Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!dino!atanasoff!mehl
From: mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION:  SCI.VIRTUAL-WORLDS
Message-ID: <1988@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 89 02:34:07 GMT
References: <14547-repost@well.UUCP> <1989Nov16.161429.12549@talos.uucp>
Reply-To: mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
Organization: Dept of EE/CprE -- IOWA STATE UNIV
Lines: 66

kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) writes:
>The name sci.virtual-worlds is pretty gruesome.  comp.interfaces seems
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^           ^^^^^^^^
Both the name and the charter for the group are much to *awesome* to
carry on a meaningfully focused discussion.  Perhaps the charter could
be split into two smaller groups (say on simulation and ergonomics).

>more accurate.  Discussion of virtual world interfaces could occur in a
>subgroup of comp.interfaces if traffic warranted a subgroup.  In the
>meantime, comp.interfaces could handle virtual worlds as well as the
>more prosaic discussions about mice, trak balls, joysticks,
                                ^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^
>touch-screens, voice actuated systems, and other computer interfaces.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

All of these definitely come under the heading of "computer ergonomics"
and might be placed in a special newsgroup like:

	comp.periphs.ergonomics

which is an extremely important topic in today's high-tech world where
we are trying to improve the interface between man and machine.  I vote
YES for this newsgroup.

===============

Unfortunately, the virtual-world charter is so wide (to include
non-computer issues as well) that final names may look something like:

	sci.ergonomics.computer
	sci.ergonomics.general

The "general" group could address the placement of levers and buttons
on a control panel, which is non-computer; whereas, a pilot's interface
to his computer-controlled systems would be appropriate in the
s.e.computer group.

How many people really want the charter to include NONcomputer-oriented
user interfaces (ergonomics)?  Would simply have the
comp.periphs.ergonomics newsgroup be enough?

===============

The charter also includes discussions on simulation, which, by itself,
isn't an ergonomic issue at all.  Of course, ergonomics can best be
studied by working models and simulation, but the "pure" simulations
issues should stay in the comp.simulation newsgroup.  Of course, if the
emphasis of the virtual-worlds group will be on computer-simulated
virtual worlds, then a name like:

comp.simulation.apps.ergonomics       (apps = applications)
comp.simulation.app-spec.ergonomics   (app-spec = application-specific)

would be most appropriate.  I guess the bottom line is, "Where does the
Usenet community want to go with this virtual-worlds group?  Will there
be a *main* emphasis or is this some awesome group to discussion all
topics from placement of controls to special-purpose simulation
languages?"

I guess I still feel the charter is too broad for a focused
discussion.
-- 
 /\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some)
<><> Internet: mehl@atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu
 \/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,hplabs!hp-lsd,uunet}!atanasoff!mehl
Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?