Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!wex@dali.PWS.BULL.COM
From: wex@dali.PWS.BULL.COM (Buckaroo Banzai)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: Who says what to whom (was Re: VR Protocols.)
Keywords: Real-world attributes, interface design (with citations)
Message-ID: <8370@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 27 Sep 90 18:28:57 GMT
References: <31304@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <7507@milton.u.washington.edu>
        <7801@milto <8204@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: Bull Worldwide Information Systems Inc.
Lines: 54
Approved: hitl@hardy.u.washington.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: dali.pws.bull.com
In-Reply-To: mike@x.co.uk's message of 26 Sep 90 13:55:30 GMT

writes:
 
   For people we do want to allow in there is simply an   entry point, no
   messing around with doors just a 'transporter' machine/object which moves
   you into the chosen room/building/area/'country', wherever you intend
   going.
 
Well... yes and no.  I'm extremely fond of the "new modes of interaction"
idea.  Driving while looking in the rear-view mirror will only get us so
far.  But on the other hand, it's extremely hard to ignore, as Meredith
Bricken put it, the fact that we're wired for up/down, forward/backward
one-step-at-a-time.  It's some of the most deeply learned behaviors and
relationships we have to the world.  That's why I agree with the assertion
that you can't train a cybernaut, you're going to have to breed one.
 
One need only see the differences in adults & children using a powerglove in
order to see the truth of this.  You and I are already too old, our brains
too ossified.  We're trained that if we want to enter a room, we look for a
more or less conventional entry point (door, window, chimney).  Those of us
with slightly bent minds can accept a teleporter to get us inside.  But the
"transporter machine" is still a door in terms of its affordances.
 
   In my (humble) opinion, there isn't a need for every object to shout it's
   attributes at me when I enter a room.  An object is a passive item that is
   acted on, and, if I perform an action recognised by the object it performs
   an action of it's own.
 
But this begs the question.  If the objects in the room don't shout at you,
how do you know they're there?  How do you know what you can do with 
them?
 
   Something else I'd like to start a discussion on is the apparent necessity
   we have of modelling the real world.  I believe that so long as the physical
   laws are apparent, there is no need to extend beyond this (of course, we
   don't *really* want to accurately model somebody jumping off the golden
   gate bridge!).
 
See above for a partial answer to this.  I'll also recommend again my two
favorite papers on this topic:
 
        Smith, Randall B.  "Experiences with the Alternate Reality Kit: An
        Example of the Tension Between Literalism and Magic," CHI+GI'87
        Conference Proceedings, April 1987.
 
and
 
        Fairchild & Gullichsen.  "From Modern Alchemy to a New Renaissance,"
        MCC Technical Report HI-400-86, December, 1986.
 
--
 
--Alan Wexelblat                        phone: (508)294-7485
Bull Worldwide Information Systems      internet: wex@pws.bull.com
"Politics is Comedy plus Pretense."