esz001@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Will Overington) (04/03/91)
I have for some time been looking at sci.virtual-worlds. I am a beginner in this field. I am wondering whether the concept of virtual reality does, almost by definition, involve the use of helmets with eyepieces, together with gloves. My reason for asking is that it would seem possible to be able to get a lot of work done without helmets and just using a PC as the picture producing device. Maybe one could still use a glove, or maybe this could be an option. Would work of such a nature be a reasonable facet of discussion in sci.virtual-worlds or would this be debasing the reality aspect of virtual reality? Will Overington Department of Electrical, Electronic and Systems Engineering, Coventry Polytechnic, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, England. -- [MODERATOR'S NOTE: This is a reasonable topic, and one that often emerges between designers of conventional workstations and virtual systems enthusiasts. What does the Group Mind think? -- Bob J.]
frerichs@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David J Frerichs) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Apr3.231354.27540@milton.u.washington.edu> esz001@cck. coventry.ac.uk (Will Overington) writes: > >My reason for asking is that it would seem possible to be able to >get a lot of work done without helmets and just using a PC as >the picture producing device. Maybe one could still use a glove, >or maybe this could be an option. >Will Overington I think that the most important aspect of VR (IMHO), complete replacement of a sensory modality, visual in this case, is missing in a non-helmet/boom system. (I am assuming he is speaking of just using the screen of the PC as a mono visual system or using some sort of LCD shutter system.) If you are simply looking to visualize objects and datasets in 3d, this appoach would be sufficient, but floating an object in space in front of your monitor is not creating a virtual-world, even if it is interactive. You achieve no sense of what I like to call "being there." The world beyond your 3d rep is intruding onto your vision... there is no possiblility of tranfering your awareness into the dataset. On the other hand, with a goggle-type display, all you see is the computer generated world, and it is very hard NOT to get a feeling of inclusion. Even with very limited systems, as long as your vision is totally replaced, "being there" is almost inevitable. [please note: for all of you who are about to flame me for saying that, this is from personal experience, so for me at least, this is true. ] In summary: Non-inclusive systems are good for a certain realm of tasks, but for Virtual World generation, inclusion is a must. [dfRERICHS University of Illinois, Urbana Designing systems that work... Dept. of Computer Engineering Consumer VR. Networked VR. IEEE/SigGraph _ _ _ frerichs@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu _/_\__/_\__/_\_ frerichs@well.sf.ca.us \_/ \_/ \_/ ]
kirlik@chmsr.gatech.edu (Alex Kirlik) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Apr3.231354.27540@milton.u.washington.edu> esz001@cck. coventry.ac.uk (Will Overington) writes: > >My reason for asking is that it would seem possible to be able to >get a lot of work done without helmets and just using a PC as >the picture producing device. Maybe one could still use a glove, >or maybe this could be an option. > >Would work of such a nature be a reasonable facet of discussion >in sci.virtual-worlds or would this be debasing the reality aspect >of virtual reality? My opinion is that a discussion aimed at defining and bounding the set of human-machine interaction problems for which VR is an appropriate solution is surely a welcome topic in this newsgroup (and in the VR community for that matter). I have seen relatively little discussion of this matter here or in the open literature. Without a good understanding of the types of problems for which VR will be an effective solution, I am concerned we will see VR being force fit as a solution to non-problems, or as a solution to what may turn out to be very small problems in certain cases of human-machine interaction, leaving the real problems unaddressed. Or, in analogy to other primarily technology-driven approaches to interface design (e.g., expert systems) it may even be the case that VR technology may have the potential to introduce its own novel class of interaction problems. Now if I was a VR technologist I wouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about this issue; I couldn't see why it would pay me to do so (in the short term at least). Too many "real" engineering problems to deal with now. If, on the other hand, I was primarily interested in designing a cockpit or control room and wanted to add VR to my tool box, defining its scope and limits would be one of the first things I'd want to do. I'll take a stab at it in the hopes of hearing what others think. It strikes me that VR will be appropriate for solving two sorts of interaction problems. The first set of problems are those where