From: dani@cs.ualberta.ca (Dani Beaubien)
Subject: Re: PHIL: 2D vs. 3D (Was Re: INDUSTRY: FLASH! "VPL . . .")
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:34:10 GMT


rwzobel@unity.ncsu.edu (Rick Zobel) writes:
>Let me crudely re-word this toward my feelings. (The truth obviously
>lies somewhere inbetween... :)

>Pardon the intrusion of a heretic, but I've got to say that getting
>rid of the current fixation on graphics (and real time rendering, for
>that matter) would be one of the best things that could happen to VR.
>The real challenges of VR lie in perceptual psychology, spatial cognition
>and computer-machine interface techniques, interfacing to Real Work
>(how we can take best advantage of information in three dimensions), and
>the like --- not in finding new and creative ways to put 3D worlds on
>a 2D computer screen.  As long as the VR industry, such as it is,
>concentrates on ridiculous and clumsy numbers like 30million polys/sec 
>for real time (call it the ``golly gee whiz phase'', and quite possibly 
>the only phase, of the industry as we know it today), it's going to be
>taken seriously by too few people to make it truly financially viable
>and in fact truly useful to Real People.

>Rebuttals are of course welcome, but please answer the following
>question if you choose to rebut: do you seriously expect a scheme that
>doesn't address the needs and abilities of people in a three dimensional
>environment or learning an entire new way to do something very basic in
>order to even get started on their real and important work to be a
>long-term success?  And if so, why?

I will try to answer this question with a story. In the mid to late 1800's
someone invented the "bicycle". This bicycle did not look anything like it
does today. It consisted of two metal wheels and a board between them, kind
of like a skateboard with large wheels. You would sit on the board, grab
the handle, and use your legs to propel the device.

Just think what would have happened if someone said that this device
was not worth developing because it was very limiting, only available
to a small number of indivduals, wasn't practicle, it didn't do anything
usefull. If the people of the time listened to the critics of that day, then
we wouldn't have automobiles of anysort, the "horseless carriage" comes
directly from this wooden vehicle.

What make the bicycle so great is that people didn't let what it was at any
given time limit what it was to become.

I think the real challenge is not any paricular part of the research, the
real challange is to take it places that it was never intended for, to extend
it into what seems impossible now. That is something that no one person
can do. We all contribute our two cents worth. What comes out in the end
is what VR will become.

VR is bigger than all of us. The field seems to be growing, more and more.
More people are getting involved. Hence, my answer to your question is YES!
I do seriously expect a scheme THAT CURRENTLY doesn't address the needs and
abilities of people in a three dimensional environment or learning an entire
new way to do something very basic in order to even get started on their
real and important work to be a long-term success.  Why? Because you have
to start somewhere!


>(VR or computer generated immersive environments (CGIE) as I prefer to 
>define it, is what it is because it takes advantage of our ability to
>use space in more than two dimensions. In my work I am effectively comparing
>perspective drawings, non-interactive animations (video), interactive
>animations (Virtus Walk-Through) and CGIE's as they relate to the
>understanding of architectural space. Each step on this ladder brings
>into play broad ramifications having to do with perception, cognition and
>how we interact logically with an artificial environment. However, in
>studying each of these, by far the biggest differences I have found 
>lay between screen-based interactive walk throughs and interactive 
>immersive environments. There is an amazingly broad scope of work that
>needs to be done to understand how we can logically use three-dimensions,
>and I foresee the graphics speed and hardware technologies developing
>far more rapidly than the human factors end. The goggles and gloves (and
>real-time aspirations) are important now, and have real purpose now for
>studying what it means to be immersed in a computer generated environment
>and how we can use this environment well. It may look a little silly,
>but unless they are used to learn from, when the technology finally
>develops, there will be nothing there worth developing....)

The first step is always the physical, ergonomics have always been a
distance second! How long has it taken for computers to get to the point
where they where user-friendly? Some still are not, yet they are
quite successful.

>Rick Zobel
>NCSU School of Design
>Architecture Department
>rick@oscar.sod.ncsu


Have a Merry 3D Christmas!
Dani Beaubien
================================================================================
=
dani@cs.ualberta.ca                                         University of Albert
a
Once again I have expressed my opinion!                (I got to stop doing that
!)
================================================================================
=
--
============================================================================
dani@cs.ualberta.ca                                    University of Alberta
One of the MR Gang                                     My Opinion is my own!
============================================================================