thinman@uunet.UU.NET (01/30/91)
We need a new terminology for this new technology we're building.
The William Gibson vocabulary of "deck" and "cyberspace" have been
swiped by Autodesk.
The words "virtual reality", if not already trademarked, will be.
More importantly:
1) You will find very few brand names which are 7 syllables long.
In this culture, and the quasi-American culture we are imposing
on the world, brand names are only one or two syllables long.
Everything I've heard on this wavelength: Artificial Reality,
Virtuality, Telepresense, etc. fail on this score.
2) The current hypefest has firmly bound VR up with New Age
crystal snorting. VR has been branded a technology
of tomorrow rather than a technology of today. In fact,
it is an application of principles published in several college
textbooks, and can be created by assembling a lot of existing
free source code. It is not "some California thing out of Omni".
VR technology is defined by the sensory impact gained from simultaneously
engaging several senses: the 3D visual processing sense, the time sense,
and the senses of touch, kinesthesia, etc. 3D vision and time are so central
to our perceptual structure that the other senses are secondary.
I hereby nominate 5D: 3D vision + "Time, the fourth dimension" + other senses.
A VR and cyberspace system can continue to be goofy computing of tomorrow.
A 5D system is simply the next step up from static 3D graphics. A 5D system
is just an engineering exercise.
While we're neologizing, there's been no good word for the "deck": the
totality of gear necessary for presenting the illusion to one or a few people.
Workstation? Who wants to work? Deck? It's been taken. Besides, "deck"
brings up "teledildonics" and the Gibsonian mythos of brain connections,
data thieves, and gods in the machine.
I hereby nominate "pod". It has nuances of a mechanical casing which
surrounds you and seals you off from the outside world. Of course, in
computers, we must use acronyms wherever possible. Goodnight from my
Point Of Departure
Lance Norskog
thinman@cup.portal.comcyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (01/31/91)
The "name" debate is one whose substantive contents intrigue me less than the fact that this issue keeps coming up, before we have products. Did geographers debate the name of their trade when making the first maps? What was the history of the term, "computer"? Was it as hotly debated as are the names suggested for our field? Trademarks are really beside the point. First, they only are applicable to products on the market and, so far as I can see, the "RB2" trademark is the only one that is truly original and thus probably protectable. "Virtual reality," "virtuality," and "artificial reality" are both too generic and have too many prior uses to be protectable (IMHO). Second, trademarks come and go with most products. The "Mac" is about the only computer trade- mark that I can easily recall. Of greater interest to me is the question of who shall define our field, ultimately: will it be the developers, the users, the promoters, or the press? Or none of the above? For now, given the tiny audience of people actively involved in developing "x," maybe this is beside the point except as an epiphenomenon attendant on our perception of reality as a mediated situation. But let me not be a wet blanket on this topic. If others want to discuss "naming the thing," I'll look forward to the dialogue. Bob Jacobson
basiji@milton.u.washington.edu (David Basiji) (01/31/91)
Pod??? You gotta be kidding! Everybody will associate it
with Body Snatcher. Talk about a marketing disaster...
People are suspicious enough of computer technology without
implying that it will steal their mind. Naturally, I can't
come up with anything better (alterniverse, God, sensestation...).
Of course, if any of these catch, I'll demand credit.
Too bad Sensurround is taken.
