Sounds reasonable.
Immersive technology will never be acceptable in the average
personal computing setting, it wouldn't be much different from
drugs.
The point might be defensible, but not for the reason you give. Would
you care to elaborate on more specific technical grounds? A concrete
discussion of the issues would be of value to the list.
2D is better than 3D for orientation.
"For many tasks." Question: what are the tasks at which 3d is better
for orientation? If we understand that, then we probably know how
Collaborative VR can be effective.
VR/3D/photorealism
is only a small subset of a larger set of expressions/canvases, I
think it is far too limiting for efficient communication.
What is the definition of "efficiency" that you are using? Again, it
depends on the tasks. If you can identify the tasks that 3d is
appropriate for, then you probably have the makings of a good CVR.
Think about
this: good art doesn't simulate reality, it creates a "(sur)reality"
that is more real (in some way) than the real reality.
True, but I think this thread is probably better served by
vworlds-list, which is abot VR as a pure art form. (E-mail me if you
want the URL etc.)
Cheers,
--
Brandon J. Van Every | Check out Free3d, my 100% efficient, 100% portable
| 3d lib, at <http://www.blarg.net/~vanevery>.
3d Computer Graphics |
C++ UNIX X11 WinNT | E-mail: vanevery@blarg.net