restricted perception-action access to the environment is the major factor constraining human-machine system performance. Say we observe an aspect of human behavior that we'd like to aid, eliminate, etc. through better design. I'm suggesting we ask ourself whether the observed behavior is due to restricted perception-action interaction with the environment (as that interaction is mediated through the existing interface), or whether that aspect of behavior is in some way inherent in the system control task. I suspect that many of the "situational awareness" problems and memory problems are indicative of overly restrictive perception-action access. Here we may want to use VR to provide the operator with a less opaque window to the task at hand. Many interaction problems, though, do not fit this schema. A decision support system that allows the decision-maker to "walk" though a space of possibilities and to create possible worlds may sound neat but it will (or perhaps should) never reduce the sometimes painful need to clearly examine value structures, etc. Secondly, I suggest VR will be appropriate for that class of problems where we can invent a novel perception-action solution to a problem that had previously never been performable in a perception-action format. Unlike the problems mentioned above, here the issue is not so much the "reality problem" of portraying an enhanced veridical system representation, but rather the "mapping problem" whereby we try to ensure that performance on the substituted problem is better than performance on the original problem. As a gross simplification, assume that people have two "modes" of selecting behavior, one a fast and possibly parallel mode based on tight perception-action relation to the external world, and the other a slow possibly serial mode based on using representations to detach oneself from the here-now to expand the range of information considered. The issue is to map the first type into the second by providing concrete representations where abstract ones were once required. Not only do you have to be pretty clever to do this, you also have to make sure that the inherited error forms characteristic of perception-action processing do not lead to bigger problems than you started with. I usually don't mind the "slips" characteristic of skilled driving behavior (taking the path of least resistance and forgetting to stop at the bank on the way home) partly because my world is relatively friendly to them. But now take the same kind of behavior as an engineered analog for controlling a nuclear power plant and those kinds of slips can be disasterous. Maybe in certain cases the fluency of skill-based solutions to cognitive tasks can come at too high a price. That's my two cents; I'm interested to hear what others may think. Alex UUCP: kirlik@chmsr.UUCP {backbones}!gatech!chmsr!kirlik INTERNET: kirlik@chmsr.gatech.edu
dowen@BBN.COM (Dan Owen) (04/04/91)
Any definition of virtual reality that limits or defines the senses (i.e.taste, touch sight, smell, etc.) or the devices which are providing those senses with virtual perception seems to me to be someone's or some group's particular narrow definition. Virtual reality fits neatly with sensory deprivation in that the normal function of a particular sense is disrupted. Virtual reality, of course, differs from sensory deprivation in that pseudo sense data are provided to the sensory path in question. The number of senses provided with substitute sensory data and the overall fidelity of the virtual reality which is provided need to pass a threshold to be accepted. This threshold may be defined as that level of fidelity to a plausible reality which allows the virtual participant to temporarily suspend disbelief in the fictitious nature of the experience. Once this important act of perceptive cognition has occurred then for a time the virtual reality is accepted as actual reality. Numerous anecdotes of the fear, anger and nausea experienced by pilots in flight simulators and tank crews in networked simulation training environments attest to this fundamental requirement of virtual reality. Perhaps I am merely stating the obvious so I'll stop here. > >I am wondering whether the concept of virtual reality does, >almost by definition, involve the use of helmets with eyepieces, >together with gloves. > > >[MODERATOR'S NOTE: This is a reasonable topic, and one that often >emerges between designers of conventional workstations and virtual >systems enthusiasts. What does the Group Mind think? -- Bob J.] > -------- Daniel P. Owen dowen@bbn.com Database Modeling Group Leader BBN Systems and Technologies Division BBN Advanced Simulation 1-206-746-6800 FAX 1-206-746-1335 14100 Southeast 36th Street, Bellevue, WA 98006 Home 1-206-723-6304
lance@motcsd.csd.mot.com (lance.norskog) (04/05/91)
