🚀 go-pugleaf

Sorry that this is so long.

In article <4362@pitt.UUCP> bonar@pitt.UUCP (Dr. Jeffrey Bonar) writes:
>
>I have an invitation for net readers - create a metaphor for computing 
>systems that goes beyond the desktop cliche.
[...]
>						what should a computer work 
>space really look like?
>
>William Gibson described a cyberspace...

(I ignored the request to e-mail on the subject, 'cause I think that this
needs a wider discussion)

Up until about four years ago, all interaction to a computer was through
a single linear path (well, two actually).  The characters were typed on
the keyboard, and characters appeared on the screen.  The UNIX especially
is designed around this concept of a serial communication line.  It's
networking utilities (rsh, rlogin, rcp, etc) are the utilities that are 
implied by this.  

About a year ago, there was an idea for networking the mac (actually, I think
it was for a multiuser mac) that included the concept of a primative cyber-
space.  It was based on the desktop metaphor of the mac.  

The idea was to extend the desktop of the mac they way it is done with 
multiple moniters on a mac II.  Give each user their own mouse/keyboard.
If a user wanted, he could walk around the extended desktop with the mouse
the same way that is done with Close View.  Also, the user could pass a window
to someone else's desktop so that they could work on the application as well.

Each user could of course customize their own desktop much the way that
is done now.  

What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say
for example, an office.  You would have a desktop, a trashcan, a phone,
an inbasket/outbasket, a filesystem, etc.  Each of the services that are 
offered by the system are represented as an object in the office.  If you 
go out through the door, you find yourself in the hall (network), and from 
there can go into someone else's office (the outbasket & phone act in a 
predictable manner).

It'll be expensive (in terms of cpu time/bandwidth) but I think that it will
be worth it in the long run.  The way that you interact with the computer
in part determines the ways that you will consider using it.  (ex: desktop
publishing out of the Mac)

Comments?

-- 
Cory (...your bravest dreams, your worst nightmare...) Kempf
UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory
	"...it's a mistake in the making."	-KT

In article <257@gloom.UUCP>, cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
> In article <4362@pitt.UUCP> bonar@pitt.UUCP (Dr. Jeffrey Bonar) writes:
> >
> >I have an invitation for net readers - create a metaphor for computing 
> >systems that goes beyond the desktop cliche.
> [...]
> >						what should a computer work 
> >space really look like?
> >
> >William Gibson described a cyberspace...
> 
> What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say
> for example, an office.  You would have a desktop, a trashcan, a phone,
> an inbasket/outbasket, a filesystem, etc.  Each of the services that are 
> offered by the system are represented as an object in the office.  If you 
> go out through the door, you find yourself in the hall (network), and from 
> there can go into someone else's office (the outbasket & phone act in a 
> predictable manner).

To take your idea a bit further how about getting rid of the CRT display
and creating a holographic display which could be projected anywhere 
in your office (or workspace) that is convenient.  When your computer is
not in use (if that is possible) none of your desk space would be taken up.

You would even be able
to determine the metaphor that gets projected.  Say, Cory's idea of the 
office with the doors and hallways, etc.  Or possibly a "zoomed" view of
the desktop with all of it's accouterments.  Manipulation of this projection
would be the user's choice of a standard keyboard or some sort of pointing
device.  Perhaps we could even come up with a way that the user could 
physically manipulate the holographic characters.  

Remember the chess game in one of the Star Wars movies, where the holographic
images battled one another until one was "killed"?  If Lucas Films can
do it, it must be possible! :-)

Ken Collier
College of Engineering and Technology
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, Arizona

In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
>What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say
>for example, an office.  You would have a desktop, a trashcan, a phone,
>an inbasket/outbasket, a filesystem, etc.  Each of the services that are 
>offered by the system are represented as an object in the office.  If you 
>go out through the door, you find yourself in the hall (network), and from 
>there can go into someone else's office (the outbasket & phone act in a 
>predictable manner).

Yes, but if I'm alternately working in my office and someone else's far away,
I want to be able to switch back and forth quickly.  How about teleport
booths instead of hallways?

(Sorry this isn't followed up to alt.cyberpunk, but Sun's news server
won't allow posting to alt groups.)

	Howard A. Landman
	landman@hanami.sun.com

In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
[Previous article omitted.]
>
>About a year ago, there was an idea for networking the mac (actually, I think
>it was for a multiuser mac) that included the concept of a primative cyber-
>space.  It was based on the desktop metaphor of the mac.  
>
>The idea was to extend the desktop of the mac they way it is done with 
>multiple moniters on a mac II.  Give each user their own mouse/keyboard.
>If a user wanted, he could walk around the extended desktop with the mouse
>the same way that is done with Close View.  Also, the user could pass a window
>to someone else's desktop so that they could work on the application as well.
>
>Each user could of course customize their own desktop much the way that
>is done now.  
>
>What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say
>for example, an office.  You would have a desktop, a trashcan, a phone,
>an inbasket/outbasket, a filesystem, etc.  Each of the services that are 
>offered by the system are represented as an object in the office.  If you 
>go out through the door, you find yourself in the hall (network), and from 
>there can go into someone else's office (the outbasket & phone act in a 
>predictable manner).
>
>It'll be expensive (in terms of cpu time/bandwidth) but I think that it will
>be worth it in the long run.  The way that you interact with the computer
>in part determines the ways that you will consider using it.  (ex: desktop
>publishing out of the Mac)
>
>Comments?
>
>-- 
>Cory (...your bravest dreams, your worst nightmare...) Kempf
>UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory
>	"...it's a mistake in the making."	-KT

This is basically the subject of my PhD dissertation. It extends
Fred Thompson's "New World of Computing (tm)" natural language system
to a host of networked users. Each user works in a "context", basically
his environment with his customized slang based on his native language,
(currently the system understands English, French and Italian but other
tongues are in the works.)

