From bowman@cc.gatech.edu Fri May 8 10:48:32 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 KAA02378 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:48:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (URw8G48PCJcXSUJaxEi10D+Mn9qH2fvi@[128.95.73.60]) by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA17017 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:48:28 -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 HAA08729 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Fri, 8 May 1998 07:47:11 -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 KAA16884 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:47:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from bowman@localhost) by lennon.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) id KAA02264 for 3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:47:06 -0400 (EDT) From: bowman@cc.gatech.edu (Doug Bowman) Message-Id: <199805081447.KAA02264@lennon.cc.gatech.edu> Subject: Re: What is 3D good for? To: 3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu (3D UI List) Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 10:47:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Status: O I knew it wouldn't take Jeff long to get to the heart of the matter. :-) This is really the question that we all have to answer before any of this discussion makes sense. If 3D doesn't provide a big win (given the current state of technology & interaction), no one will want it. I agree with most of the categories of applications that Jeff laid out. I think there are some others that make sense, such as training for real-world situations, experiential education (learning by doing, being somewhere, making something), and psychological treatment (Larry Hodges would be upset if I didn't mention this). Furthermore, some people have tried to put some structure on this list of possible apps - I'm taking this from Rory Stuart's book "The Design of VEs" - he adapted it from Wickens & Baker's chapter in "VEs and Advanced Interface Design". Online performance - accomplish task in real world thru teleoperation Offline training/rehearsal - practice real world tasks in VE Online comprehension - understand/gain insight into VE while in it Offline learning - acquire knowledge and experience in VE that can be used/sythesized later Online design - use VE to design objects/environments Entertainment - VE for enjoyment only Communication - VE for sharing ideas with others Perceptual-motor research - VE for doing perception experiments I think this is a pretty good list - anyone got applications that don't fit into this? How many of these categories would you characterize as having little interaction or a lot of interaction? One more thing - let me defend myself a little bit on this mini-CAVE issue. I don't doubt that this would be a great display technology for a lot of applications. However, in applications where you want to be able to navigate a large 3D environment, I think spatial awareness will be lower due to the fact that you can't physically turn around and see what's behind you. Using some examples from Jeff's list and the one above: in a virtual tour application, to turn around in the VE you would need to use some sort of vehicle metaphor. Since you don't actually feel the vehicle turning, if you do anything other than turn at right angles, you'll probably get a little disoriented. In a training app, replication of real-world stimuli is important esp. if you are supposed to gain a spatial understanding of the real world by using the VE. I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't throw away our HMDs yet. :-) -- 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/