Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!williamb@milton.u.washington.edu
From: williamb@milton.u.washington.edu (William Bricken)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: We need a new language
Message-ID: <15776@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 4 Feb 91 07:41:37 GMT
References: <15594@milton.u.washington.edu> <15638@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 28
Approved: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu



In article <15638@milton.u.washington.edu> frerichs@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David J Fr
erichs) writes:

>I think that alot of people in the newsgroup have been making statements
>that they think sound good at the time but aren't supported by any facts,


One problem is that we don't have a consistent definition of what we are 
communally talking about.  A taxonomy of types of VR would be helpful.  I 
assume the above comment is about *inclusive VR*, like VPL systems.

I strongly sympathize with David's comment.  Could folks who post about
VR please try to include the basis of the observation.  Like 

        *  read about this
        *  spent ten minutes in VR once
        *  logged twenty hours total in VR
        *  gossip
        *  generalizing my expertise, no experience

It's funny how folks working with hardware don't fall into the problem of
over-generalization.  Software and psychology comments tend not to provide the
experiential or research anchors.

William Bricken
Principal Scientist, HITL