From drewk@graphics.cis.upenn.edu Mon Jun 22 14:03:29 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 OAA25105 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:03:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (ypX8caO/QdZ9kdvWXMYoHFKY5r/c4EFs@[128.95.73.60]) by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA11304 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from linc.cis.upenn.edu (LINC.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.12.3]) by wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA18493 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from graphics.cis.upenn.edu (GRAPHICS.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.2.10]) by linc.cis.upenn.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA02614 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:03:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roger.cis.upenn.edu (ROGER.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.12.70]) by graphics.cis.upenn.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA06425 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:03:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by roger.cis.upenn.edu id SAA27795; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 18:03:16 GMT Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 18:03:16 GMT Posted-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 18:03:16 GMT Message-Id: <199806221803.SAA27795@roger.cis.upenn.edu> From: Drew Kessler MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "3DUI (E-mail)" <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu> Subject: RE: input devices In-Reply-To: <5F68209F7E4BD111A5F500805FFE35B9057977DF@red-msg-54.dns.microsoft.com> References: <5F68209F7E4BD111A5F500805FFE35B9057977DF@red-msg-54.dns.microsoft.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.22 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid Status: RO Ken Hinckley writes: > > Drew wrote: ... > My point: gloves may suck now, but I don't think > they will suck in 5-10 years. > > I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point :). Seriously, the > fundamental problem with gloves is that, even if the sensing technology were > > perfectly accurate, there is no haptic feedback to guide your motions. So > the reasons that I find gloves problematic for many position/orientation > manipulation tasks will still be true in 5-10 years. Now, as Jeff has > pointed out, there are situations where this doesn't matter or is a > secondary issue (with the head-crusher being my favorite example). There > are also situations where gloves directly capture a gesture of interest > (such as pointing) or where the extra DF's of the joint angles may be > useful. Ok, Ken. I'm agreeable to disagreeing :) Of course, I believe you are correct in saying that the lack of haptic feedback makes finger manipulations very difficult, especially compared to a "3d ball". Time will tell whether adding some sort of feedback to the fingers will improve things. (We are looking at a CyberGrasp device with this very question in mind, and our expectations are fairly low.) > The issue of generality is a separate one -- a "3d ball" that lets you > position > and orient objects is also a general input device. (Having a physical device > vs. > having a "prop" that closely matches a particular virtual object is another > separate issue). I guess that I see these devices as occupying points along a continuum between "fully general" and "specific to one task", and therefore really the issue I was trying to raise. Lest I get completely written off as one of those wacky "glove guys", though, I should say that my favorite 3D input device is actually a 3D-tracked stylus with 1 button. The 3D position of the "hot spot" and the orientation of the stylus is fairly unambiguous. Works well as a "picker", "placer", and "pointer". -Drew -- ___________________________________________________________________________ G. Drew Kessler drewk@central.cis.upenn.edu Dept. of Computer and Information Science Office: 174 Moore Bldg University of Pennsylvania Phone: (215)573-2815 200 South 33rd Street Fax: (215)898-0587 Philadelphia, PA, USA 19104-6389 http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~drewk/home.html