Well let's face it, the home environment does not HAVE any important
problems to solve. 3d, 2d, or otherwise. "Give our kids a word
processor" is about the only genuine problem that a home user might
need to solve. If no kids, then no problem.... The home computer is
tantamount to the TV, the VCR, the Surround Stereo, and/or any other
home entertainment item. It does not solve problems.
We should not criticize the home environment as a place with no
problems to solve. Rather, we should look upon it as a PROFITABLE
EXCUSE to solve the problems that we, as researchers, are interested
in. When our work advances the general state of technology - and the
acceptance of that technology, and the PRICE POINT of that technology
- then we contribute to solving problems that would be "really useful
to solve."
Also, I think the social issues of media control are definitely
problems worth solving. That's why I'm interested in distributed VR
from a freeware standpoint - on cheap equipment. The home PC is the
logical arena for my efforts.
> We are experiencing a doubling of technology every 180 days.
This is quantity (scaling of existing technology) not quality.
Harnessing the (mass market) increase in quantity in linear-scaled
fashion, would certainly be a worthy qualitative achievement. Can't
do it if the (mass market) quantity isn't there to begin with.
It is
even hard to think up useful personal computing applications.
Well, by definition I don't think there are any. People have been
living for millions of years and really don't need "personal" VR
applications. They do just fine without.
> The hurdles are being crossed quickly.
Well, I don't agree. We aren't even successful with the 2D
interface when it comes to understanding and usability.
But what's the real goal here? Does "usability" == some naive
first-time user steps right up to a computer and instantaneously does
something useful with it? I don't know a single activity in life,
that does not have a learning curve associated with it. I'd say that
the 2D GUI is a great "catalyst" to the learning curve. And that's
the best we can ever hope for.
The important work of VR, is to figure out the tasks for which we can
catalyze a learning curve. AND, that the $$$$ expense of developing
the tools to catalyze said learning curve, is "worth it." Hey, I have
a "laptop computer" I use all the time: pencil and spiral notebook. A
laptop isn't worth it, for me. For algorithmic design, I cannot
possibly do the job better, than with a pencil and spiral notebook. I
have years of training with it, and that's how I think. (In fact, I
even have to use wooden pencils. I can't think with mechanical
pencils. :-)
Less so
with 3D environments. Some kind of mixture of 2D and 3D will
probably be useful for personal computing, but the "free movement in
VR worlds design" has some inherent problems, that cannot be overcome
easily, both when it comes to technology/perception/psychology and
when it comes to usability.
True. Let's see if we can focus on some specific apps and what the
specific problems are. Over and over again, I've seen that "VR in
general" is a meaningless concept. Only specific applications of VR
work well.
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