Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

INDUSTRY : Two worlds in VR ?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Tony Plant

unread,
Sep 13, 1993, 4:03:20 PM9/13/93
to
Hi,

The problem of industrial-academic links is not unique to VR! Pick
any topic, you'll find the same problem. As with many things, the
solution lies in individuals trying to break the barriers, little by
little. Enough "motherhood", some examples in VR :-

Bob Stone's group at the National Advanced Robotics Research Centre
(NARRC) at Salford University has established the VRS Intiative. This
is intended as a technology/expertise transfer vehicle, for companies
like mine to "dip a toe in the VR water" without huge up-front
equipment and training costs. Bob and his people put together a
cohesive proposal in "business-speak" (that even my managers could
understand :-), got some good publicity together and had the patience
to cultivate tentative responses into something real. As NARRC came
more than half-way, I could reach them!

Last week I attend the inaugral meeting of the UK VR SIG, the idea
of two academic researchers (Sean Clark - S.M....@lut.ac.uk - and
Robin Hollands - R.Hol...@shef.ac.uk) to try and pull interested
academic and industrial people together. I'd guess about 40 people
with a 60-40 academic/industry split. I even volunteered as some sort
of "industry liason" person for this group (exactly what this means is
to be decided, but hell it's a start!). Here's another chance to start
"challenging parochialism" as Bob Jacobson puts it.

And what about VRASP? I just joined them 'cause I thought "Alliance
of Students and Professionals" was what they were about (and just what
VR needs). Talk to Karin August (kau...@caip.rutgers.edu).

Having spent some time in academic research before jumping ship
(selling my soul? :-) to industry, I have some appreciation of the
needs/problems of both sides. I'm not the only who can use such a
dual-background to try and act as a catalyst to get
academic-industrial links going. Don't wait for someone-else to solve
this problem ('cos even if they do, there's no guarantee it'll involve
you or be what you want). Help solve it yourself!

So, take up Bob's challenge - buy your academic/industrialist
opposite a pizza and start talking! :-)

Flame me by e-mail ; discuss me on the net.

Bye
Tony
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Plant | BNR Europe Ltd, Harlow, Essex, UK, CM17 9NA
(aka T.A....@bnr.co.uk) | Tel : +44 279 402109 (ESN 742 2109)

"We don't believe in long-term planning. In fact we try to stamp it out"
- Ed McCracken on SGI (but more widely applicable, I think!)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D Nicoll

unread,
Sep 17, 1993, 5:28:09 AM9/17/93
to
As an investigator not concerned with VR technological research but
with the VR 'phenomena', I'm interested in how ideas and issues of VR
disseminate both within the R&D community as well as through to the
public via the existing media outlets (the vehicles that originally
brought VR to my attention). From a public point of view, after only
one week after the disclosure of the VR problem (Independent, 5th
Sept., and more publicity over the following week), the head of
research at British Telecom, has an article in another paper (Times,
Sept. 12th), which speaks of the future of VR as a domestic
technology. Has he seen the Independent's article? Will he adjust his
lecture given at the Live '93 consumer electronics show next week?

In some of my research a major concern of people I have talked to
which have been influenced by 'media VR' (I'll coin this term to
define people that have only heard of VR through the media), seem to
recur a general question;

'once entered in the wonderful wonderland of VR will people want to
come out again'.

This concern may relate to the fear that is generated by parental
observation of children who appear to spend protracted periods of time
playing computer games, to which the connotation of our societal
taboos 'escaping reality', and 'wasting time' have already been
attached. Personally, I have always personally held the affirmative
notion of VR, as well as all media technologies per se, as extensions
to 'actual reality'. To me, passage between the virtual and actual
realities is a prime essence to the entire experience. The easier and
more convenient the passage between realities, thus the better and
more progressive the technology and virtual content of the programme.
This would serve as my 'turing test' of a good virtual reality. Now
with this in mind, the idea of our own natural interface with 'actual'
reality, our perceptual processes, being under risk of permanent or a
developmental distortion, makes the process of entering virtual worlds
becomes a much more daunting endeavour. The fear of 'going in, and not
coming back', seems to take on a more direct and literal meaning.

Bill Briken stated in the Meckler conf. held in London, 91, that 'VR
was a technology that was 'in a unique position of being in the market
place before being academically understood. The history of our
technological society has been based on the dynamic relationship of
science and engineering. Science providing the design-board for
engineers to work from and new problems of the engineering returning
to the laboratory. Should this relationship be any different with VR?
There are obvious factors that provide the motivation for research in
the academic community, and perhaps these do differ to that of
producing results for sponsors. But should these factors act as
smokescreens to real problems. Should certain individuals', group,
company, or institution's public image of their research work or
product be used to further obscuring of crucial technical points
needing to be addressed? And is the best place to elicit response a
newspaper under some guise that this is important public knowledge?

