarized coatings) is simple. I suppose generating the proper image on the display becomes more difficult, though... -- / /_ , ,_. Howard Chu / /(_/(__ University of Michigan / Computing Center College of LS&A ' Unix Project Information Systems
daf@genrad.com (David A. Fagan) (12/28/88)
Keyboards with fiber-optically lit keytops are something that I've been thinking about for a while. In article <17939@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: >In article <454@blake.acs.washington.edu> phaedra@blake.acs.washington.edu (J. Anderson) writes: > >> 3) A keyboard with LCD or similar technology key caps, so that >>not only What-I-See-Is-What-I-Get but What-Button-I-Push-Is-What-I-Get > > It's been done, by a number of vendors. It's not all that useful, >as it turns out, because the user has to keep looking at the keypad to >see what the keys mean now. Does this mean that, while typing, I need to look at every key to see which letter it produces? No, but having the the letters clearly labeled on the keys sure makes them easier to learn!! > John Nagle Dave Fagan genrad!otter!daf
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/29/88)
In article <15063@genrad.UUCP>, daf@genrad.com (David A. Fagan) writes: > Keyboards with fiber-optically lit keytops are something that I've been > thinking about for a while. Honeywell makes keycaps with LCD arrays in them. The War Toys bunch use them in tanks and fighters and other big toys that make holes. (my, aren't we cynical this morning). This subject first came up some months ago in comp.society.futures, by the way. I posted a great big article about my fantasies of a virtual reality using the equivalent of the NASA VIVED virtual environment helmet. If you used a helmet with LCDs and some clever optics in it you could switch your attention between the virtual world and the real one just by changing your focus (you can see through LCD displays). You'd need enormous resolution to be able to read text at a resonable virtual distance, but that's just an implementation detail. Combine it with the Dataglove and an accelerometer, and you could do away with screens, keyboards, and everything. It could "put" virtual paper on your real desktop. You could type with the datagloves. Grab a peice of VP with your real fingers and just place it in space somewhere handy. Just be careful the metaphor doesn't get out of control. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' Hackercorp. ...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.uu.net 'U`
jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) (12/29/88)
In article <5486@boulder.Colorado.EDU> hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) writes: >I have heard about a VERY interesting though likely to fail new method of >3-d displays. It basically is like a crt except that a mirror *vibrates* >at 60hz (probably audible) back and forth, producing a "scanned" block >of apparent display space left on the retina. I would be cheap, but the >moving part aspect will probably kill it. > >Any other Cheap <read Practical> ideas [Until Holograms can be dynamically > projected]? In a Late '70s Byte (when it was still useful) there was an article on how to contruct a 3-d display, which used a rotating mirror on top of a CRT. -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup
maxsmith@athena.mit.edu (Samuel M Druker) (12/29/88)
There were some guys at the MIT Media Lab who were working on a crt mounted
on a pedestal that moved at prescribed rate to creat just that desired effect.
Don't know how well it worked out though.
==============================================================================
Samuel Druker | ARPA: maxsmith@athena.mit.edu
Zortech, Inc. | Bix: maxsmith
Arlington, MA | "Basically, my boss doesn't even
| *know* I'm on the net."abbadon@nuchat.UUCP (David Neal) (12/29/88)
In article <1116@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: >In article <5486@boulder.Colorado.EDU> hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) writes: >>In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes: >># >>#What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say [extra stuff deleted] [someone calls for cheap easy way to go desktop3d] [edwin@netxcom!uunet mentions lcd based system for the amiga] Right, first I limited the distribution a little, such a large crossposting is antisocial. There is an LCD based set of glasses your wear for the amiga, they block each eye while the frame for the other eye is being displayed. The hardware is called X-SPECS 3D and costs $125. The problem is not the hardware; some bright eyed creative genius like me (major :-) ) just needs to sit down and hack out an 'enviroment'. So then, I call for more suggestions (there have already been a few) on what it should look like, this enviroment. Mail me, post if you must, but expect a summary once the dust settles. Thanks, David Neal {uunet | killer!texbell }!nuchat!abbadon
barth@ihlpl.ATT.COM (BARTH RICHARDS) (12/30/88)
In article <1116@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: >In article <5486@boulder.Colorado.EDU> hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU >(Christopher Hassell) writes: > >>I have heard about a VERY interesting though likely to fail new method of >>3-d displays. It basically is like a crt except that a mirror *vibrates* >[Edited...] >>Any other Cheap <read Practical> ideas [Until Holograms can be dynamically >>projected]? > >Yes. Design your graphical interface to alternate rapidly between two >perspective images of the same object. Interface that with a special pair >of glasses whos lenses are made of a rapid acting LCD material. Set the >glasses so that the lenses alternate clear/dark in synch with the display. > >The result of this is that your eyes each see only the perspective view >appropriate for that eye, and persistence of vision causes you to see >it in full color 3-D. (None of this red/green junk!) > >Such glasses and graphics already exist. They are being used in at least >one video game (some sort of driving game); and are available on the open >market (not sure who from, check with comp.sys.amiga, since that's where >I saw it mentioned most recently). I've also seen at least one NOVA program >that talked about them (computer graphics). I know that such a system has been available for the Atari ST for at least a year. I seem to remember that the needed hardware cost about $170. I would assume that the same thing, or something similar, is available for other computers. Anyway, I tried it out in the shop on a few of programs (one game and a few animated graphics displays), and found the 3D effect to be pretty convincing, though the lower the ambient room light, the better it seemed to work. 