Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!milton!abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com!herrickd@uunet.UU.NET From: abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com!herrickd@uunet.UU.NET (daniel lance herrick) Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds Subject: Re: Sensory Modalities (was Re: Musical Virtual Worlds) Message-ID: <12955@milton.u.washington.edu> Date: 13 Dec 90 17:28:50 GMT References: <12146@milton.u.washington.edu> >What was being discussed, however, was information in the second >>sense. Per unit time, does audible or visible sense data provide more >>information? > > NO, NO, NO! You miss it completely. If something isn't measurable, it's > meaningless to talk about "more" or "less" of it. It's completely > undefined. So all you're going to get out of such a discussion is vast > clouds of fog. There are some people who are very good at communication through an audio-visual channel (Bellini or Filini [i cant remember], for example). There are some people who are very good at communication through an audio only channel. Orson Welles and the Mercury Theatre of the Air comes to mind. I think it is possible to determine which moves a person more. Communicates more effectively with one member of the audience. When we do make that determination, we get different answers from different people. (Even after retraining to comprehend the audio only channel.) I respond better to radio or print. But one or two films have come close. I don't watch very many. (So maybe I need training to that medium.) But compare the best work done for each medium. And anticipate the individual differences in the audience. dan herrick herrickd@astro.pc.ab.com