From mconway@microsoft.com Mon May 24 14:05:06 1999 Received: from burdell.cc.gatech.edu (root@burdell.cc.gatech.edu [130.207.3.207]) by lennon.cc.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA23293 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 14:05:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pss-imc-01.microsoft.com (pss-imc-01.microsoft.com [131.107.3.100]) by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA26750 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 14:05:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.microsoft.com (INET-IMC-01 [157.54.9.125]) by pss-imc-01.microsoft.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2591.0) id K6VRFDCA; Mon, 24 May 1999 11:04:30 -0700 Received: by INET-IMC-01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2524.0) id ; Mon, 24 May 1999 11:04:28 -0700 Message-ID: <4FD6422BE942D111908D00805F3158DF0D9542FB@RED-MSG-52> From: Matt Conway To: "'bowman@cc.gatech.edu'" , 3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu Subject: RE: Virtual vs. real manipulation Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 11:04:24 -0700 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2524.0) Status: RO I love this discussion. Thanks Doug! As usual, I have some comments. ;) >>>> personal announcement <<<< By the way, for the immediate time being, I am leaving the day-to-day work in interactive 3D graphics/VR. I start today as program manager for Clear Type in Microsoft's electronic books effort. There's some incredible stuff coming in this much-talked about area, and I'm incredibly excited about being a part of it. It's probably the second coolest technology out there, next to VR. ;) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< now, on to my blatherings... -- Matt _________________________________________________ Matt Conway, eBooks Group Microsoft Corp. One Microsoft Way Redmond WA 98052 internal http://msrweb/users/mconway external http://research.microsoft.com/users/mconway -----Original Message----- From: bowman@cc.gatech.edu [mailto:bowman@cc.gatech.edu] Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 10:25 AM To: 3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu Subject: Re: Virtual vs. real manipulation >>> Thanks to everyone for their insightful and interesting comments >>> regarding my question as to the current performance differences >>> between virtual interaction and its real world counterparts. >>> I think it's instructive that very few people actually answered >>> the question directly, instead choosing to point out that perhaps >>> the question was flawed because matching real-world performance >>> is not the goal of VE interaction research. This is also the way >>> that I answered the question when it was posed to me. >>> However, I also think that we ought to be careful with such >>> responses, because comparing virtual and real performance *is* >>> a useful benchmark, as several people pointed out. As far as I >>> know, no one has actually published research comparing the two >>> for object manipulation, although it has been done for navigation >>> (comparing a subject's spatial knowledge of an environment when t>>> raining was done in a real vs. a virtual space - see Rudy Darken's >>> VRAIS 98 paper and Waller et al in Presence 7(2)). >>> I think it would be interesting to put together a technologically >>> optimal VE system with state-of-the-art graphics, tracking, and >>> haptic feedback and compare this to the real world for something >>> like the block stacking task, just to get a feel for where we are. Obvious point, perhaps: A technologically optimal VR rig has only a *little* to do with snazzy hardware -- The real meat in doing this comparison is in the SOFTWARE - what technique are you going to pit against the real world? (Someone I knew once put it pretty well: "I don't care if you have a teleporter. Where are you going to GO with it?") >>> That being said, I realize that very few of us are researching >>> >>> new technology per se. Most of us are working on "magic" interaction >>> techniques that make up for the deficiencies of the technology we're >>> working with. With all due respect, I'm not sure that I agree completely, Doug -- I see it as quite the oppoosite in fact. Magic VR isn't there to make up for the deficiencies in VR, it is there to make up for the deficiencies of THE REAL WORLD. I go back to my original email: if your business is training (simulation), then you have to steer clear of magic. In all other cases, you should be gunning for *deep* magic -- anything less will keep you mired in the inadequacies and limitations of The Real World (occlusion, can only reach and see so far, can only be in one place at a time, etc). Given the best VR hardware in the world I would still want to fly (and head crusher, and Go-Go, and snapping and....) Another danger: asking how VR techniques compare to their real world counterparts, while useful, runs the risk of limiting our way of thinking. I prefer to challenge ourselves to greater things: what techniques can we devise in VR that allow users to *achieve real ends* that have NO obvious counterparts in the real world? If a multi-user VR system let people become invisible, what real-world technique would you test that against? >>> It would also be interesting to include some of these >>> techniques in the evaluation, allowing a reasonable level of magic >>> (the system is not allowed to know the final goal state but is >>> allowed to help the user with constraints, snapping, etc.). Interesting limitation. Don't forget other modalities either. Voice command can be a very effective weapon inside an HMD. >>> I think >>> it's possible that we might find that such techniques do the job >>> faster than real-world interaction, depending on the task (task >>> complexity would be another interesting dimension to explore). >>> Finally, I want to quibble a bit with Matt's definition of real >>> vs. magic VE interfaces. He distinguishes these based on whether >>> the user is taking anything out to the real world (needs a reality- >>> based interface) or whether the VE is an end in itself (can use >>> a magic interface). I would argue that there is a third class in >>> which the VE is used to create an end product but the low-level process >>> of creating that product is not important to the user. This category >>> of applications can also use magic techniques. Good distinction! Any CAD system is likely to have that property. >>> An example is my >>> gorilla habitat design system. The user is creating a new habitat >>> design, which can be saved and used in the real world. However, >>> the technique the user uses to move a tree to a new location is >>> not an integral part of the product - he's only concerned with the >>> tree's final location. Therefore, magic techniques like HOMER or >>> Go-Go can be used for this task. >>> Probably most of the categories of VE applications fit into the >>> classes that can use magic techniques. However, most of the real-world >>> usage examples of VEs involve some sort of training, and therefore >>> need natural interaction. (over-generalization) Comments? --Doug -- Doug Bowman, Ph.D. Candidate College of Computing, GVU Center, Georgia Tech Room 388 CRB, (404) 894-5104 bowman@cc.gatech.edu http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~bowman/