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 88 88 88 What's the ugliest part of your body? Barth Richards 88 88 What's the ugliest part of your body? AT&T Bell Labs 88 88 Some say your nose, some say your toes, Naperville, IL 88 88 But I think it's your mind.... !att!ihlpl!barth 88 88 88 88 -The Mothers of Invention 88 88 88 888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) (12/30/88)
In article <3166@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > This subject first came up some months ago in comp.society.futures, by the > way. I posted a great big article about my fantasies of a virtual reality > using the equivalent of the NASA VIVED virtual environment helmet. If you > used a helmet with LCDs and some clever optics in it you could switch your > attention between the virtual world and the real one just by changing your > focus (you can see through LCD displays). You'd need enormous resolution to > be able to read text at a resonable virtual distance, but that's just an > implementation detail. Physics Question. What resolution (pixels per inch or meter) and contrast (bits, levels, ratio) are needed to form a decent hologram. My concept of artificial reality goggles are a pair of hologram plates about 2 to 4 inches in front of the eyes that fill the field of view. What is displayed is not the image but the hologram (computed) of the image. This is illuminated by laser(s). If the pixels have a fast enough response, frame sequential color would be nice. How good would the display have to be, and how many instructions would need to be processed to display a frame. Mark Zenier uunet!nwnexus!pilchuck!ssc!markz markz@ssc.uucp uw-beaver!tikal!
cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) (12/30/88)
In article <8299@ihlpl.ATT.COM> barth@ihlpl.UUCP (BARTH RICHARDS) writes: >In article <1116@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: >>Yes. Design your graphical interface to alternate rapidly between two >>perspective images of the same object. Interface that with a special pair >>of glasses whos lenses are made of a rapid acting LCD material. Set the >>glasses so that the lenses alternate clear/dark in synch with the display. >I know that such a system has been available for the Atari ST for at least a >year. I seem to remember that the needed hardware cost about $170. My SO brought up an interesting point on the practicality of glasses... What if you are doing real work (as in not just playing games), where you need to look away from the monitor to read a piece of paper? I have never used either of the 3D glasses ideas presented here, but wouldn't the LCD idea interfere with normal vision? Or is the time that they are dark not long enough to really notice? Also, with the rotating polarized screen in front of the monitor for the other idea (polarized glasses), what happens when the screen is at a 45 degree angle w.r.t. the glasses? what would be on the screen? +C -- Cory ( "...Love is like Oxygen..." ) Kempf UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory "...it's a mistake in the making." -KT
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (01/04/89)
In article <17939@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: } Touch screens are an extension of this concept, but they have not }been popular except for public-access applications, and even there, they }do not dominate. ... Those who live in New York may have already noticed that Citibank's new teller machines are touch screen based. There are no hardware buttons at all (for customer use), just touch zones on the graphics display. Citicorp's market research folks say the customers love it. The system definitely allows for flexibility. The screen can actually display a full typewriter keyboard so customers can send messages to the bank. (I don't think that one's gone public, yet, but I've played with it in-house). New products and features are easy to add and even more advanced stuff is in the pipe (but I've probably said too much already). -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (01/04/89)
In article <1611@ssc.UUCP> markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) writes: }What resolution (pixels per inch or meter) and contrast (bits, levels, ratio) }are needed to form a decent hologram. Pixels would have to be separated by no more than half the wavelength of the light used, a distance commonly measured in Angstroms. That's well beyond the ability of current technology to create, let alone drive. }How good would the display have to be, and how many instructions would need }to be processed to display a frame. You're talking about millions of pixels _per inch_. I'm not sure it's even theoretically possible, let alone feasible. The processing capacity to drive such a display would be mind boggling, even by today's standards. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
magill@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.seas.upenn.edu (Operations Manager) (01/04/89)
< It's interesting. Thompson was always referred to as a "futurist", and he
< figured that meant he was about 20 years ahead of everybody else. In this
< case, he's pretty close.
