pat@jupiter.risc.rockwell.com (Pete Tinker) (04/03/91)
Bob,
I think that human factors concerns are *the* most important aspect of our
work. I'm "selling" VR internally to groups that want dramatic demonstrations
of their projects to customers and potential customers, but my longer-term
research focus is concerned with using virtual space as an "information space."
This work raises many questions about the effective use of the (potentially
limitless) display area (volume) of virtual space, and about how it can benefit
users in critical situations.
These may seem like mundane concerns to the "goggles 'n gloves" set, but
head-mounted display systems offer some very practical advantages over standard
CRT counterparts for some applications: lower overall system cost, less heat
dissipation, lower power requirements, larger display area, smaller physical
space, more natural computer/human interaction, more manageable technology
upgrade path, fewer personnel, more secure communications, and less user
distraction.
There is a large body of work on human factors issues for non-cockpit
information display systems, but I haven't seen much that departs from fairly
static 2 or 2.5-D CRT-based displays. 3-D helmet-mounted cockpit display
systems have received a lot of attention and much is known about pilot
perceptions in that environment, but that doesn't necessarily translate to,
say, factory floor monitoring systems. I think the key difference is that
cockpit displays are intended to augment and magnify perceptions about the
physical world, while other information systems deal with information that
doesn't have a physical analog; their requirements are very different.
A big issue for me, then, is how we can capitalize on the practical potential
benefits of virtual space without hindering the information flow to a user at
the same time. VR *can* be used in many applications, but there are few (IMHO)
for which it's clearly better than more conventional approaches. Placing
someone in a virtual environment is fun for a while, but if it doesn't help do
the job it won't gain much acceptance. That's where human factors research
comes in.
Pete Tinker (pat@risc.rockwell.com)
Science Center, Rockwell International Corporation
(805) 373-4268
-- chalmers@europarc.xerox.com (Matthew Chalmers) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Apr2.223640.26210@milton.u.washington.edu>, pat@jupiter.risc.roc kwell.com (Pete Tinker) writes: > > I think that human factors concerns are *the* most important aspect of our > work. I'm "selling" VR internally to groups that want dramatic > demonstrations of their projects to customers and potential customers, but > my longer-term research focus is concerned with using virtual space as an > "information space." >... > This work raises many questions about the effective use of the (potentially > limitless) display area (volume) of virtual space, and about how it can > benefit users in critical situations. > > A big issue for me, then, is how we can capitalize on the practical potential > benefits of virtual space without hindering the information flow to a user at > the same time. VR *can* be used in many applications, but there are few > (IMHO) for which it's clearly better than more conventional approaches. > Placing someone in a virtual environment is fun for a while, but if it > doesn't help do the job it won't gain much acceptance. That's where human > factors research comes in. > I think this is very true.. largely because my own preferences are similar. It made me think of some other issues that I'd like to open up for discussion. It is interesting to compare the types of information display discussed in standard graphics texts - often 2D or 3D and 'physically based' - with those discussed in texts on more general information display - statistical and multidimensional information. Obviously there are similarities but the variety of techniques, context-specificity and such are greater than I, as a computer scientist, expected. Their description and generation becomes less like the the analytical style seen in such books as Foley & van Dam, and more like the exemplar-based styles of craft and art books. I'm saying this as I have just finished reading a remarkably fine book, called `Envisioning Information' by Edward Tufte. A superb text on the more general craft of information display, it seems (to me) to reinforce the idea that some level of aesthetic judgement is essential when trying to build useful information displays. People understand information displays better when they are well-crafted, where I mean 'craft'. When trying to design a system to display non-physically based information, how much context-dependent skill and knowledge is needed by the system designer or programmer? This ties in with the human factors point of Pete Tinker. He points out that we ought to consider basic Human Factors research when putting together VR systems. I think that this does not only mean the factors of the individual e.g. display sizes, but also the factors of the group of which that individual is a member. In the area of Human Factors/CHI/CSCW there seems to be an increasing awareness of the importance of social issues and how systems are made more effective by taking into account the context of the system. Apart from the issues of what people in a group will want to and be able to use something like a VR system, there is also the issue of the subjective and aesthetic rules of information interpretation. I think that in the long run, we as system designers will have to take account of these things. Right now I am interested in these issues but (surprise) have no magical solutions or prescriptions. I just wanted to raise these points to see what people thought about them and whether other people were interested or actively working in them. Regards, -- Matthew
lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (a.k.a. Chri) (04/05/91)
pat@jupiter.risc.rockwell.com (Pete Tinker) writes: >I think that human factors concerns are *the* most important aspect of our >work. >[...] >This work raises many questions about the effective use of the (potentially >limitless) display area (volume) of virtual space, and about how it can >benefit users in critical situations. This sounds really interesting! Human factors are too often ignored or poorly implemented (my stereo system is a good example), although this seems to be changing. >3-D helmet-mounted cockpit display >systems have received a lot of attention and much is known about pilot >perceptions in that environment, but that doesn't necessarily translate to, >say, factory floor monitoring systems. I think the key difference is that >cockpit displays are intended to augment and magnify perceptions about the >physical world, while other information systems deal with information that >doesn't have a physical analog; their requirements are very different. >[...] >A big issue for me, then, is how we can capitalize on the practical potential >benefits of virtual space without hindering the information flow to a user at >the same time. VR *can* be used in many applications, but there are few (IMHO) >for which it's clearly better than more conventional approaches. Well, here's an off-the-wall idea for an application. In the case of the "factory floor monitoring systems" example you briefly mentioned above, I think VW/VR systems could be used in an effective way. One thing that (I believe) usually isn't apparent about computer programs (especially those that manipulate complex machinery) is what the computer "sees" as the actual machine. Sometimes this is quite different from what we (as the users) see as the actual machine. VR could be used to display a 3-d representation of the machine as the *computer* sees it. A quick example: let's say we have some large industrial machine that is very complex, and is used for a lot of assembly line work (e.g. a robotic arm). What the user sees is a large, complex machine with many moving parts, being controlled by a computer. In addition, the user (as a person) is able to examine the machine and see how the various physical pieces work together, and then analyze possible problems. What the computer "sees" of the machine might be quite different: it may simply see some data-gathering devices that provide the computer with the "state" of the machine, along with with control devices to change the machine's state. A VR representation of the machine (as the computer sees it) could let an operator "see" what the computer does. In addition, a VR representation of the "real" machine (possibly a simple super-imposed real-time graphic picture from a camera) could also be included in the VR to allow the operator to correlate between the computer's representation and the real machine. This might be helpful in safety-critical environments, where the computer is not able to react to some unusual event because it does not have the necessary sensory devices. [I will apologize in advance for "anthropomorphizing" the computer. Some may argue that computers don't actually "see", but in the above context I think it is warranted and clear.] >Placing >someone in a virtual environment is fun for a while, but if it doesn't help do >the job it won't gain much acceptance. That's where human factors research >comes in. Great point. This seems to me to be along the line of Don Norman's _The_Design_Of_Everyday_Things_ (a great book, in my humble opinion). Design for the user! -- Christopher Lishka 608-262-4485 It is not safe out here. It is wonderous, Wisconsin State Lab. of Hygiene with treasures to satiate desires both lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu subtle and gross. But it is not for the uunet!uwvax!uwslh!lishka timid. -- Q