david basiji
basiji@milton.u.washington.edujenkins@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Kent Jenkins) (01/31/91)
I don't really understand the problem. A new name for what? Virtual Reality? The basis of the "fix" is apperantly that some people have taken "deck" and "cyberspace" (and, if it's of any interest, FASA Corp., a role-playing company, has trademakred "matrix") and someone will probably "soon take V-R". When was the last time you asked for a "facial tissue" or went to the "icebox." (Though the latter is a term my Mother uses constantly and drives me nuts.) Though that's what these really are, a lot of people use "Fridge" (shortened from Frigidare) and ask for a "Kleenex." The idea of V-R, while starting to come into reality, is still pretty nebulus and is already close to a household phrase. A household phrase, even copyrighted, is still used. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm going to be using "virtual reality," "sim-stim" (which I think is more what we have nowadays than V-R), "cyberspace" (when we get it), and so on unless someone DOES come up with another name for it all. But why? Actually, I'm rather partial to "Plan Nine", but that is actually AT&T's. - _ Kent Jenkins / Thenomain / Magnus Consultant / It's Just Me _ | Internet: jenkins@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu | "I seem to remember | | kent-j@cis.ohio-state.edu | something about a |
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") (01/31/91)
In article <15454@milton.u.washington.edu> portal!cup.portal.com! thinman@uunet.UU.NET writes: >The William Gibson vocabulary of "deck" and "cyberspace" have been >swiped by Autodesk. I've heard a persistent rumour that Gibson is trying to get a trademark on the name "Erich Gullichsen", or however he mispells his name. :-) -- J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2120 "It is the cunning of form to veil itself continually in the evidence of content. It is the cunning of the code to veil itself and to produce itself in the obviousness of value." -- Baudrillard
frerichs@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David J Frerichs) (01/31/91)
so FASA has TMed "matrix"... I think I should go over there and throw my math book in their face... As Robert has said, I don't think any of these "trademarks" will hold in a court of law. If you have a system that you want to market, use whatever words you want to describe it... just give it an original name. ie... My product "X" implements Virtual Reality... if a somone doesn't like it, let him sue you (which he probably will), but he won't win. maybe I should trademark the word "the"... [dfRERICHS University of Illinois, Urbana Designing VR systems that work... Dept. of Computer Engineering Networked VR. IEEE/SigGraph _ _ _ frerichs@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu _/_\__/_\__/_\_ frerichs@well.sf.ca.us \_/ \_/ \_/ ]
steve@apple.com (Steve Savitzky) (01/31/91)
In article <15454@milton.u.washington.edu> portal!cup.portal.com!thinman@ uunet.UU.NET writes: We need a new terminology for this new technology we're building. The William Gibson vocabulary of "deck" and "cyberspace" have been swiped by Autodesk. I wonder whether "cyberspace" would stand up in court--after all, there's a previous use (though they might have bought it from Gibson). Somebody may have tried to swipe "matrix", too. I hereby offer V-Space (Virtual Space). Alternatively, substitute "World" or "Universe" for "Space". Also, the "Soft World" (with the outside world being the Hard World, of course). I've never liked "deck" much anyway. Brings to mind something rectangular with spinning tape reels. How about "Set" as a good generic term. Parts of it could be further specified: headset, handset, body-set, and so on. Maybe V-Set for the whole thing. The words "virtual reality", if not already trademarked, will be. I hope not. It's even less likely to stand up than "cyberspace" -- it's in current use all over the industry. But Virtual Universe or Soft {Reality, World, Universe} would do. "SoftWorld" has the advantage of being closely related to "software", to the extent of sharing the same abbreviation. [5D, pod suggestions omitted] Pod brings to mind something that encloses you. There's yet another possibility, which is to use the even older terminology of _True_Names_ -- "Other World" and "Gate" (or was it "Portal"?) Perhaps excessively "new-age". Of course, we could always do what science-fiction fans do and turn the terminology around: the "Real World" is the one *inside* the computer, where you *really* live, and the "Mundane World" is the one outside. Some day. -- \ --Steve Savitzky-- \ ADVANsoft Research Corp \ REAL hackers use an AXE! \ \ steve@advansoft.COM \ 4301 Great America Pkwy \ #include<disclaimer.h> \ \ arc!steve@apple.COM \ Santa Clara, CA 95954 \ 408-727-3357 \ \__ steve@arc.UUCP _________________________________________________________