But the user can open up his context to the rest of the world using
several different methods. One is called "basing" and involves
incorporating another context (i.e. Dow Jones, Sears catalog) by
creating virtual links to it.

My role is allowing users to share their contexts which contain
data base objects in several different mediatic forms (entities,
texts, pictures, sound recordings, etc...) by opening up a common
window where each user retains his/her means of control. They each
have a cursor, mouse pointer or whatever pointing device their
computer supports, and a voice link is opened for direct communication.
This allows, for example, a team of designers scattered all over the
world to all lean over the same blueprint, give advice, make changes, 
querry the data base to find who is affected by the change, get them
in on the meeting and send the revised project to manufacturing.

If all goes well, my prototype should be working in a few months.
The way we see it, this is going to be the next mutation of the
telephone and computer into one standard device in every home.
Seing how the previous mutation (the Minitel in France) has
generated such a thrill in the general french user community,
there is little doubt that we are heading for some exciting days.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remy Sanouillet                      |      E-mail: remy@caltech.BITNET
256-80 Caltech                       |              remy@csvax.caltech.edu
Pasadena, CA 91125                   |              ...seismo!cit-vax!remy
Tel. (818) 356-6262                  |                              

I think people are getting a little too caught up in using metaphors.
In the past, there were a few successful uses of metaphores to
describe how systems worked, for example, the flow of a conversation
at a party was used to describe how Ethernet works, or the analogy of
a windowing system to an office desktop.  In those cases, the
metaphore helped the user understand a complex system by equating it
to a complex system the he or she already understands.  

It seems to me that there is a trend towards finding a metaphor that
fits the problem (computer interfaces or whatever) and then using that
as a specification for implementing a solution.  Metaphores are useful
for communicating understanding of complex systems but they should not
(in my opinion) be used for design of systems.  The odds are against
finding a real world system (model) that fits the needs of the user
and the limitations of current computer technology.  What seems to be
happening now is that people are trying to "force fit" metaphores to
the task.  For example, I think the idea of extending the desk top
metaphore to an office model replete with rooms and hallways is
absurd.  Why force a user to do do a lot of "walking around" just
because it nicely fits a metaphore?  True, the office metaphore makes
the description of a complex system easier (easier for the designer,
that is) but it isn't necessarily better for the user.  I think human
interface designers should spend more time learning how to effectively
communicate (using metaphores if only if needed) and less time trying
to avoid the communication problem by modeling computer interaction
systems after existing real world systems.

So there, I've said it, and I feel better.  I guess I'll sit back and
warm my feet with the flameage.  :-)

							Stank

US Mail: Stan Kalinowski, Tektronix, Inc.	
         Information Display Group, Interactive Technologies Division
         PO Box 1000, MS 61-028, Wilsonville OR 97070   Phone:(503)-685-2458
uucp:    {ucbvax,decvax,allegra,uw-beaver}!tektronix!orca!stank

In comp.windows.misc, landman@sun.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes:
>In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
>>What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say
>>for example, an office.  You would have a desktop, a trashcan, a phone. . .
>
>Yes, but if I'm alternately working in my office and someone else's far away,
>I want to be able to switch back and forth quickly.  How about teleport
>booths instead of hallways?

This is beginning to sound in some ways like a network-distributed version
of Rooms, the new "desktop thing" from ParcPlace.

If you haven't seen/heard of Rooms, you should look into it.  It presents 
you with multiple workspaces, called rooms, each of which contains the set 
of tools commonly used for doing some job (i.e., a collection of windows 
and programs).  There are doors for going from room to room, bags in which 
you can carry things from one room into another, and pockets in which you
can put things that you want to follow you around (like a clock, or your
phone) as you move from room to room.
--
 Matt Landau			Waiting for a flash of enlightenment
 mlandau@bbn.com			  in all this blood and thunder

[replacing the desktop metaphor, for heaven's sake]

I've often wondered if wireless technology would ever hit computers. Many
top rock and roll bands, for example have a little 3" antenna sticking out of
their electric guitars instead of a clumsy cable. Then there are wireless
telephones, not to mention all kinds of "remote controls" that work via
infrared pulses. So how about a wireless keyboard and/or mouse?

To go the route:

Flat-screen monitor 2 inches thick, 3 feet square. Hang it on the wall. The
CPU and magnetic/optical storage device (!) are stuck under a desk or something.
The keyboard has a trackball on one end of it, and interfaces with a
small infrared sensor in one corner of the monitor. Want to use the computer?
Take the keyboard out of your desk drawer, hit the "on" button, and compute
away. When you're finished, hit "off" and chuck the keyboard back into the
desk drawer, your briefcase, or whatever. 

A monitor as described is a ways down the road, for sure, but I don't know
why a wireless keyboard would be far-fetched. It'd only have to send a
hundred or so infrared (or other) pulses: one for each ASCII character.
There are video/audio remotes on the market right now that do more than that.

