cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (10/22/90)
The first of my Seven Questions regarding the virtual world: 1. What is the societal import of the current public interest surrounding virtual interfaces?
sobiloff@acc.stolaf.edu (Chrome Cboy) (10/25/90)
In article <9677@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robe rt Jacobson) writes: > 1. What is the societal import of the current public interest surrounding >virtual interfaces? Hmmmm... this is a broad question, and I know I'll probably miss some (obvious) answers, but here's what I could come up with: 1) For the society composed of research professionals, it means that there is a bit more money for us to do research! :-) 2) Such widespread interest might indicate a general dissatisfaction with current interface technology. This might be because current technology is considered "old hat," or it might be because people are running up against a wall with current technology -- they can "see" that chaotic airflow over the wing they're designing, all nicely rendered in 24-bit color, but they don't have the tools to "get inside" and really see it like they'd like to. (This is just an example; I'm aware of programs that the NCSA have published... :-) I wonder how long the public's interest in VR will last, however. Unfortunately I think the answer is "Not very long" because we aren't going to be producing a $1500 home VR system in the next six months, which seems to be the average attention span of the public. I'm just hoping that VR doesn't get all blown up like artificial intelligence did twenty years ago. Not that I think it'll take twenty years to get some kind of marketable, medium-quality VR system... 3) Of course this question kind of begs the question "Once (?) there *is* a viable VR system, what is the impact going to be on society?" This has been discussed by folks such as Toffler (1979), and more concretely, Kraut (1987). Neither of these individuals talked about VR per se, but they talked about the impact that increased telecommunications ability might have on society. I think that VR is going to promote a sort of "global village," much like we have now with the Internet/Bitnet/Usenet/etc., but with much more realism (more channels available for the transmission of social context cues, etc.). Currently, Don Norman's posts look just about the same as mine. Of course the content varies considerably, but all I have to interpret are the characters that appear on my screen--which look just like the characters I'm typing right now. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's effect on society already has been studied, but that more needs to be done (as usual), especially in the light of virtual reality. A good place to start, however, if you want to look for your own answer(s) to this question is to look at the professional literature that deals with on-line interaction (Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1986)); telecommuting (the afore mentioned Toffler and Kraut, R.E.); generally, there's a lot of good stuff already done on the social psychology side of things. I hope this helps some folks out, and feel free to mail me for more info/pointers if you'd like. -Blake -- ______________ _______________________________________________________/ Chrome C'Boy \_________ | "Innovating is easy: you just rub smart people and money together. The thing | | that we have fallen down completely on is being able to do anything with it. | | The Japanese are the ones who go out and do the actual technology transfer." | | - Alan Kay |
hughes@volcano.Berkeley.EDU (Eric Hughes) (11/08/90)
In article <9677@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: > 1. What is the societal import of the current public interest > surrounding virtual interfaces? My cynical nature answers. The import is the import of the perception of one particularly cool example of surface of technical and scientific endeavor, the most recent in the parade of high-Tc superconductors, cold fusion, recombinant DNA, cryonics, space colonies, and nanotechnology. It will be the savior to all the world's problems for a while and then decline from popular awareness. Note the formal parallel of the following hypothetical (?) and plausible statements about technology: "You'll be able to mass produce miracle drugs for pennies." "You'll be able to have all the energy you want from your basement reactor." "You'll be able to get inside of complex abstractions and really understand them." The greatest import is of such technological wonder. Sad to say for the practioners of VR, but it has nothing to do with VR _per se_. My optimistic nature answers. Thinking about VR may lead to a greater understanding about the nature of perception and existence. (How many of you are reading, in this light, _The Republic_? How many _A Critique of Pure Reason_?) For the first time there exists the ability to create a new sensorium, however limited now. For unlike theater, VR is an unwilling suspension of disbelief. And to my mind, an increased humility toward reality would do no end of good. Sadly to say, however, I think my cycnical side will be more correct. Eric Hughes hughes@ocf.berkeley.edu