I believe that because of VR's unique position as a technology, a
phenomena, and more lately as a science, there is fundamental problems
in the way in which it is being propagated. These problems are
complex, and concerns all aspects of its proposed implementation.
However, the cross talk we have seen on the board, relating the
participant party's credentials, concerns, knowledge and individual
objectives (their academic and professional qualifications, their
concern for children's eyes, as well as the semantics of VR) drew
further from the point in question that I'm sure *everybody* wants to
know about that reads this board:

IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH EXISTING HMDS?

and if so;

WILL THE HMDS BEING POTENTIALLY RELEASED ONTO THE MASS MARKET BE
TAKING THESE PROBLEMS INTO ACCOUNT (OR COME TO THAT, CAN THE
PROBLEMS BE SOLVED AT ALL)?

There must be something wrong if such a fundamental and important
problems concerning the HMD is relegated to a slagging match, and
why,I ask, are these problems concerning the HMD only coming to light
now?.

The representatives of both industry and academia were prompted by
this newspaper article (or more precisely the posting of the article
up on the board), *WHY!* (shows the persevering sovereignty of the
existing reality manipulators, as a means for provoking discussion).

Some participants of Sci-Virtual worlds have voiced their disrelish at
not being able to attend the constantly expanding number of
conferences posted on the board (this has been noted by Bob Jacobson).
But surely these should be the forum where experts debate out
*crucial* and fundamental aspects of VR technology (unless there is
some other means for the 'experts' to communicate), and not in
response or reaction to the papers. Are VR conferences only a means
for showing off new products as well as new ideas and concepts, some
cleverly appropriated into a VR context from other disciplines? If
they are, then perhaps they do relate a certain blind faith, as
exemplified by the previous hype and blind optimism that was accepted
and promoted by the media concerning VR's beginnings; certainly up to
last Sunday's Independent bombshell. If there is indeed a potential
hazard concerning the HMD, and it is not being addressed in these
conferences, then I consider them ineffective as a voice in the
propagation and development of virtual reality. If the current
communication channels (conferences, personal communication, visits,
memos, etc) have failed in finding the correct way to innovate,
develop, and make safe HMDs then maybe VR may turn out like the
personal helicopter. Radical as I hope this all sounds, why draw on
contextual issues (VR metaphysics), when there is no safe HMD?

Even if you're only interested in profits, or in promoting non-HMD
functional VR systems, your products are effected from the public
perspective, when bad publicity strikes. I believe that as we take a
step towards VR's media attribute of being the 'next step forward' (a
phrase still being used as an attribute), an imperative should be
launched to take 'two steps back' in order to recognise the problems
of what is considered by many as the definitive piece of VR apparatus
- the HMD.


Derek Nicoll

Tony Plant

unread,
Sep 24, 1993, 10:05:00 PM9/24/93
to
Hi,

> IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH EXISTING HMDS?
>

IMHO, there are many problems with HMDs. Side-effects on eyesight
is one of the most emotional as we value our sense of vision so
highly. However, please do equate the whole world of VR with HMDs and
damn everything by association.

> and if so;
>
> WILL THE HMDS BEING POTENTIALLY RELEASED ONTO THE MASS MARKET BE
> TAKING THESE PROBLEMS INTO ACCOUNT (OR COME TO THAT, CAN THE
> PROBLEMS BE SOLVED AT ALL)?
>

Er, watch for the legal disclaimer notice stuck to the side :-).
Well, seriously, given the current culture for litigation, Sega and
others will be very mindful of being sued for damaging little
Johnnie's eyes or Jane's early mental development.

> There must be something wrong if such a fundamental and important
> problems concerning the HMD is relegated to a slagging match, and
> why,I ask, are these problems concerning the HMD only coming to light
> now?.
>

I didn't really see a "slagging" match here. Some general comments
were made in a headline-grabbing style, followed by some clarification
of position. As for "only coming to light now", that is not the case.
We have a much stronger spotlight now because of the impending Sega
HMD for the mass-market. Before this, there were very few HMDs in
existence and their users were fully aware of the problems and could
work within them. This is obviously not the case with a mass market
product.