Ron

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
>  Ron Morgan      {ames, utah-cs, uunet, gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!osmigo  <
>  Univ. of Texas    {harvard, pyramid, sequent}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!osmigo   <
>  Austin, Texas          osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP       osmigo@emx.utexas.edu       <
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
 

       One can get carried away with mapping information into an illusion of
physical reality.  I've seen a number of examples of this in research
systems.  The architect of Microsoft Windows once was involved with the
development of a word processor in which one deleted words by dragging
them to the "trash can".  This proved not to be a useful concept.  At
Xerox PARC, I've seen a system in which windows and objects on the screen
have gravity, inertia, friction, and resiliency.  Move a window with the
mouse, release it while it's still moving, and it continues to move until
it hits something, then bounces.  Cute, but not useful.  The VPL people
tout the notion of programming by wiring functional units together with
"wires" on-screen.  This may appeal to the fraction of the population
that enjoys wire-wrapping.  A version of this concept for the little
ones is already available, called Robot Odessey.  This game, from The
Learning Company, allows kids to wire up simple robots with sensors,
"reaction jets", bumpers, and such, interconnected with logic built up
from AND and OR gates, flip-flops and inverters.  One can even create
new ICs; enough real estate is available in an IC for about a dozen
components.  An amusing game, but a painful way to get work done.

      More later if the dialog gets serious.
      					
      					John Nagle

In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
>Sorry that this is so long.
>
>In article <4362@pitt.UUCP> bonar@pitt.UUCP (Dr. Jeffrey Bonar) writes:
>>
>>I have an invitation for net readers - create a metaphor for computing 
>>systems that goes beyond the desktop cliche.
>[...]
>
>What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say
>for example, an office.  You would have a desktop, a trashcan, a phone,
>an inbasket/outbasket, a filesystem, etc.  Each of the services that are 
>offered by the system are represented as an object in the office.  If you 
>go out through the door, you find yourself in the hall (network), and from 
>there can go into someone else's office (the outbasket & phone act in a 
>predictable manner).
>
etc...

This looks to me like an application of the Rooms metaphor proposed by Card
and Henderson out of Xerox PARC (and more recently Europarc).  As I remember,
the Rooms metaphor presented a means of linking desktops through "windows" and 
"doors", in such a way that if you wanted to look at another application, or
view of an application, you did it through a "window", but if you wanted to
launch an application, you did it by going through a "door" into the "room"
in which the application was resident.  Seems to me that the idea of having
one of the "doors" lead into a hall (network) is a good one.

The Rooms metaphor has been published in several places, including ACM
Transactions on Graphics (don't remember which one, but it's relatively
recent).  It strikes me as being more closely related to hypermedia than to
3D...


-- 
Tim Dudley                           Cognos Incorporated 
(613) 738-1440                       3755 Riverside Drive, P.O.Box 9707 
uucp: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!timd    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  K1G 3Z4
 "It's a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word." 

In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:

>In article <4362@pitt.UUCP> bonar@pitt.UUCP (Dr. Jeffrey Bonar) writes:
>>
>>I have an invitation for net readers - create a metaphor for computing 
>>systems that goes beyond the desktop cliche.
>[...]
>>what should a computer work space really look like?

>What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say
>for example, an office.  You would have a desktop, a trashcan, a phone,
>an inbasket/outbasket, a filesystem, etc.  Each of the services that are 
>offered by the system are represented as an object in the office.  If you 
>go out through the door, you find yourself in the hall (network), and from 
>there can go into someone else's office (the outbasket & phone act in a 
>predictable manner).

The HyperCard Navigator II stack is an interesting experimental example of
structuring a familiar metaphor for the work space.  It presents a full
office, complete with a desk which has both a desktop and a set of drawers
for files and for miscellaneous bits and pieces.  It is clearly a richer
metaphor than the simple desktop, even though this example is full of
cutsie-pie off-the-cuff symbology which turns out not to completely capable
of generalization.  (Some of the symbols work, some don't, and most are
specific rather than generic.  Of course, with HyperCard you can roll your
own anyway, so perhaps this is a specious argument).  However, in keeping
with the concept of HyperCard as a personal data-access manager, there is
no provision in the Navigator II example to wander out of your office.  It
ought to be real easy to do, however (just another card, right?), and tied
into AppleTalk (sorry, LocalTalk) there are some nice possibilities.

The big, big problem with any of this stuff is that in order for environment
A to report to its user what is going on in environment B absolutely requires
environment B to expend some resource in telling environment A what is
going on.  What is more, this has to be done when environment A wants it,
not when it is "convenient" for environment B.  In practical terms, it must
be possible for any active environment to continuously support a back-
ground task with the sole purpose of supplying local information to remote
requestors.  Not impossible, but it raises the spectre of security, and
it's not the nicest kind of app to try and write on the Mac, even under
multi-finder.

On the subject of how such a metaphor might actually work, there are
currently a couple of interesting lines of work at Xerox (remember them?
Created that Star thingy...): they are devoting considerable attention to
the whole field of computer support for co-operative working, and on the
Interlisp machines they have a really interesting meta-windowing system
known as Rooms.  Each full-screen display is simply a room, and a meta-
navigational system allows you to open and close doors between rooms, and
to move from room to room.  I am too lazy to open my filing cabinet and
look right now, but if anyone cares I can dig out formal references.
There's lots of stuff on rooms, which you can buy if you have the right
kind of hardware, and the co-operative working was shown as one of the
video sessions at the Washington DC 'CHI conference earlier this year.

Robert_S
-- 
Robert Stanley - Cognos Incorporated: 3755 Riverside Drive, P.O. Box 9707, 
Compuserve: 76174,3024		      Ottawa, Ontario  K1G 3Z4, CANADA
uucp: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!roberts             Voice: (613)738-1338 x6115
arpa/internet: roberts%cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net    FAX: (613)738-0002

Believe it or not, Commodore used to have a cartridge for their 64K machine
that worked along that exact idea.  It had an office with a phone, trash can,
filing cabinet, typewriter, clock, calculator, etc.   My dad (expert in 
computer illiteracy) loved it.


