Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!xanth!talos!kjones
From: kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION:  SCI.VIRTUAL-WORLDS
Message-ID: <1989Nov22.165114.28653@talos.uucp>
Date: 22 Nov 89 16:51:14 GMT
References: <14547-repost@well.UUCP> <1989Nov16.161429.12549@talos.uucp> <14642@well.UUCP> <20757@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <1989Nov20.232843.19526@cs.rochester.edu>
Reply-To: kjones@talos.uu.net
Lines: 40

Michael Lewis enumerates the point made against the creation of
  sci.virtual worlds:
 > 2) sci.virtual-worlds is unnecessary because the interests it represents
 > 	are already adequately covered in groups discussing interfaces
 > 	(Kyle Jones & Mark Mehl)

I didn't say this.  I don't know of a group that's discussion computer
interfaces.  There are occasional discussion of the pors and cons of mice
vs. trak balls, vs. foot pedals in comp.editors, but this is hardly an
in-depth exploration.

What I said was that a general purpose group called comp.interfaces
would be better than sci.virtual-worlds becuase it would provide a forum
for the discussion of virtual world interface to computers, electronic
communications, and data, as well for for the more prosaic interfaces,
e.g. touch screens.

As for the person who mentioned comp.periphs, human input devices don't
strike me as being peripherals.

 > 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.

Brian Yamauchi writes:
 > I also disagree strongly with #2, but for different reasons.  To say
 > that virtual reality is nothing but interfaces + simulation is
 > analogous to saying that architecture is nothing but engineering +
 > materials science.  Certainly these fields are relevant and necessary
 > enabling technologies, but the field itself lies at the interface of
 > technology, art, and entertainment, and it makes sense to create a
 > separate group to discuss both potential applications and social
 > implications _as_well_as_ implementation strategies and scientific /
 > engineering research in this area.

While such speculation and discussion may be entertaining, I think it
would be presumptuous to put these discussions in the sci hierarchy this
early in the game.  There are still substantially hurdles to be overcome
on the basic human interface/hardware side of things.