> The representatives of both industry and academia were prompted by
> this newspaper article (or more precisely the posting of the article
> up on the board), *WHY!* (shows the persevering sovereignty of the
> existing reality manipulators, as a means for provoking discussion).
>

Why? Because it was front-page news and thus topic of the week.
Hell, I've hardly got a toe in the VR water, yet friends and
colleagues used the Independent article as a conversation openner for
the rest of the week! The problems of HMDs have simply been boosted up
the priority issue list (no doubt at the expense of other things).

> . Radical as I hope this all sounds, why draw on
> contextual issues (VR metaphysics), when there is no safe HMD?

There are safe HMDs, just as there are safe cars. How safe it is
all depends on the wearer/driver. Too many kids (and professionals)
screw up their eyesight staring at computer monitors/TVs for too
long/too close/in the wrong lighting, etc. Too many people kill
themselves (and/or others) on the roads. Yet, it is still vital to
study the context of TV watching and personal mobility of the car.
Furthermore, no-one stopped selling TVs and cars whilst the safety
regulations were being sorted out.

The mass market for HMDs is there ; products will be sold to
satisfy it. Yes, a little education on safety aspects, a "highway
code" for HMD use is needed, but such is not difficult.

We don't need "two steps back". I'd be amazed if Sega didn't
include explict guidelines on safe HMD use, but we can make sure they
do with a little effort now. This really isn't a big issue, just a
little one with lots of emotion and 30 seconds of fame.

Bye
Tony

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Plant | BNR Europe Ltd, Harlow, Essex, UK, CM17 9NA
(aka T.A....@bnr.co.uk) | Tel : +44 279 402109 (ESN 742 2109)

"To me, Cyberspace isn't William Gibson's vision, it isn't the global net.
When I use the word, I'm simply talking about a 3D user interface."
- John Walker, Autodesk (but I feel the same!)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt Pepe

unread,
Sep 24, 1993, 11:20:41 PM9/24/93
to
I am a senior in HS, and am looking for colleges that have good
Comp Sci programs. I am looking into programming as a profession, so
any help that anyone can give would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Matt Pepe
mp...@nyx.cs.du.edu

[check the anon ftp site at ftp.u.washington.edu in
/public/virtual-worlds/faq/schools/ for more information.]

D Nicoll

unread,
Oct 4, 1993, 6:08:55 AM10/4/93
to
I wish to make my position a clear as possible in the midst of this
continuing and interesting debate concerning the alleged hazards with
HMDs.

T.A....@bnr.co.uk recently answered my question regarding why such a
fundamental and important issue as the HMD display was only brought to
light via an article in the Independent (A British National
newspaper),and then subsequently debated on sci-virtual worlds over
the last couple of weeks.

> Why? Because it was front-page news and thus topic of the week.
> Hell, I've hardly got a toe in the VR water, yet friends and
> colleagues used the Independent article as a conversation openner
> for the rest of the week!

Stimulus for conservation at any level of debate is what I consider
interesting. From the casual observance of the potential buyer for VR
gear,through to the ideas of developers, through to the scrutiny of
researchers,I hope that VR technology propagates and grows. However,
my attention has been drawn by the fact that dichotomies between
industry, and science, as well as the depiction of their work by the
media, seems to haze over quite straight forward questions such as;

>> IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH EXISTING HMDS?

In the Times this week (The Culture, 26th Sept.), there is a classic
VR article of the 'potentials unlimited' genre. It begins with a
'teledildonics'fantasy incorporating a twelve year old London
school-boy interacting with an elderly woman living in Monterey. It
says little more than similar articles that were printed three years
ago, however it illustrates its contemporariness by making reference
to the recent report in the Independent and other papers.

'Recent tabloid sensationalism has stressed supposed physiological
problems of VR, including damaged eyesight and disorientation. But
most of these can be attributed to tests using early apparatus.'

Great, we can all hang loose now! The paranoia generated by the
Independent, as well as the work of the Edinburgh VR project is
relegated to 'sensationalism'. I am not in a position to judge what
the effects of protracted use of HMD VR technology can do but I'm
certainly not convinced that John Wann's et al's work was properly
criticised.

Mr Plant's comments;

> How safe it is all depends on the wearer/driver.

> The mass market for HMDs is there ; products will be sold to


> satisfy it. Yes, a little education on safety aspects, a "highway
> code" for HMD use is needed, but such is not difficult.