==============================================================================
Samuel Druker			|	ARPA: maxsmith@athena.mit.edu
Zortech, Inc.           	|	Bix: maxsmith
Arlington, MA           	|	"Basically, my boss doesn't even
    				|	  *know* I'm on the net."

In article <8939@ut-emx.UUCP> osmigo@emx.UUCP (Ron Morgan) writes:
>I don't know why a wireless keyboard would be far-fetched.

Hardly far-fetched, since it was done in a commercial computer several
years ago.  The original IBM PC Jr had a wireless keyboard that used
infrared signals.  They eventually punted it because it didn't work
too well.  Input would be missed because someone would walk between
the keyboard and the PC, and it could get confusing with multiple
machines in the same room.

Wireless communication is pretty noisy and error prone.  It is well
suited to low-bandwidth applications such as telegraphy, or less
error-sensitive applications such as voice.  For applications such as
terminal I/O integrity is important, so you would need an
error-detecting protocol between the PC and the device.

Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

In article <17917@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes:
>
>       One can get carried away with mapping information into an illusion of
>physical reality.

Yes indeed.  The most striking thing about the "desktop" in the Lisa/Mac
user interface is how little it resembles an actual desk top: just enough
to provide familiarity and some intuitive operations.

Metaphor is a very limited tool in user-interface design, and has to be
used with great restraint.

David Casseres

In article <12417@garnet.BBN.COM>, mlandau@bbn.com (Matt Landau) writes:
> In comp.windows.misc, landman@sun.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes:
> >In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
> >>What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say
> >>for example, an office.  You would have a desktop, a trashcan, a phone. . .
> >
> >Yes, but if I'm alternately working in my office and someone else's far away,
> >I want to be able to switch back and forth quickly.  How about teleport
> >booths instead of hallways?
> 
> This is beginning to sound in some ways like a network-distributed version
> of Rooms, the new "desktop thing" from ParcPlace.
> 
> If you haven't seen/heard of Rooms, you should look into it.  It presents 
> you with multiple workspaces, called rooms, each of which contains the set 
> of tools commonly used for doing some job (i.e., a collection of windows 
> and programs).  There are doors for going from room to room, bags in which 
> you can carry things from one room into another, and pockets in which you
> can put things that you want to follow you around (like a clock, or your
> phone) as you move from room to room.
> --

I haven't seen the ParcPlace implementation, but the Envos
implementation for their Lisp environment is pretty spiff (which is
actually the original).  The article describing it can be found in CHI
86, by Austin Henderson and Stuart Card.  Interestingly enough, I'm in
my "Telnet" room as I write this...  The Envos implementation extends
the metaphor by allowing you to include any room in any other, not
just the Pockets.  This allows you to do things like have a
Control-Panel room, which you include in every room, and use your
Pockets for just carrying things between rooms.  Henderson and Card
implemented it originally in Interlisp, and for efficiency reasons
Envos re-implemented it (once upon a time, you could go get a cup of
coffee while it switched rooms, if you were fast and your rooms were
busy), enhancing it considerably along the way.  I believe it's still
an ongoing resarch project at Parc, however.  Incidentally, it makes a
pretty useful slide-show system too, for demos.  You just have each
room be a different slide, describing how your system has changed as
it goes along....:-).  I've been using the new Rooms for about 6
months now, and really love it. 

...arun

     1.  Wireless keyboards have been tried.  Remember the PC Jr?  Not
	 only was the keyboard wireless, it was washable.  Didn't sell.
	 Keeping multiple machines in the same room from interfering
	 required a more elaborate communications approach than the PC Jr.
	 used; this limited applications of the machine.

     2.  Large, flat plasma panels have been tried.  IBM used to offer one
	 as a mainframe peripheral, and it's even been seen on a PC at
	 Comdex ('84).  About 2 feet square, and red.  The interface had
	 some problems that made it very painful to program, but the device
	 worked quite well.  Plasma panels about 6' x 8' by 4" thick are
	 available for about $100,000, but these are militarized units.

In article <12417@garnet.BBN.COM> mlandau@bbn.com (Matt Landau) writes:
>This is beginning to sound in some ways like a network-distributed version
>of Rooms, the new "desktop thing" from ParcPlace.

Just a small correction.  Rooms comes from Envos, not ParcPlace.  An
easy mistake to make, since they were both spun off from Xerox.

-- 
Hank Shiffman                                     (415) 336-4658
AI Product Marketing Technical Specialist       ...!sun!shiffman
Sun Microsystems, Inc.                          shiffman@Sun.com

Zippy sez:
  JAPAN is a WONDERFUL planet -- I wonder if we'll ever reach
 their level of COMPARATIVE SHOPPING...

There actually has been one system I have seen with an infra-red keyboard, it
is a Fujitsu machine available only in Japan called the FM-77A/V.  The A/V 
stands for Audio/Video as the machine has both excellant graphics and full
stereo sound.  It has the computer in a very small main unit which contains
two 3" floppys and an infra-red detector.  The keyboard is compeletely wireless
and uses infra-red.  The mouse, however, is still wired to the machine.  

There is a wireless tracking device scheduled for use on the new Philips CD-I
player systems that consists of a 10 key keypad, a thumb-ball tracking device 
and several trigger buttons for the tracking device.  This is suppossed to 
be infra-red.  I've seen the pictures but not the device itself.