<
I and several others around here have often "speculated" upon this topic.
While not particularly germane to the DeskTop discussion, it is
interesting. We have decided that there are about 5-10, but definately less
than 25 persons, on a campus of 18K students and 18K employees who know
about and use "the network as a computer", there is a community of probably
10% faculty/staff and 50% students who actively use electronic mail, BITNET
listservers, etc. (Engineering is close to 100% for Faculty/Staff/Students,
while Hummanities usage is almost non-existant.) We hung some times on
these catagories and decided that those of us who were active network users
were about 5 years ahead of the electronic mail users, and 5-10 years ahead
of everybody else.
I've been a member of the World Future Society for quite a few years, and
one of the things that emerges constantly is the simple fact that it takes
a minimum number of years - on the order of 3-5 from the time a new
technology has moved from the Lab to the Factory, for the production lines
to fire up and distribute it.
So if you add another 5 years for ideas to make it through the lab to the
factory floor, the total comes up pretty close to 20 years.
--
William H. Magill Manager, PENNnet Operations Planning
Data Communications and Computing Services (DCCS) University of Pennsylvania
Internet: magill@dccs.upenn.edu magill@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
magill@upenn.edu BITnet: magill@pennlrsmmarkz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) (01/06/89)
In article <3637@ttidca.TTI.COM>, hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) writes: > In article <1611@ssc.UUCP> markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) writes: > }What resolution (pixels per inch or meter) and contrast (bits, levels, ratio) > }are needed to form a decent hologram. > Pixels would have to be separated by no more than half the wavelength of > the light used, a distance commonly measured in Angstroms. That's well > beyond the ability of current technology to create, let alone drive. 5000 angstroms = 500 nanometers = .5 micrometer = bluegreen Another generation or two of advances in microlithography and you're there. Why do you think they keep talking about using X-Rays to make the next generation of memory chips. I don't think that Liquid Crystals will work but something else might. > You're talking about millions of pixels _per inch_. 10.E9 per square inch at 1/2 wave spacing. > The processing capacity to > drive such a display would be mind boggling, even by today's standards. Got to do something to soak up the CPU cycles so that the A.I. people don't have them around to play with :-). Mark Zenier uunet!nwnexus!pilchuck!ssc!markz markz@ssc.uucp uunet!amc! uw-beaver!tikal!
dlm@cuuxb.ATT.COM (Dennis L. Mumaugh) (01/07/89)
In article <4362@pitt.UUCP> bonar@pitt.UUCP (Dr. Jeffrey Bonar) writes: > >I have an invitation for net readers - create a metaphor for computing >systems that goes beyond the desktop cliche. Four years ago, Apple >had something with the Macintosh desktop: a new way to think about >computing. Now, everyone is copying the desktop: Microsoft, IBM, >AT&T. Even the new NeXT machine provides little more than a >desktop with some cute simulated depth. > I suggest all people who are involved with Information Technology be required to read the following article before being allowed to post netnews: %A Vannevar Bush %T As We May Think %J Altantic Monthly %D August 21945 %X This article described an information handling workstation of the future, at which a user could sit and browse information which would appear on rear-projection screens; links between places in different documents would connect related information, and the machine would be able to switch over to those related documents if they were stored on the system (a concept today called "hypertext"). .br This article also describes the concept of intertextual links {margin notes} that became part of the documents and allow establishing correlations and cross-references. It also posited the concept of an information space and a world-wide data space. My point is that the above citation seems to be unknown to serious researchers. It describes a set of concepts that have not yet been achieved. A vague glimmering was attempted by Doug Englebert at SRI in his Augmented Knowledge Workshop. I feel that people need to re-examine a lot of the past as I seem to see people keep re-inventing old ideas that have become forgotten. Of course, one should remember that had not Alfred Einstein been around Vannevar Bush would have been the most famous scientist in the USA. It isn't surprising that his idea was so seminal. -- =Dennis L. Mumaugh Lisle, IL ...!{att,lll-crg}!cuuxb!dlm OR cuuxb!dlm@arpa.att.com
dlm@cuuxb.ATT.COM (Dennis L. Mumaugh) (01/07/89)