In sci.virtual-worlds you write: >I am wondering whether the concept of virtual reality does, >almost by definition, involve the use of helmets with eyepieces, >together with gloves. >... Does the Virtual Reality camp really expect people to stand up and wave their arms around in cartoonland for 8 hrs/day? I would only use the helmet if it were lighter, and had a selectable feed-through for the real world. LCD screens are transparent anyway, it should be easy to put an LCD shutter behind the screen in along with the backlight panel. The VPL DataGlove is flimsy, and the Power Glove is so bulky that I was surprised I could actually type with it on. The full-time Input Device Of Tomorrow should be designed very carefully to avoid Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, which means you will probably be motionless and just gently twitch the controls. I'm interested in this topic because I want a better method of presenting and browsing information, one which engages more of my senses and methods of interpreting the environment. 2D window systems are useless, I find them to be just "clutter managers". I expect the most important product of the VR movement to be a 3D desktop computing environment. I'm squarely in the HCI camp. Stereo vision is key. The last revamp of the human visual system was 70 million years ago, when we switched from a ground animal to a tree animal. The fronts of our faces went flat, our eyes got huge, and our "visual brain" expanded, so that we could fly through the trees without falling 50 feet to an uncertain fate. Sound are also very important. Sound has very strong effects on concentration levels, and its use in computers thus far has been disappointing. We have a very strong time sense, and the use of rhythm in all the senses has really never been explored in computing interfaces. Lance Norskog
shebs@Apple.COM (Stan Shebs) (04/06/91)
In article <1991Apr4.171457.17426@milton.u.washington.edu> dowen@BBN.COM (Dan Owen) writes: >[...] The number of senses provided with substitute >sensory data and the overall fidelity of the virtual reality which is >provided need to pass a threshold to be accepted. This threshold may be >defined as that level of fidelity to a plausible reality which allows >the virtual participant to temporarily suspend disbelief in the >fictitious nature of the experience. Once this important act of >perceptive cognition has occurred then for a time the virtual reality is >accepted as actual reality. Numerous anecdotes of the fear, anger and >nausea experienced by pilots in flight simulators and tank crews in >networked simulation training environments attest to this fundamental >requirement of virtual reality. I like this definition. The "suspension of disbelief" is a good subjective way to avoid insisting on particular hardware. For instance, when I play NetHack, even with its character graphics and non-real-time behavior, I find myself experiencing fear (trapped in a corridor), relief (escaped), and anger/depression (died). So, if your model is sufficiently compelling, then the nature of the display is of lesser importance. Perhaps the attraction of the full sensory replacement is that it works well with both good and bad software - without any alternative input, the brain has to make do with what is being provided. This brings to mind another issue that I've been concerned about. Accepting a synthetic reality as actual reality is potentially hazardous - the nausea attendant upon the eyes getting information that conflicts with that coming from the inner ear, for instance, is just the tip of the iceberg. What if the software convinced you that your virtual leg had been cut off? Would your real leg become paralyzed? Could you actually be killed by suggestion alone? Can we set some sort of limits on what can be simulated? One solution for nausea would be to restrict virtual acceleration to under the sensitivity of the inner ear - if you want to move fast, it should happen instantaneously. Does anybody have, or is developing, such a set of safety principles? Stan Shebs Apple ATG System Software shebs@apple.com
B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) (04/11/91)
(from Stephen Tice, student at University of Texas at
Arlington, B645ZAW@utarlg.uta.edu, *Save Time -> No Tag*)
In response to Warren Baird's question?
Do you group members mostly agree with these categorizations?
-------------------------------------------------------------
alternate reality - generic term for possible realities
(our own knowable _real_ reality might
be one of many)
artificial reality - fabrication, not necessarily
reflective of mundane reality but
internally consistent, includes
Toon-worlds
augmented reality - information enhancement of mundane
reality, like a heads-up display
consensual reality - collective and/or distributed reality,
meta-category to virtual reality
mundane human real. - reality de jure :)
simulated reality - reflects mundane reality to some
degree, simplified physics, objects,
and interactions assumed, quantifiable
virtual reality - reflects mundane reality to the point
of being indistinguishable from
mundane human reality (* an ideal *)
note 1: teleprecense, teleprosthetics, and telerobotics are
tools used in mundane reality, not part of virtual
reality
note 2: information visualization is not part of virtual
reality, augmented or simulated reality maybe