Tim

In article <8939@ut-emx.UUCP> osmigo@emx.UUCP (Ron Morgan) writes:

>I've often wondered if wireless technology would ever hit computers. Many
>top rock and roll bands, for example have a little 3" antenna sticking out of
>their electric guitars instead of a clumsy cable. Then there are wireless
>telephones, not to mention all kinds of "remote controls" that work via
>infrared pulses. So how about a wireless keyboard and/or mouse?
>

Remember the IBM PC Jr?  It had a wireless keyboard.  Used infra-red
signals, I believe.  A friend of mine (who now works at Apple) wanted
to build a little box that would just send out the sequence for
Control-Alt-Delete, and walk into computer stores.

One neat thing that IBM has is "personal terminals."  (Well I thought
it was neat.)  The person who repairs our IBMs has one.  Basically
it's a small computer about 8"x4"x2", with a two or three line lcd
display.  It's cordless and antennaless, and connects via a cellular
network to IBM central.  From the field, they can send and receive
mail and messages, or ask about the availability of parts, or get more
detailed technical information.  Cellular remote computing...

**************************************************************
David Finkelstein		|davef@jessica.stanford.edu
Academic Information Resources	|
Stanford University		|     Just say "please."

In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
#
#What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say
#-- 
#Cory (...your bravest dreams, your worst nightmare...) Kempf
#UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory
#	"...it's a mistake in the making."	-KT

I have heard about a VERY interesting though likely to fail new method of 
3-d displays.  It basically is like a crt except that a mirror *vibrates*
at 60hz (probably audible) back and forth, producing a "scanned" block
of apparent display space left on the retina.  I would be cheap, but the
moving part aspect will probably kill it.

Any other Cheap <read Practical> ideas [Until Holograms can be dynamically 
   projected]?
### C.H. ###

In article <5486@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, hassell@tramp (Christopher Hassell) writes:
>I have heard about a VERY interesting though likely to fail new method of 
>3-d displays.  It basically is like a crt except that a mirror *vibrates*
>at 60hz (probably audible) back and forth, producing a "scanned" block
>of apparent display space left on the retina.  I would be cheap, but the
>moving part aspect will probably kill it.

Not at all.  You have described the BBN Spacegraph.  It is not new at
all; maybe almost 10 years old by now.  It is a PC (as in IBM) board
plus a reasonable-performance oscilloscope with very low persistence
phosphors.  A rigid plexi mirror is energized by a good ol' woofer at
60 hz, causing it to change its focus and move the reflected image of
the oscilloscope face through an apparent depth of a few inches.  The
60hz is essentially inaudible (it may be 30 hz; you can paint both
comin' and goin' for an effective 60hz refresh).  The mirrors hold up
just fine.

I can provide a contact if anyone cares.
--
/jr
jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr

In article <4441@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, davef@Jessica (David Finkelstein) writes:
>One neat thing that IBM has is "personal terminals."  (Well I thought
>it was neat.)  The person who repairs our IBMs has one.  Basically
>it's a small computer about 8"x4"x2", with a two or three line lcd
>display.  It's cordless and antennaless, and connects via a cellular
>network to IBM central.  From the field, they can send and receive
>mail and messages, or ask about the availability of parts, or get more
>detailed technical information.  Cellular remote computing...

IBM and Motorola co-developed these things, I believe.  Remember,
Motorola makes a lot of pager gear.  I agree they're cool.  Too bad
cellular is priced where only businesses can justify the cost, but
someday...  'Course, by then, the cellular frequencies will be long
since filled up.
--
/jr
jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr

In article <8951@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> remy@cit-vax.UUCP (Remy Sanouillet) writes:

 >
 >This is basically the subject of my PhD dissertation. It extends [etc...]

 >My role is allowing users to share their contexts which contain
 >data base objects in several different mediatic forms (entities,
 >texts, pictures, sound recordings, etc...) by opening up a common
 >window where each user retains his/her means of control. They each
 >have a cursor, mouse pointer or whatever pointing device their
 >computer supports, and a voice link is opened for direct communication.
 >This allows, for example, a team of designers scattered all over the
 >world to all lean over the same blueprint, give advice, make changes, 
 >querry the data base to find who is affected by the change, get them
 >in on the meeting and send the revised project to manufacturing.
 >

This is the idea of the common information space, which was a high profile
project at Bell-Northern Research in the early 70's, pioneered there by
Gordon Thompson and funded largely by Bell Canada.  You might want to save 
yourself some work and find out what they did there.

It's interesting.  Thompson was always referred to as a "futurist", and he
figured that meant he was about 20 years ahead of everybody else.  In this
case, he's pretty close.
-- 
Tim Dudley                           Cognos Incorporated 
(613) 738-1440                       3755 Riverside Drive, P.O.Box 9707 
uucp: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!timd    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  K1G 3Z4
 "It's a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word." 

In article <82828@sun.uucp> shiffman@sun.UUCP (Hank Shiffman) writes:
>
>Just a small correction.  Rooms comes from Envos, not ParcPlace.  

WOW!  Do Card and Henderson know this??  Here they've had the wrong company on
all their papers they've published!

-- 
Tim Dudley                           Cognos Incorporated 
(613) 738-1440                       3755 Riverside Drive, P.O.Box 9707 
uucp: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!timd    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  K1G 3Z4
 "It's a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word." 

In article <8551@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> maxsmith@athena.mit.edu (Samuel M Druker) writes:
>Believe it or not, Commodore used to have a cartridge for their 64K machine
>that worked along that exact idea.  It had an office with a phone, trash can,
>filing cabinet, typewriter, clock, calculator, etc.   My dad (expert in 
>computer illiteracy) loved it.

