Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!wex@pws.bull.com From: wex@pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds Subject: Re: The collaborative nature of VR Message-ID: <8843@milton.u.washington.edu> Date: 6 Oct 90 12:41:50 GMT References: <8374@milton.u.washington.edu> <8514@milton.u.washington.edu> Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu Organization: Bull Worldwide Information Systems Inc. Lines: 110 Approved: hitl@hardy.u.washington.edu In article <8514@milton.u.washington.edu> mike@x.co.uk (Mike Moore) writes: >Buckaroo Banzai [wex@dali.pws.bull.com] writes: >>That's why I agree with the assertion >>that you can't train a cybernaut, you're going to have to breed one. > >I understand what you are saying here, but, are good fighter pilots/submarine >captains trained or bred? It is not within our instinctive make-up to >understand the complex relationships of manouevering within 3d space (as >many a fighter pilot might tell you) and these skills are most definitely >learned. Why should manipulation of cyber-space be anymore complex (I >should hope it will be infinitely easier!) I don't know enough about submarine captians, but my reading indicates that good fighter pilots really are "born." Most people have the 3D sense to learn to be a pilot, but the acrobatic free-form nature of aerial dogfight is another story entirely. To a large degree, it seems to be true that the "experts" in a field (like the international grand masters in chess) are born in some way different from the rest of the population. What they do goes beyond simple learning (or even advanced learning). All the studies of expertise that I've seen indicate that the experts somehow conceptualize the world in a different way (e.g. Hawking talks about 'seeing' mathematics). This may also explain why people who are so good at one thing tend to be bad at other everyday things (like social interaction). This doesn't have to be all negative. VR can allow us to build worlds with totally different reality modes for different types of users. The average joe/jane might want something that pretty closely models the regular universe. I personally would like a universe where things behave normally except I can get at the controls and change them as I desire (e.g. by turning off gravity or by enabling myself to teleport with a thought). Interacting with cyberspace will, I fear, always be harder and more complex than reality. No computer desktop (to take another example) will ever be as simple as my physical desktop. Wang's Freestyle came as close as I think a computer can, and it still wasn't as simple. >people of my/your own age group are not only confused by what's going >on, they just don't have any interest outside of what they *have* to >know to operate within their work environment. Granted that being >exposed to technology at an early age is (like reading) a major reason >why those kids grow up knowing how to use, and how to appreciate, >technology; I would still argue that it is not a prerequisite. No, of course it's not an absolute prerequisite. There are kids who go into kindergarten knowing how to read, having picked it up from obser- vation and mimcry at home. The exception doesn't disprove the rule. It's just that the rule covers 98% of the cases. As for the disinterested majority (aka sheep), I've long ago given up designing systems for them. I'm very bad at pleading, coaxing, and cajoling. I will not ignore their legitmate concerns and desires (I'd be a pretty crappy human-interface designer if I did that), but I've learned that the old saw about a horse and water is still true. When the sheep get thirsty, they'll drink and nothing I do between now and then is going to get them to drink any sooner. >Buckaroo Banzai [wex@dali.pws.bull.com] writes: >>But this begs the question. If the objects in the room don't shout at you, >>how do you know they're there? > >Uhhh.... yes... well... I didn't explain that very well did I? This >was to apply to all attributes *except* visual attributes. i.e. all >objects that I am meant to see, I receive a visual description, and >all objects I am not meant to see, I don't. Right. Remember, though, that we were discussing a general object-interaction protocol. What you get from an approaching baseball is probably different from what a bat gets (or a glass window, for that matter). But to know that requires a *lot* of knowledge about the "real world." I seem to have failed to express this simple point very well since almost everyone misunderstood me. >Buckaroo Banzai [wex@dali.pws.bull.com] writes: >>How do you know what you can do with them? > >How do I know how to breath? How do I know how to talk? How do I know >what to do with a book? It is either intuitive knowledge, experiential >(is there any such word?) knowledge, or received knowledge. i.e. I know >because I know, I know because I've experimented around a bit, or I know >because I was taught. In other words, the properties of the object were communicated to you in some way (which was my major point). On a side note, you are also (perhaps unintentionally) highlighting how important it is to have a VR where we can carry over a lot of our real-world learning. I don't fancy having to re-learn how to walk. But that's what's going to happen to a lot of people in a lot of the VRs people are talking about building. >Buckaroo Banzai [wex@dali.pws.bull.com] writes: >>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. > >At the risk of appearing to be really thick (which, imho, I'm not, honest :-) >do you have any idea where I might be able to locate these in the UK? The MCC paper you can get by writing to the MCC librarian (3500 Technology Dr Austin, TX 78759, USA. Enclose SASE). Check your local technical/university library for the CHI/GI proceedings, or write to ACM. -- --Alan Wexelblat phone: (508)294-7485 Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com "Politics is Comedy plus Pretense."