wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Alan Wexelblat) (02/26/90)
Am I the only one who thinks it's going to be a long time before people start wearing their computers for routine use? I know, the idea of VR is to remove the interface as a barrier between the user and the computer. But does this *require* that we don helmet, gloves, force-feedback devices, or whatever? Aren't there underlying principles of VR that are amenable to implementation with more conventional hardware? How about this: imagine that you have a desktop display that's capable of creating a true 3D image of whatever you want. The display is 3D holographic for all viewers at all angles. You can have whatever input device(s) you like from today's catalogues. What do you do with this setup? -- --Alan Wexelblat internet: wex@pws.bull.com Bull HN Information Systems Usenet: spdcc.com!know!wex phone: (508) 671-7485 Adapt, adopt, improvise!
rabin@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Rabin Ezra) (03/01/90)
I also believe that it will be quite some time before people
wear the current brand of VR tech for any more than
experimental or games purposes. The current gear is just too
cumbersome. If you could get it down to a small head-up display
about the size of a pair of glasses then it might gain
acceptance.
Using more "conventional" tech. {/conventional {screen-type-display
keyboard-type-input pointer-type-input} def} even where the
display is 3-D, while good, may not be true VR. Most of the
xpeople whose view of VR is a Gibsonesk vision of Cyberspace
would insist that the VR must totaly replace the real world.
Thus the cumbersome helmet and gloves with tactile feedback are
OK, but direct connect would be better. Those of us whose dreams
are tempered by reality, would probably compromise.
For myself, I would like a hand-held tool, light enough to clip
on my belt, with a 3D projection display, lots of power and
ergomonics good enough to make it usable. Given such a tool, I
think that I wouldn't be too desperate to "jack in" to an all
encompassing VR
Rabin Ezra
--
Rabin Ezra UUCP: rabin@qmc-cs.UUCP
PhD Student, JANET: rabin@uk.ac.qmw.cs
Dept of Computer Science, ARPA: rabin@cs.qmw.ac.uk
Queen Mary and Westfield College, <If the gateway bounces try :
Mile End Road, rabin%cs.qmw.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu >
London E1 4NS. If you have problems try qmc in place of qmw.
U.K. UUCP will eventually also become qmw-cs.UUCPgood@baviki.enet.dec.com (03/01/90)
Wearing things is not the only way to approach virtual worlds, or multi-sensory I/O. Force-feedback joysticks, for instance, act much more like a traditional I/O device, and let you explore using the sense of touch. However, given current technology, the head-mounted display and glove is what we have available for exploring support for natural human vision. It's good enough to get started for building prototypes and learning about what works and doesn't work. Holography is a promising technology, but it doesn't work for building interactive prototypes yet. Many people will wear machines that are sufficiently comfortable, useful, and fun. Look at the Sony Walkman and its successors. Michael Good Good@Baviki.Enet.Dec.Com
wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Alan Wexelblat) (03/04/90)
In article <2194@milton.acs.washington.edu> rabin@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Rabin Ezra) writes:
I also believe that it will be quite some time before people
wear the current brand of VR tech for any more than
experimental or games purposes. The current gear is just too
cumbersome. If you could get it down to a small head-up display
about the size of a pair of glasses then it might gain
acceptance.
I'm still dubious. Look around you during your working day: how much of
what you do relies on face-to-face interaction? How willing would you be to
take off and put on glasses every time you needed to talk to someone?
Let me explain where I'm coming from. I'm really a collaborative-work
specialist. As such, I believe that the vast majority of tasks involve
interaction. VR will eventually be the ultimate medium for cooperative
work, but as long as I have to put physical equipment between myself and my
partners I may be hindering my task rather than helping it.
--
--Alan Wexelblat internet: wex@pws.bull.com
Bull HN Information Systems Usenet: spdcc.com!know!wex
phone: (508) 671-7485
Adapt, adopt, improvise!wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Alan Wexelblat) (03/04/90)
In article <2195@milton.acs.washington.edu> good@baviki.enet.dec.com writes:
Wearing things is not the only way to approach virtual
worlds, or multi-sensory I/O. Force-feedback joysticks,
for instance, act much more like a traditional I/O device,
and let you explore using the sense of touch.
Where does one get a (relatively cheap, ie ~$1K) force-feedback joystick?
