Hmm.. Well, I guess there are different classes of personal computing
problems. I'd say that TV/VCR solves very spesific problems, that is
instant access to "movies", news etc. They were not solutions without
problems, they were carefully designed solutions. VR is in another
class, it is like inventing TV without knowing what it could be used for.
Like inventing robots only because robots are fun to watch and make cool
sculptures. ;)
> We should not criticize the home environment as a place with no
> problems to solve.
Well, I don't think it is, you have lots of "problems" to solve in the
home. What I tried to say was that I don't see VR as the ultimate solution
for any of these problems, and no applications where immersive VR would
have some inherent advantage to other approaches.
> 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."
This is more a discussion of moral right? So we sell a technology with
the slogans "VR is the future, get our VR-kit and the future is yours." or
"If you don't buy our VR-kit, you'll be left behind and won't get jobs
in the future". That's much like how useless computers were sold. Sure,
it achieved something, cheaper computers. VR-hype probably helps on
RAM-prices. But is it ethical? I'd say, it isn't. Sure, spacetechnology
had a lot of successfull spinoff products, but you didn't do research in
that area mainly to get those products? So what is the foundation for the
large amounts of money put into VR today, I'd say it's mediahype. If you
used that kind of money directly "on the spinoff products", you would get
there faster. So, the conclusion will have to be that we are caught in the
net of marketing and commercial interests, and that even though it might be
wrong morally, it is the fastest road?
> 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?
The goal would probably be that the computer behaved in a way that
is consistent with our perception and cognition. To phrase it differently,
the computer should support the way humans build tools. It shuould
be more than a tool, it should be "clay" in which we can mold tools
suitable for the task at hand, but there is more to it than this.
> 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
I think research has showed that paper and pencil is superior (as for
know) for sketching. I prefer paper and pencil too. Why paper and
pencil seems to be superior to other tools is probably a lot more
complex than "because we are used to it". Like, we might be
able to concentrate better when our head is slightly bent downwards
and working with our "problem" in a certain position. etc. (if so,
it is all due to evolution of course, nothing mystical about it)
Other reasons could be the simplicity of the tool, it is flexible
and doesn't interfere as much with the problem we are trying to solve
as more complex tools. Create an application that is as useful as
the paper and pencil one, and you'll have achieved a lot.
Ola.