From: vanevery@blarg.net (Brandon J. Van Every)
Subject: Re: DESIGN: 3D computing vs. virtual reality:  what's the
Date: 22 Dec 1995 17:56:21 -0800
Message-ID: <4bfnk5$n@animal.blarg.net>
Organization: Blarg! Online Services   206/441-9109


From: vanevery@blarg.net (Brandon J. Van Every)

John Costella (jpc@physics.unimelb.EDU.AU) wrote:
: > From: cyberoid@u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson)
: > How big a bandwidth does human imagination require?

IMHO the word "bandwidth" is not being used very well in this
discussion.  To most folks, "bandwidth" is a quantitative concept,
whereas "imagination" is qualitative.  You really can't talk about how
many resources you need in order to be imaginative, or how few.  Ever
seen children play with cardboard boxes?

Even if you use the word "bandwidth" in a sort of cyber-organism
sense, i.e. "total connection between human being and computer," what
is "imaginative" about this connection?  It doesn't matter how many
thoughts and experiences flow through: that's just raw data.  Relating
the pieces of data to one another, in a qualitative way: that is what
imagination is all about.

: Not quite: this would measure our technological *ability* to generate
: believable worlds. The "content" will determine how successful a
: particular world is.

Agreed.  Also, in terms of what this discussion seems to be struggling
towards, "content" is a much better word to throw about, than is
"bandwidth."  In our roles as computer people, we know that there are
plenty of techological problems that can be quantitatively solved.
But when it comes to producing imagination, story, art, etc, we know
that we're stepping into a qualitiative domain.

The industry has chosen to label this "the content problem."  The
current entrepreneurial thinking seems to be: "make a technology, then
hire some artists to fill in the technological blanks."  Obviously
this is a successful model for commerce, and even for popular art.
But for awe-inspiring amazement?  A standard of artistic achievement
that will last for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years?  Probably
not.

To make compelling VR works, we need to think in terms of content, and
not in terms of bandwidth.

: Take normal computing software as an
: example. GUI's offer a much better interface "bandwidth" than
: character-based interfaces. But there are some truly pathetic GUI
: applications out there. If the software is badly designed, the windows
: and mouse actually slow you down dramatically.

More to the point, character-based interfaces have higher
[quantitative] bandwidth in many [qualitiative] applications, than do
GUI's.  GUI's don't have any "intrinsic" bandwidth advantages over
characters.  You have to look at the task, as well as the user's level
of training.

Cheers,
Brandon