In article <4362@pitt.UUCP> bonar@pitt.UUCP (Dr. Jeffrey Bonar) writes: > >I have an invitation for net readers - create a metaphor for computing >systems that goes beyond the desktop cliche. Four years ago, Apple >had something with the Macintosh desktop: a new way to think about >computing. Now, everyone is copying the desktop: Microsoft, IBM, >AT&T. Even the new NeXT machine provides little more than a >desktop with some cute simulated depth. > >Marshall McLuhan said that a new medium always began by >imitating the old medium: cow paths were paved to make roads for >the "horseless carriage", film began by putting a camera in front of a >play, and finally, computer screens now look like a desktop. What if >we really let go into our new medium; what should a computer work >space really look like? > One of these years I hope to meet up with some one who has read some old fashioned Science Fiction!!! %A Arthur Clarke %T Imperial Earth %X Novel about a delegate to the Tri-centennial of the US Independence. Plot surrounds relationship with an old chum who is billiant and unstable. Major plot element is the portable, personal "computer" which is a lifelong companion, secretary, notebook, filing cabinet and general reference library. Said object when attached to the local equivalent "telephone" with ISDN and a global access becomes one's entry to the world. Check the book out. That book along with Vannevar Bush's article (see previous post) descibe a potential that makes cyberpunk look sick. -- =Dennis L. Mumaugh Lisle, IL ...!{att,lll-crg}!cuuxb!dlm OR cuuxb!dlm@arpa.att.com
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (01/07/89)
In article <2350@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes: >[description of an article from 1945] >My point is that the above citation seems to be unknown to serious >researchers. It describes a set of concepts that have not yet been >achieved. A vague glimmering was attempted by Doug Englebert at SRI >in his Augmented Knowledge Workshop. I feel that people need to >re-examine a lot of the past as I seem to see people keep re-inventing >old ideas that have become forgotten. No one's re-inventing the wheel, but hand waving is hand waving. The real advances are going to be in actual systems. You seem to be assuming that the problem is a shortage of ideas, and complaining that we should be spending more time seeing what's already out there. Well, the real shortage is in things like technology, funding, resources, and time. Just because current hand waving bears a striking resemblance to past hand waving, it doesn't mean your re-invention alarm has to go off. Most work from 1945 is probably so extrapolative as to make it worthless. Who in 1945 could have predicted which vision of the future would seem right 40+ years later? The fact that one guy seems to have gotten it right is irrelevant. We don't want to have to constantly search through all the chaff of the past n years for the gems. On the other hand, similar papers published today (I have a few references if anyone is interested), while proposing very similar ideas, are of a better grade of hand waving, since their ideas are actually technologically feasible. (Of course, Technologically is only one species of Feasible.) And I certainly wouldn't expect people to grind through today's ideas forty years from now to see what they can find. If they still want cyberspace or office metaphors in forty years, good for them, but it won't be because someone looked up some forty year old articles, it'll be because the idea was good enough to be continually re-invented until someone had the bright idea of doing something about it. If you're worried about the original idea-man not getting credit for his good extrapolation, well that's life, and besides, there's nothing new under the sun anyhow, right? -Dan p.s. i haven't read the article in question, i am responding only to the ideas expressed in the message posted
janssen@titan.sw.mcc.com (Bill Janssen) (01/08/89)
>%A Vannevar Bush >%T As We May Think >%J Altantic Monthly >%D August 2 1945 More easily found in: Irene Grief (ed.), COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK: A BOOK OF READINGS, Morgan-Kaufman, CA, 1988. along with all kinds of other good stuff. Bill
jzitt@dasys1.UUCP (Joe Zitt) (01/18/89)
In article <3636@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: > >Those who live in New York may have already noticed that Citibank's new >teller machines are touch screen based. There are no hardware buttons >at all (for customer use), just touch zones on the graphics display. > Citibank is doing wonderful things with their ATMs. Their Humanware division has some really energetic, devoted people working on this. The only complaint I've heard about the touch-screens is from a blind user who can't use them. -- {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!jzitt Joe Zitt Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix also: uunet!wwd!joe (WorldWide Data) The worldlines of the needle and the digit intersect -- Paul Pedersen, 1988