It was called "The Magic Desk".  And don't forget that all important
door in the office...the gateway to the rest of the building.
(Or would have been, if the program had been a huge success :-)  )
-- 
andy finkel		{uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy
Commodore-Amiga, Inc.

"Possibly this is a new usage of the word 'compatible' with which
 I was previously unfamiliar"

Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share.
I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.

In article <5486@boulder.Colorado.EDU> hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) writes:
>In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
>#
>#What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say
>#-- 
>#Cory (...your bravest dreams, your worst nightmare...) Kempf
>#UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory
>#	"...it's a mistake in the making."	-KT
>
>I have heard about a VERY interesting though likely to fail new method of 
>3-d displays.  It basically is like a crt except that a mirror *vibrates*
[Edited...]
>Any other Cheap <read Practical> ideas [Until Holograms can be dynamically 
>   projected]?
>### C.H. ###

Yes.  Design your graphical interface to alternate rapidly between two
perspective images of the same object.  Interface that with a special pair
of glasses whos lenses are made of a rapid acting LCD material.  Set the
glasses so that the lenses alternate clear/dark in synch with the display.

The result of this is that your eyes each see only the perspective view
appropriate for that eye, and persistence of vision causes you to see
it in full color 3-D.  (None of this red/green junk!)

Such glasses and graphics already exist.  They are being used in at least
one video game (some sort of driving game); and are available on the open
market (not sure who from, check with comp.sys.amiga, since that's where
I saw it mentioned most recently).  I've also seen at least one NOVA program
that talked about them (computer graphics).
					Enjoy!
-- 
...!hadron\   "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles
  ...!sundc\   Schedule: (n.) An ever changing	| NetExpress Comm., Inc.
   ...!pyrdc\			  nightmare.	| 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300
    ...!uunet!netxcom!ewiles			| Vienna, VA 22180

In article <17924@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes:
>
>
>     2.  Large, flat plasma panels have been tried.  IBM used to offer one
>	 as a mainframe peripheral, and it's even been seen on a PC at
>	 Comdex ('84).  About 2 feet square, and red.  The interface had
>	 some problems that made it very painful to program, but the device
>	 worked quite well.  Plasma panels about 6' x 8' by 4" thick are
>	 available for about $100,000, but these are militarized units.


The IBM terminals with gas plasma screens were large enough to display
four login sessions at one time.  But the BIG disadvantage, is their
lack of a brightness control.  It was impossible to use one near
a window without the sun washing out the screen. The red color of the
display was also somewhat irritating.

In article <1116@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes:
[Misc. stuff deleted]
>>Any other Cheap <read Practical> ideas [Until Holograms can be dynamically 
>>   projected]?
>>### C.H. ###
>
>Yes.  Design your graphical interface to alternate rapidly between two
>perspective images of the same object.  Interface that with a special pair
>of glasses whos lenses are made of a rapid acting LCD material.  Set the
>glasses so that the lenses alternate clear/dark in synch with the display.
>
>The result of this is that your eyes each see only the perspective view
>appropriate for that eye, and persistence of vision causes you to see
>it in full color 3-D.  (None of this red/green junk!)
>
>Such glasses and graphics already exist.  They are being used in at least
>one video game (some sort of driving game); and are available on the open
>market (not sure who from, check with comp.sys.amiga, since that's where
>I saw it mentioned most recently).  I've also seen at least one NOVA program
>that talked about them (computer graphics).
>					Enjoy!

For those who don't read comp.sys.amiga, here's the scoop (stolen from
Amazing Computing V3#9 - and I'm not affiliated in ANY WAY whatsoever with
the company mentioned):

The Product:  X-Specs 3D (as described above)

The Game:  (probably referring to) Space Spuds, a shoot-em-up type game,
           included with the X-Specs package

The Company:  Haitex Resources
              208 Carrollton Park Suite 1207
              Carrollton, TX 75006
              (214) 241-8030

The Price:  $125

The Note:  If you don't have an Amiga, you're out of luck!
           (Then again, if you DO, you probably already know this!)

>-- 
>...!hadron\   "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles
>  ...!sundc\   Schedule: (n.) An ever changing	| NetExpress Comm., Inc.
>   ...!pyrdc\			  nightmare.	| 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300
>    ...!uunet!netxcom!ewiles			| Vienna, VA 22180

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Ho a.k.a. The Cybermat Rider	  University of California, Berkeley
c60a-2di@web.berkeley.edu
Disclaimer:  Nobody takes me seriously, so is it really necessary?

In article <1116@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes:
>In article <5486@boulder.Colorado.EDU> hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) writes:
>>In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
>>#What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say
>>#	"...it's a mistake in the making."	-KT

>>Any other Cheap <read Practical> ideas [Until Holograms can be dynamically 
>>   projected]?

>Yes.  Design your graphical interface to alternate rapidly between two
>perspective images of the same object.  Interface that with a special pair
>of glasses whos lenses are made of a rapid acting LCD material.  

A simpler solution might be to start with cheap polarized lenses 90 deg. out
of phase (movie 3-D glasses), and a very short persistance phospher on your
screen, and rotate a polarized filter, at 15 r.p.m. in front of the screen.



-- 
	------------	----------------------
	Ben Liberman  	magik@chinet.chi.il.us

This past week I attended a talk by Scott Fisher of NASA/AMES hosted
by the Boston Computer Society entitled "Artificial Reality".