Pezely@udel.edu (Cowboy Dan) (01/31/91)
Lance Norskog writes in article <15454@milton.u.washington.edu>: > >We need a new terminology for this new technology we're building. > >The William Gibson vocabulary of "deck" and "cyberspace" have been >swiped by Autodesk. For `deck,' some use `workstation.' I prefer `terminal.' Why invent a new name to only add to the jargon? Also, second-generation VR systems have a lot in common with distributed operating systems. Amoeba and Plan 9 use `terminal' to mean the hardware to interface the system to the person but is usually something like an X terminal or low-end workstation like a Sun 3-50. Such terminals are meant to be cheap: slightly more than today's graphic tty terminals. >From a hardware point of view, a cyberspace deck only needs (for today's technology) a few serial ports to talk to the various 3-space trackers, a serial port for a tty terminal (you don't want to read text through EyePhones and you may need a keyboard once and a while), 2+ NTSC ports, more serial ports for communication with any force-feedback system you might have, etc. You get the point... -Daniel
madsax@milton.u.washington.edu (Mark A. DeLoura) (02/01/91)
Lance Norskog writes in article <15454@milton.u.washington.edu>: > >We need a new terminology for this new technology we're building. > >The William Gibson vocabulary of "deck" and "cyberspace" have been >swiped by Autodesk. It seems like most common household objects get their name shortened to one or two syllables...phone for telephone, fridge for reFRIDGErator (contrary to what someone else said. :) ), tee-vee for television...etc. I'll wager that even though Autodesk has swiped the term "deck", if VR systems ever do get into households, that is what they will be termed-- simply due to William Gibson's novels. It doesn't really matter what they are called by the scientific community-- people will call them what is easiest to remember them by. And reading through a William Gibson novel and seeing the word "deck" to refer to that "XYZFOO" thing that you have in the living room probably will cause it to be termed that instead. It's so smooth, easy to say. :) And William Gibson will probably be raised to a cult status even higher than he is now. =============================================================================== Mark A. DeLoura madsax@milton.u.washington.edu University of Washington "The hardest part of Virtual Reality is the last few inches." -- Tom Furness
jwtlai@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai) (02/01/91)
In article <15507@milton.u.washington.edu> frerichs@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David J Fr erichs) writes: >so FASA has TMed "matrix"... I think I should go over there and throw my >math book in their face... Actually, they trademarked this for another (unreleased?) game before they came out with their cyber/magi-punk game. At least that's what some people at FASA claimed on GEnie. Anyone want to trademark a few names a give the rights out freely, a la FSF? That would be interesting.
carlt@fernwood.mpk.ca.us (Carl Tollander) (02/05/91)
Concerning the recent "we need a new name" thread, I have several comments.
1. Autodesk has officially abandoned the trademark registration application
for "Cyberspace". If you examine the trademark office records, you may
still find some traces of the original application. The decision to
abandon was made some time ago, and we trust that the community understands
that sometimes it takes awhile for decisions like this to work their way
through the process. We have tried for many months to make our
intention known to anyone who asked. "Cyberspace" is for all.
2. Autodesk neither posesses a trademark, nor intends to trademark the word
"deck".
3. It is the intention of the Autodesk cyberspace group that simple technical
and descriptive terms in common use in the virtual reality field should
not be trademarked. To do so would be a disservice to clear technical
discussion. We strongly support efforts by the community to dissuade others
from trademarking these terms.
On the other hand, trademarks CONTAINING technical terms should be fair
game, e.g. "Jungleman Joe's Virtual Deck", "Cyberspace Madness", etc.
Rumors surrounding our trademark activity seem to come up every couple of
months on the net and at conferences. I hope this note helps set those
rumors to rest.
Carl Tollander
Chief Scientist
Autodesk cyberspace group
email: carlt@autodesk.comgood@4gl.enet.dec.com (Michael Good 05-Feb-1991 1750) (02/06/91)
Since the naming issue has been raised again, I might as well put
my 2 cents in for "Presence", the term that we've been using to
describe our research in this area.