The only force-feedback devices I've used have been quite cumbersome and
uncomfortable.
However, given current technology, the head-mounted
display and glove is what we have available for exploring
support for natural human vision. It's good enough to
get started for building prototypes and learning about
what works and doesn't work. Holography is a promising
technology, but it doesn't work for building interactive
prototypes yet.
But my point is that the head-mounted display and glove may not be "natural"
and may be leading us down a garden path. I'd like to see less
concentration on the techno-whizz-banginess of the gadgets and more on the
underlying ideas we're trying to get across.
To give you an idea of what I'm getting at, look at Randy Smith's (?CHI'87?)
paper on the tension between magic and reality. He's talking about
something fundamental to the whole endeavor, something totally divorced from
the gadgetry. I'd like to see more work like that. (References always
appreciated.)
Many people will wear machines that are sufficiently
comfortable, useful, and fun. Look at the Sony Walkman
and its successors.
Good point. I had forgotten about the Walkman. But now that I think about
it, don't people complain about the anti-sociality of the walkman?
--
--Alan Wexelblat internet: wex@pws.bull.com
Bull HN Information Systems Usenet: spdcc.com!know!wex
phone: (508) 671-7485
Adapt, adopt, improvise!schear%sdcsvax@ucsd.edu (Steve Schear) (03/04/90)
In article <WEX.90Feb26123354@sitting.pws.bull.com> wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Alan Wexelblat) writes: > >How about this: imagine that you have a desktop display that's capable of >creating a true 3D image of whatever you want. The display is 3D >holographic for all viewers at all angles. You can have whatever input >device(s) you like from today's catalogues. What do you do with this setup? > Alan, A device similar to your discription was invent at MIT about ten years ago, and subsequently build and sold by Genisco. Although it did not permit a 360 degree view, it did offer at least a 90 degree view. Its best feature, however,was its lack of a requirement for the viewer to wear glasses of any type. The device used a high frame-rate monochrome CRT, which was viewed off the surface of a mirror. The mirror was mounted on a synchronously moving voice coil (30/60 cps, I believe). The frames displayed on the monitor were slices of the 3D object. Because the frames were presented at a high enough rate, and each frame was viewed at a different distance form the observer (the moving mirror), the effect of of a rather solid object in 3-space was created within the brain of the observer. I saw the device once and was quite impressed. I don't know if its still being sold.
uselton@orville.nas.nasa.gov (Samuel P. Uselton) (03/06/90)
In article <10428@ttidca.TTI.COM> ttidca.tti.com!schear%sdcsvax@ucsd.edu (Steve Schear) writes: > >In article <WEX.90Feb26123354@sitting.pws.bull.com> wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Alan Wexelblat) writes: >> >>How about this: imagine that you have a desktop display that's capable of >>creating a true 3D image of whatever you want. The display is 3D >>holographic for all viewers at all angles. You can have whatever input >>device(s) you like from today's catalogues. What do you do with this setup? >> >Alan, > >A device similar to your discription was invent at MIT about ten years ago, and ^^^^^^ Actually the one licensed by Genisco was designed by Larry Sher of BBN. Research groups at Utah and UNC Chapel Hill also built models that worked (and at least at UNC still work) in the lab. The distinguishing feature (IMHO) of the BBN version was that the vibrating mirror was hard plexiglass rather than reflective mylar like the other two. >subsequently build and sold by Genisco. Although it did not permit a 360 >degree view, it did offer at least a 90 degree view. Its best feature, >however,was its lack of a requirement for the viewer to wear glasses of any >type. > >The device used a high frame-rate monochrome CRT, which was viewed off the >surface of a mirror. The mirror was mounted on a synchronously moving voice >coil (30/60 cps, I believe). The frames displayed on the monitor were slices >of the 3D object. Because the frames were presented at a high enough rate, and >each frame was viewed at a different distance form the observer (the moving >mirror), the effect of of a rather solid object in 3-space was created within >the brain of the observer. > >I saw the device once and was quite impressed. I don't know if its still being sold. Genisco sold only a few: Amoco, Phillips, Exxon, Seismic Acoustic Lab at UHouston, one medical outfit and one Japanese company are all I know of. (Maybe Shell too) Obviously back in the days when oil was booming. I have seen The Utah, UNC, original BBN prototype and Genisco Spacegraph demonstrated, and had the opportunity to try to use two of the Spacegraphs and talk with those using a third. (1) Because the order of