He is working on a system which uses a helmet with stereoscopic
displays and head-motion sensors and data gloves (gloves you put on to
interact with what you are viewing in the helmet.)

As you turn your head the scene changes to match. You can use the
gloves for several types of input, grabbing things in the environment
and moving them about (one of the video tapes showed someone grabbing
menus and rearranging them in space), a simple sign language to do
things like change your perspective (a fist with the index finger
motioning upward started you moving up above the "room"), etc. The
gloves can also be visually replaced with a robot arm or any other
object so it corresponds with your motions.

One of the goals is to help design new control environments for NASA's
spacestation, rather than be confronted with a visual field of meters
and dials etc on a typical control panel operators would be able to
put a helmet on and set up a much more flexible, consistent
environment in, essentially, an empty room. Similar applications were
mentioned to help with EVA's (ie. space walks.)

Other applications by external groups included surgical assistance
(eg. views to help match up previously designed surgical goals during
an actual operation, bone-grafts were mentioned), three-dimensional
art work (sort of a three-dimensional paint program), being able to
interact with simulations (there was one tape of a shuttle exhaust
simulation you could step inside of or even become one of the
particles) and of course recreational applications (computer games, he
mentioned the possibilities for adventure-style games.)

My thought was wow, finally a solution to two people arguing about the
color schemes in the house, they can each have their own!

A version of the data glove is currently available from the same
company which has been working with the NASA/AMES group (I didn't
catch the name.) The helmet is still under devpt but Scott Fisher
assured the audience that there is a great deal of commercial
interest, he indicated there are still some details to be worked out
to make this viable (I believe he still has trouble generating the
graphics quickly enough to keep them in sync with all motions, the
result of falling behind is usually a bad case of motion sickness.)

Graphics were all wire-frame for now.

The gentleman who introduced Scott (sorry, forgot his name, probably
the president of BCS or some such person) made a funny remark about
wondering if one day he'll wake up and realize that he'd been wearing
an artificial reality helmet all his life...

	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||

Ron Morgan <osmigo@emx.UUCP> writes:
|.. Many
|top rock and roll bands, for example have a little 3" antenna sticking out of
|their electric guitars instead of a clumsy cable. Then there are wireless
|telephones, not to mention all kinds of "remote controls" that work via
|infrared pulses. So how about a wireless keyboard and/or mouse?

People have pointed out the PCjr's IR keyboard, but I wonder why IR was
used and not RF?

As you point out, there are *two* kinds of wirless controls currently
in widespread use: RF and IR [Radio Frequency and InfraRed].  My question is
this: why hasn't anyone come up with an RF keyboard/whatever?  IR controls
are generally "aimed", in that you have to point at the device, more or less
in order to control it.  Yes, you can bounce off walls, and some units are so
powerful that if you are in the same room, it will work, but for the most part
you have to point at the thing to control it.  Now with a keyboard, you
don't want to restrict yourself to a few degrees of freedom [no pun intended
there:-)] because the infrared beam has to be pointed *there*.  It would
bye much nicer to be able to rest in any position you like and tap
away.  Now since we have other RF devices in the home [radio
telephones spring to mind] which also can co-exist nicely, using different
frequencies, why not keyboards?

Is it a question of cost?
-- 
Reid Ellis
geaclib!rae@geac.uucp

In article <4479@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>This past week I attended a talk by Scott Fisher of NASA/AMES hosted
>by the Boston Computer Society entitled "Artificial Reality".
>
>He is working on a system which uses a helmet with stereoscopic
>displays and head-motion sensors and data gloves (gloves you put on to
>interact with what you are viewing in the helmet.)

The September 1988 Issue of Byte has an article on this input/output
system being designed at NASA.  By the way, the glove is called
DataGlove and is designed by VPL Research.  They also sell a product
called DataSuit.  This is an extension of DataGlove and it consists of
sensors in a suit that covers the user's whole body.  I won't go into
more detail.  You can just read the Byte article.  It's called "Between
Man and Machine."

In the same magazine, there is also a whole section on display
technology.  In the article "Face to Face" a 3D display system that is
being developed at TI is described.   The system is based on a rotating
disk, but this disk rotates at speeds of less than 10 Hz, so I don't
think it would have the low pitch humming noise that I imagine the BBN
Spacegraph has.  This system is described as a "real-time,
auto-stereoscopic, multiplanar three-dimensional display system." In
the prototype, the image can be viewed from any angle, and it has a
resolution of 500 by 500 pixels with a 4 inch depth of field.  Again,
see the article for more details.
-- 
Jonathan Sweedler  ===  National Semiconductor Israel
UUCP:    ...!{amdahl,hplabs,decwrl}!nsc!taux01!cjosta
Domain:  cjosta@taux01.nsc.com

In article <353@internal.Apple.COM>, casseres@apple.BITNET writes:
>
> Yes indeed.  The most striking thing about the "desktop" in the Lisa/Mac
> user interface is how little it resembles an actual desk top: just enough
> to provide familiarity and some intuitive operations.
>

sure! why what makes you think it you need anything more to create a physical
realety? (ask Jim Henson...)

Now seriously. The biggest disadvantage of the desktop is that it provides
order only in the level of a single window (I'm always having a hard time
with remembering where the hell I left that damn' window?), and I think
HyperCard is a soloution to that and to most of the other disadvantages of
the desktop. Don't you?

O.S.

