Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu
From: dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu (David Mark)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Can displays be "too real"?
Message-ID: <9638@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 20 Oct 90 23:23:41 GMT
Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: SUNY Buffalo
Lines: 34
Approved: hitl@hardy.u.washington.edu




Has the "Virtual Reality" (VR) community addressed the issue of when something
might be "too real"?

I have bought into the philosophy that a computer information system is
primarily intended to allow the user to interact vicariously with real or
possible worlds.  The computer, the software, the interface, should be as
unobtrusive as possible.  The user should be thinking about phenomena or
problems of the real world.

It then occurred to me that this seems to imply that VR is the way to go.
(And VR obviously is important despite what I am about to 'say'.)  So,
here goes:

An aerial photograph is more "realistic" than a map.  If we pushed
display of vertical views of a city toward greater and greater "reality",
then the displays would look more and more like colored airphotos.  But
it is widely believed that a road map is better for finding one's way around
in a city than would be an airphoto, even and airphoto with street names
overlain.  The utility of the road map in such situations stems from the
fact that it is a *selective* representation of reality.  Roads are emphasized,
and most other features are suppressed.  In fact, it may be claimed that
this selection, symbolization, and simplification is the essence of
cartography.

So to rephrase my original question, has the Virtual Reality community
addressed the issue of how real the presentation should be, and when the
presentation to the user should be simplified and selective?

David Mark
National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu