Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!ml
From: ml@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Michael  Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION:  SCI.VIRTUAL-WORLDS
Summary: Favor
Message-ID: <20757@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 89 21:30:06 GMT
References: <14547-repost@well.UUCP> <1989Nov16.161429.12549@talos.uucp> <14642@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: ml@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Michael  Lewis)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services
Lines: 60
Keywords:cog sci, JJ Gibson


The discussion on Rheingold & Jacobson's proposal to create sci.virtual-worlds 
seems to center on five issues:

1) Is there enough interest to justify a newsgroup rather than a mailing
	list (Kyle Jones)
I suggest that this depends on a vote not individual opinion

2) sci.virtual-worlds is unnecessary because the interests it represents
	are already adequately covered in groups discussing interfaces
	(Kyle Jones & Mark Mehl)

I disagree strongly.  A separate group is needed because widgits aren't
worlds.  I view the virtual-worlds approach as a fundamental shift away
from the dualist information processing paradigm that has dominated
cognitive psychology (science?) for the past 30 years.  The motivation isn't
a desire for novelty but rather the bankruptcy of this approach in providing
even the vaguest guidance for building systems that people can use.
Even the centerpiece of this view, the LTM/STM (renamed working memory)
distinction, has crumbled in the past decade, leaving us with detailed
empirical data on memory for words in lists, and reaction times to names
of birds.  I can't use this "theory" to design interfaces & designing 
by hacking is just as silly as designing bridges by welding I-beams.

3) sci.virtual-worlds should be a "comp" group not a "sci" group.  
	(Peter da Silva & Brian Yamauchi)

This argument seems to mirror the acm siggraph zeitgeist (see '87 special
issue on visualization of Computer Graphics) that if enough gigabits are 
funneled through a screen meaning will miraculously emerge.  If "comp"
types are relying on miracles it seems to me that a "sci" group
is needed to provide them.

4) sci.virtual-worlds should be a "cyber" extension newsgroup.
	(Brian Yamauchi & Peter da Silva)

Other than having a conditioned aversion (by NOS) to the word Cyber, I believe
this is really an argument about the character of the proposed group rather
than its name.  We already have a proliferation of Wm Gibson fan clubs on
the net.  This is not an objection to punk, cyber or otherwise, but a desire
to characterize the proposed newsgroup as "sci" rather than "alt".  Decks
& trodes make fine reading but a glance at the p300 literature shows which
parts of Gibson's romance are fantasy and which parts are locked in your
workstation, as it sits, waiting to be released.  My notion (which I believe
is shared by Rheingold, Jacobson, & Johnson) is a legit sci newsgroup
focusing on ecological research in HCI in which JJ Gibson gets more airtime
then Wm. 

5) sci.virtual-worlds is too broad and will lead to meandering unfocused
	discussions (Mark Mehl & Erik Josowitz)

This is exactly my point in arguing against "cyber" extensions and for
"sci" rather than "comp" or "talk" designation.  A diversity of disciplines
interested in a common problem does not imply a lack of focus.  We are
talking about the intersection not the union of these fields.

In short:  I think that a sci.virtual-world news group is needed and
appropriate as proposed without modification.

               -Mike Lewis