From bowman@cc.gatech.edu Wed Jul 22 13:57:14 1998 Received: from burdell.cc.gatech.edu (root@burdell.cc.gatech.edu [130.207.3.207]) by lennon.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA00402 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:57:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (yhAdUzztpG54OKeSPW9pRhHhcdVRZxs6@[128.95.73.60]) by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA12862 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:57:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from burdell.cc.gatech.edu (root@burdell.cc.gatech.edu [130.207.3.207]) by wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA02009 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:56:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lennon.cc.gatech.edu (bowman@lennon.cc.gatech.edu [130.207.9.20]) by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA12690 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:56:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from bowman@localhost) by lennon.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) id NAA00352 for 3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:56:06 -0400 (EDT) From: bowman@cc.gatech.edu (Doug Bowman) Message-Id: <199807221756.NAA00352@lennon.cc.gatech.edu> Subject: Re: comparing travel techniques for spatial orientation To: 3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu (3D UI List) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:56:06 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <61AC5C9A4B9CD11181A200805F57CD5404326C6A@red-msg-44.dns.microsoft.com> from "Jeff Pierce" at Jul 13, 98 05:04:58 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Status: RO A while back, Jeff Pierce wrote: > > As Jeff said, the main component of such a technique that will > > help is that rotation is still done physically. But, in order > > to judge directions accurately, the user must also have a sense > > of the distance translated. Which virtual techniques do this the > > best? > > If you're trying to communicate distance traveled there might be perceptual > clues you can provide (such as optical flow) that might be more effective > than any particular technique. Of course, that's just an idea I'm tossing > out without much evidence. =) Jeff, I definitely agree with you here. Optic flow, and other characteristics of the environment will definitely affect perceptions. Again, however, I would say given that we can find a near-optimal environment that gives the best distance perceptions, is this perception still affected by the actual interaction technique? I think this factor is something that many experimenters leave out, which is why I'm looking at it (have to do something new for a dissertation these days, ain't it a shame?). A typical experiment might say that an environment where you pass a pole every 10 meters gives better distance perception than one where the walls are all flat-shaded the same color, but the experiments usually use a default travel technique like gaze-directed steering. > Have you talked to Rudy Darken about this (and isn't he on this mailing > list?)? Rudy has done and is doing work and wayfinding and orientation in > virtual worlds, so it seems like he could chime in here with some > ideas/advice. His previous work that I've read has focused more on > navigational aids, but he might have some ideas from talking with > professional orienteers that might help. Yes, I have talked to Rudy a bit, but not specifically about this experiment. I suspect the reason he may not be chiming in here is that (besides all the work he has to do), he's the editor of the upcoming special issue of Presence on these topics, and knows that I'm probably going to submit a paper on this to it! :) We don't want any conflicts of interest. Of course, Rudy, if you think it's OK, I'd love to hear some of your views now. 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/gvu/people/Phd/Doug.Bowman/