My concept of "presence" is that it is a quality we want to
achieve in computer systems, as opposed to a category of computer
systems such as "virtual reality." We've found categories used
before in computer-human interaction: for instance, Ben
Shneiderman's famous division of systems into the categories of
command line, menu, and direct manipulation systems. This type
of categorization is a useful starting point for discussion, but
it quickly exhausts its usefulness for inquiry into what makes
particular systems more useful and usable and other systems less
useful and usable. For one thing, most commercial computer
systems are hybrids of the different categories anyway.
Analysis along dimensions of usefulness or usability seems more
promising and is something we have pursued in our group over the
past few years. That analysis also will only carry you so far.
Most of the difficult problems come up in designing systems for
people in a specific work context, and you can only understand a
limited amount when abstracting out the effects of context. But
dimensions seem to give us more understanding than categories.
Currently I view presence as the quality of computer systems
that:
- make them feel more transparent to computer users,
- makes greater of the available senses, and
- allows previously obscured work elements to become more
important and pertinent to the worker, by moving work
elements from the abstract to the concrete.
Another dimension to consider is "inclusion" - something that
William Bricken has emphasized in his writings and theorizing.
I think both the presence and inclusion dimensions are important.
This argument for dimensions over categories is in the context of
developing scientific and engineering understanding. For
marketing purposes, the considerations are different, and VR
seems to be pretty far ahead there in name recognition. It may
not be the best name, but it's good enough for now.
My colleague Dennis Wixon and I have written more on categories
and dimensions (before we'd heard of virtual reality) in:
Interface Style and Eclecticism: Moving Beyond Categorical
Approaches. Proc. Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting
(New York, October 19-23, 1987), Human Factors Society, Santa
Monica, CA, Vol. 1, 571-575.
--
Michael Good
good@baviki.enet.dec.comjprice@cs.pdx.edu (James Price) (02/07/91)
In article <15470@milton.u.washington.edu> basiji@milton.u.washington.edu (David Basiji) writes: > > > Pod??? You gotta be kidding! Everybody will associate it > with Body Snatcher. Talk about a marketing disaster... > People are suspicious enough of computer technology without > implying that it will steal their mind. Naturally, I can't > come up with anything better (alterniverse, God, sensestation...). > Of course, if any of these catch, I'll demand credit. > Too bad Sensurround is taken. > > david basiji > basiji@milton.u.washington.edu I agree. It starts to scare me if you call it a pod. Heinlein coined the proper term decades ago, the sensies. "Why are they called sensies?" (Jubal) "Go try one and see" to paraphrase (?) Remember those guys who made up the names for television, telephone, and radio? I suspect history will rewrite over our files anyways..... I'm kinda getting tired of the media's games with VR, but I guess, that's the media. Internet jprice@jove.cs.pdx.edu "Justice is incedental to law and order." SCUD: 45 31 25 N 122 40 30 W - J. Edgar Hoover Unity not uniformity "Reading musses up my mind." - Henry Ford
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (02/08/91)
In article <15801@milton.u.washington.edu> autodesk!tengu!carlt@fernwood.mpk.ca. us (Carl Tollander) writes: >Concerning the recent "we need a new name" thread, I have several comments. > >1. Autodesk has officially abandoned the trademark registration application > for "Cyberspace". > >2. Autodesk neither posesses a trademark, nor intends to trademark the word > "deck". > >3. It is the intention of the Autodesk cyberspace group that simple technical > and descriptive terms in common use in the virtual reality field should > not be trademarked. To do so would be a disservice to clear technical > discussion. We strongly support efforts by the community to dissuade others > from trademarking these terms. It is refreshing to see a company do "the right thing". As you state in number 3. above, having the vernacular trademarked would surely cause problems in the development of the various "virtual" technologies. However, just because AutoDesk is so noble, does not mean that everyone else will be. What could be done to keep the lingo in the public domain? Perhaps a trusted organization SHOULD trademark the buzzwords. And then just not be too conscientious about policing their use? Is there any other way to "protect" the words? /craig else will.