Craig_Keithley.SERVICE_TOOLS@gateway.qm.apple.com (Craig Keithley) (04/04/91)
Subject: Time:5:00 PM
OFFICE MEMO Semi-virtual environments Date:4/3/91
>Regarding the question of implementing some aspects of virtual reality without
using gloves and goggles. Would a simple (non-3D) screen be enough?
I'd say yes. In fact, that's what I'm thinking of doing for *my* MacMud.
While we're on that topic, here's a more detailed description of why I'm
interested in VR/VW/VE (virtual-reality/worlds/environments).
My interest in virtual environments is to increase my knowledge of:
What is workable
-and-
What is desirable
In the realm of "improving the user interface".
Some GUI OS shell programs (like Windows 3.0, GEM, Mac OS, and X-something or
other) apply very rudimentary virtual object and virtual behaviors to the
computer system functions.
The Mac might not be the best example, but I'll use it anyway. The system
software has attributed a set of object behaviors according to the object type.
Folders expand when double clicked. Files launch the related application when
double clicked. Applications launch when double clicked. While the user's
action is the same, the observed result is dependent on the system software
(and the object type). Dragging a file, folder, or app to the trash will
"delete" it.
The Mac already has a limited ability to do something different with
applications when you just click on them. The app's icon is stored as both a
"released" and "depressed" state. Clicking on an app icon (not double
clicking) will appear to temporarily modify the icon.
Another humorous (and sexist) example of extending object behaviour is the Mac
INIT known as "tits". Some third party programmer got a bit wierd.
Installing this INIT changes a hard disk icon to a pair of tits. The fuller
the hard disk, the bigger the breasts. In this case (as in almost all Mac
examples), the system software has been extended to behave differently
according to the object's attributes.
My personal goal is to investigate the possibility of extending or moving the
object behavior outside of the system software. And I'm interested in making
this extension resonably consistent. While "object" scripts could be attached
to all file folders, files, and applications, the previously described MUD
problem of data base bloat, context switching between all scripts, etc., also
appears here. These are the problems I want to learn how to solve.
Its too early to tell if such an extension (to the Operating system & objects)
is worth the trouble. And since we (Apple) try to pride ourselves on
consistancy of object (systems & apps) behaviour, this would definately be a
problem if we removed the responsibility for this from the OS. Our research
has shown that while vast quantities of IBM PC users blame the app writers when
something is hard to use or bombs, they blame Apple if the same problems appear
when running on a Mac. Placing the object behavior *in* the object would
probably make this worse...
Craig Keithley
keithley@apple.com
disclaimer: My work has nothing to do with virtual-reality (or reality for
that matter!)
--