Only indicate to me that there is need for as great degree more
research into the potential problems, not discrediting of the part of
the only work done in this area. The agenda for raising the tech,
specs. should not be at loggerheads with research into potentially
harmfull effects. The mass market is known to be initially in games.
Mr Plant's 'little Johnie and Jane' (his virtual participants) are
already playing protracted periods of time playing games already. Do
you think that they will adhere to a highway code? What will this code
be based on, the findings of a perceptual psychologist whose
recommendations are to play for less than ten minutes, in every hour?
In every article (including the recent Times article) featuring W
Industries Jon Waldren, when asked about negative effects of VR gear,
seems to reply suggest that he is waiting for negative feedback from
users. Perhapshe has not heard much back, but then again what role
does the economic factor of having to pay for the experience put a
limit on the exposure to the gear?

Mr Plant's continues;

> Furthermore, no-one stopped selling TVs and cars whilst the safety
> regulations were being sorted out.

In the context of potential hazards with HMDs, I contend there exists
little relationship between cars and TVs, let alone either of them in
respect to VR. The problems of killing a child by hitting them with a
car, or killing them slowly by turning them into a couch potato, have
little resemblance in my mind to distorting their perceptual systems
with HMDs. It says little of VRs real promise to relegate it to cars
and TVs.

> We don't need "two steps back".

I'm sorry, I underestimated but if VR developers maintain an attitude
such as that so far put forward, expecially in the event of continuous
conflicting information of the media, we need to step considerably
further than two steps! (Are we only concerned about all this in
Britain?)

D. Nicoll

BIU

unread,
Oct 5, 1993, 3:51:31 PM10/5/93
to
In article <28osnn$l...@news.u.washington.edu> eju...@festival.ed.ac.uk (D Nicoll

) writes:
>In the context of potential hazards with HMDs, I contend there exists
>little relationship between cars and TVs, let alone either of them in
>respect to VR. The problems of killing a child by hitting them with a
>car, or killing them slowly by turning them into a couch potato, have
>little resemblance in my mind to distorting their perceptual systems
>with HMDs. It says little of VRs real promise to relegate it to cars
>and TVs.
>

On a more pragmatic level - if you are making and/or selling an HMD,
and it causes perceptual problems in some users, you are leaving
yourself open to enormous lawsuits. It is well established nowadays
that sellers of cars are not responsible for slaughter on the roads,
and TV's were developed in an era of considerably fewer lawsuits -
and fortunately they are not in general harmful. But times have
changed, and any lawyer worth his salt can drag up the few items
of research that HAVE been done on perceptual problems caused by
HMD's, and show that the selling company should have known about
these before selling to unsuspecting audiences. I would guess
that even an HMD that had draconic warnings stating "NOT TO BE
USED FOR MORE THAN 10 MINUTES IN ANY HOUR" could lose a law case
if it caused perceptual problems even if these were caused by the
user not sticking to the instructions - and in any case, would YOU
buy a television that had that warning!
--
Jack j...@biu.icnet.uk

If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.
-- Maslow

John Nagle

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 4:39:43 AM10/7/93
to
BIU <j...@calvin.lif.icnet.uk> writes:
>On a more pragmatic level - if you are making and/or selling an HMD,
>and it causes perceptual problems in some users, you are leaving
>yourself open to enormous lawsuits.

There are a number of safety concerns likely to cause trouble
with HMDs once this gets going. I can see at least the following:

1. Electrical safety. This is a device which locks you into
an electrically-powered unit which may have significant
voltages. UL/CSA testing is indicated. Remember,
electrical safety must be assured even when the unit or
associated units are wet or damaged for a body-attached
device. The technology exists to get this right, and there
is no excuse for screwing up on electrical safety.

2. Falls. A HMD can cause enough disorentiation to cause the
user to fall, for at least some segment of the population.
W Industries has the user stand on a platform surrounded by
a ring handrail, probably a good move. And there's always
the possibility of leading a HMD-equipped user into an
obstacle or floor change in level, especially once HMDs get
longer tethers, update faster, and are used for faster-paced
activities.

3. Simulator sickness. Some people get sick in simulators due
to disorientation. For entertainment HMDs, this is probably
tolerable (lots of forms of entertainment are uncomfortable
for some fraction of the population) but it has implications
for work-oriented HMD systems.

4. Eyestrain. Again, more of a problem in work environments.
There are special eyestrain problems associated with bad
3D presentations, as well as the normal ones associated with
optical systems.

5. Induced post-HMD accidents. For some flight simulators,
usually those for military fighter aircraft, it's been found
necessary to forbid simulator users to fly or drive for a
period of time after flying the simulator. Some HMDs might
have a similar effect.