display must be stringently synchronized with the mirror period (pendulum style) and because lines in depth had to be broken into points, programming the beast for anything useful was a real pain. (Also not much software support.) (2) Because it depends on superimposing images on the retina, there is no hidden surface removal so everything is ghostly see-thru. Very distracting. (3) For me at least, it is not a good trade to give up color to get stereo depth perception. I saw a paper at SPIE/SPSE Electronic Image Symposium last month by D. Venolia and Lance Williams of Apple, titled "Virtual Integral Holography". They pre-compute enough images to be able to slap up the appropriate pair from a sensed viewing position on fairly modest equipment... so we're getting close. Now to the point of the original post: I think this is an important question to answer, to get development really started. The two groups I have been around a lot in the last fifteen years that have been trying to build 3D physical models before the computer was anywhere close: Medical researchers (and to a lesser extent prectioners) and exploration geophysicists. In both applications I have seen people had trace their data on clear sheets, put clear spacers of the appropriate thickness between, and then look through the stack, trying to interpret the results. That's what I call a motivated customer. Who has other applications with unfulfilled needs, as opposed to trying to find an application for great technology? Sam Uselton
velasco%beowulf@ucsd.edu (Gabriel Velasco) (03/06/90)
wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Alan Wexelblat) writes: >rabin@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Rabin Ezra) writes: > I also believe that it will be quite some time before people > wear the current brand of VR tech for any more than > experimental or games purposes... >I'm still dubious. Look around you during your working day: how much of >what you do relies on face-to-face interaction? How willing would you be to >take off and put on glasses every time you needed to talk to someone? >...VR will eventually be the ultimate medium for cooperative >work, but as long as I have to put physical equipment between myself and my >partners I may be hindering my task rather than helping it. I think that wearable terminals will be a natural extension of multimedia workstations. I would only be a matter of being able to recreate the facial expressions and body movements of the users. This is easy on a multimedia workstation, much more difficult in VR. But, that's what makes it interesting. ________________________________________________ <>___, / / | ... and he called out and said, "Gabriel, give | /___/ __ / _ __ ' _ / | this man an understanding of the vision." | /\__/\(_/\/__)\/ (_/_(/_/|_ |_______________________________________Dan_8:16_|
wex@harvard.harvard.edu (Buckaroo Banzai) (03/15/90)
In article <1990Mar12.001845.15336@uunet!unhd> jwn712@uunet!unhd (Jason W Nyberg) writes: I think that in the near future we will be putting the glasses ON to talk to someone. And, given mans addiction to gadgets, i dont think we'll complain too much. I would like to see some evidence of that. Telecommuting and teleconferencing have been virtual no-ops from the word go. Videophones have been around forever and they still haven't caught on. I'm as much of a technophile as anyone else around here, but I want to put some "real reality" into the thinking. [I said:] >Let me explain where I'm coming from. I'm really a collaborative-work >specialist. As such, I believe that the vast majority of tasks involve >interaction. VR will eventually be the ultimate medium for cooperative I think youre right here. Imagine... you can make someone see what you want them to see. Great for advertising and dating, huh? The idea of "making" someone see something is a real worry. Not to mention tricking someone into seeing something. We have this problem today in simple overheads. By putting the right technical jargon and enough numbers into my slides, I can convince my bosses (and certainly the non-technical salespeople) of anything I want. If the information comes from (or appears to come from) a computer, it's given still more import. What was that about "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo"? Anyway, back to the main topic: >work, but as long as I have to put physical equipment between myself and my >partners I may be hindering my task rather than helping it. What, like a telephone? Yes, exactly. I hate that thing. I *never* call people when I say I will and I don't like being called when I'm working. I refuse to use the voice mail system here at Bull. The problem is that it's a barrier between me and the other person. I *much* prefer to send email which, although it requires more work, is integrated with the way I normally do things in the day. -- --Alan Wexelblat internet: wex@pws.bull.com Bull Worldwide Information Systems Usenet: spdcc.com!know!wex phone: (508) 671-7485 Adapt, adopt, improvise!