John Nagle

STARS::PSOTKA

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 4:41:32 AM10/7/93
to
Having taken a slow look at the new Stuntmaster (from BEST Products)
from Victormaxx, all of the problems discussed about the VPL LX
resurface immediately. It has a ycuky Fresnle lens that leaves your
high spatial frequency channels tingling for minutes, if not hours
after using it. I couldn't read 9 point print for 15 minutes after a
half hour exporsure. Imagine what it will do to your kids when they
try to do their homework after playing games for a couple of hours.
It has some sort of a warning about not using it more than 15 minutes
at a time (but honestly I couldn't understand what it meant)! The
convergence point is that actual location of the screen, since there
appears to be no built - in prism, so your eyes are converged to a
point about 3 inches from your face. Other than that, the tracking
and display are resonably good.

Joe

Tony Plant

unread,
Oct 7, 1993, 6:08:00 PM10/7/93
to
Hi,

First off an unreserved apology for forgetting Mr Nicoll's
first name! I have to continue to use the more formal "Mr".

Right, actually Mr Nicoll, I don't think our positions are
that far apart. I am very concerned that Joe or Jane Public
(especially little Joes and Janes) should not suffer any damaging
side-effects (visual, mental or physical) from mass market HMDs. I
think that is the widely held view of the VR community.

I have no intention of discrediting the Edinburgh work (or any
other) which is an active attempt to ensure HMDs are "safe". The
positive reaction to the Independent's article is to accept that what
is safe in research labs is not necessarily safe for the mass market.
Now that the mass market beckons, we must lead the definition of what
a "safe HMD for the home" really means in the known context of kids
playing games for hours on end. As a community we have the means and
the expertise, so lets take the lead and do it!

> Mr Plant's 'little Johnie and Jane' (his virtual participants) are
> already playing protracted periods of time playing games already. Do
> you think that they will adhere to a highway code? What will this code
> be based on, the findings of a perceptual psychologist whose
> recommendations are to play for less than ten minutes, in every hour?

A highway code is *not* all that is needed. It is just one
thing that is needed. I do not expect everyone (or even most) to
adhere to it. But some will. When we teach kids how to cross a road
safely, most of them realise its for their own good. It *is* possible
to teach kids to be responsible in their use of video games, without
taking away all the fun! Safe HMDs alone is not enough. It must be
combined with user education.

> In the context of potential hazards with HMDs, I contend there exists
> little relationship between cars and TVs, let alone either of them in
> respect to VR. The problems of killing a child by hitting them with a
> car, or killing them slowly by turning them into a couch potato, have
> little resemblance in my mind to distorting their perceptual systems
> with HMDs. It says little of VRs real promise to relegate it to cars
> and TVs.

No! I am not relegating VR to anything! My point is that HMDs,
cars and TVs are open to abuse however "safe" you try and make them.
What the public wants (or is told to want) is what it gets. What it
wants to do with it, it does. Playing King Canute is futile. Doing
nothing when forewarned of the possible dangers of HMDs is totally
unacceptable. Continuing to run around shouting "VR will zap your
brain" achieves nothing (not that you are doing that Mr Nicoll).

So let us take positive action. I can't do the required human
factors experiments nor prepare the user education material. I am
simply not qualified. I have no influence to get the funding or to
ensure Sega/W Industries/Whoever comply with findings. But, as a
multi-disciplinary community *we* can do all of this (or have sway
with others that can). If I can help the VR "movers and shakers" do
this, let me know ; otherwise I bow out of the debate.

Bye
Tony

Chris Shaw

unread,
Oct 8, 1993, 2:08:35 AM10/8/93
to
na...@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
> 2. Falls. A HMD can cause enough disorentiation to cause the
> user to fall, for at least some segment of the population.

This is the main reason why you won't see the cheap SEGA HMD in a big
hurry. The word I hear is that nobody will sell SEGA the LCD TV's
that they need because they don't want to be implicated in the
lawsuits that they feel are inevitable.

> 3. Simulator sickness.

I feel that this one can be engineered around by making sure that the
tracking is good enough and the model small enough to be rendered with
low enough lag to avoid sim sickness. It would help if people knew
what exactly causes sim sickness...

--
Chris Shaw University of Alberta
cds...@cs.UAlberta.ca CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !

Technically Sweet

unread,
Oct 13, 1993, 2:39:29 AM10/13/93
to
John Nagle writes:

> 3. Simulator Sickness

I'm really looking forward to vomiting on a large electronics
apparatus. Yessir.

I believe that for serious all-day use desktop VR and
then the "beauty parlor helmet" style will be dominant modes.
The latter will be a Barcalounger-style piece of comfy furniture.

--

Lance Norskog
thi...@netcom.com
Data is not information is not knowledge is not wisdom.

0 new messages