KT talks about walking around the cyberspace office, as a natural extension 
of the desktop metaphor.

there is a network and network management system by Torus called Tapestry
which comes damn close. I believe it is unix based. 

personally, I would prefer to be able to walk through library stacks -
choose a book, and have it downloaded onto my blank WORM CD. Royalties
to be charged to the account, of course.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
gorin@media-lab.media.mit.edu        Just your basic east village
bloom-beacon!mit-amt!gorin           vegetarian thanksgiving

In article <1116@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes:
%In article <5486@boulder.Colorado.EDU> hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) writes:
%>In article <257@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
%>#
%>#What I would like to see is the desktop metaphor extended into 3D, say
%>
%>I have heard about a VERY interesting though likely to fail new method of 
%>3-d displays.  It basically is like a crt except that a mirror *vibrates*
%[Edited...]
%>Any other Cheap <read Practical> ideas [Until Holograms can be dynamically 
%>   projected]?
%>### C.H. ###
%
%Yes.  Design your graphical interface to alternate rapidly between two
%perspective images of the same object.  Interface that with a special pair
%of glasses whos lenses are made of a rapid acting LCD material.  Set the
%glasses so that the lenses alternate clear/dark in synch with the display.
%
%The result of this is that your eyes each see only the perspective view
%appropriate for that eye, and persistence of vision causes you to see
%it in full color 3-D.  (None of this red/green junk!)
%
%Such glasses and graphics already exist.  They are being used in at least
%one video game (some sort of driving game); and are available on the open
%market (not sure who from, check with comp.sys.amiga, since that's where
%I saw it mentioned most recently).  I've also seen at least one NOVA program
%that talked about them (computer graphics).
%					Enjoy!

Those are StereoTek glasses; I was going to get a pair for my Atari ST.
I've seen a few games written for them, and I think the Cyber line of
3D CAD/animation software supports them as well. Tom Hudson, a well-known
(in the Atari world, at least!) graphics programmer just recently had a
3D Life game he wrote published in ST-Log. This program also supported
both perspective views and StereoTek 3D rendering. For such a simple thing,
the appeal of Life is surprising. It becomes even more engrossing when
you add the third dimension...

The glasses work pretty well; the disadvantage is that each pair must
be attached to the host computer to allow for synchronization of the
imaging and the LCD shutter switching. Not bad for just 1 person working
on an involved project, but a hassle when trying to show your work to
a group of other people...

A simpler method might have worked better - recent 3D movies used polarized
light/glassses combos, which seemed to work well enough. At least the viewing
hardware (2 pieces of plastic with polarized coatings) is simple. I suppose
generating the proper image on the display becomes more difficult, though...
--
  /
 /_ , ,_.                      Howard Chu
/ /(_/(__                University of Michigan
    /           Computing Center          College of LS&A
   '              Unix Project          Information Systems

In article <8506@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> kenchin@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Ken H. Chin) writes:
>The IBM terminals with gas plasma screens were large enough to display
>four login sessions at one time.  But the BIG disadvantage, is their
>lack of a brightness control.  It was impossible to use one near
>a window without the sun washing out the screen. The red color of the
>display was also somewhat irritating.

(What do you mean, "were" ?  }-)  We have one of these here at the
Computing Center. It's in a device IBM calls a 3290, sort of a glorified
3270. I believe you can actually partition the display into 8 or 16
rectangular regions for separate sessions.

It's sitting in an office away from windows, so sunlight isn't a problem.
However, it seems to have an incredibly slow draw/refresh rate, which can
get you into trouble when a lot of text starts scrolling in...

It must be about a 19" display. Ok, but I'm glad I have a real bit-mapped
display on my desktop...
--
  /
 /_ , ,_.                      Howard Chu
/ /(_/(__                University of Michigan
    /           Computing Center          College of LS&A
   '              Unix Project          Information Systems

>In article <8939@ut-emx.UUCP> osmigo@emx.UUCP (Ron Morgan) writes:
>>I don't know why a wireless keyboard would be far-fetched.

In article <34173@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes:
>Hardly far-fetched, since it was done in a commercial computer several
>years ago.  The original IBM PC Jr had a wireless keyboard that used
>infrared signals.  They eventually punted it because it didn't work
>too well.  Input would be missed because someone would walk between
>the keyboard and the PC, and it could get confusing with multiple
>machines in the same room.

>Wireless communication is pretty noisy and error prone.  It is well
>suited to low-bandwidth applications such as telegraphy, or less
>error-sensitive applications such as voice.  For applications such as
>terminal I/O integrity is important, so you would need an
>error-detecting protocol between the PC and the device.

Just because IBM's implementation failed to address the important issues
and was unreliable, is no reason to punt on the concept.  We already know
of systems that face the same kinds of difficulties and work fine.
Ethernet is one example, and even the old ALOHA packet-radio network
worked well enough.  Implementing this at keyboard bandwidths should be
childsplay.

If someone walking between keyboard and computer interrupts communication,
the keyboard should retry until the data is received.  Of course, to do that
it has to *know* whether the data was received or not!

	Howard A. Landman
	landman@hanami.sun.com

In article <83075@sun.uucp> landman@sun.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes:
>In article <34173@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>Wireless communication is pretty noisy and error prone.  It is well
>>suited to low-bandwidth applications such as telegraphy, or less
>>error-sensitive applications such as voice.  For applications such as
>>terminal I/O integrity is important, so you would need an
>>error-detecting protocol between the PC and the device.

>Just because IBM's implementation failed to address the important issues
>and was unreliable, is no reason to punt on the concept.  

I never said the concept was worthless, it just has some problems, and
the one large-scale implementation of it didn't work too well.

>							   We already know
>of systems that face the same kinds of difficulties and work fine.
>Ethernet is one example, and even the old ALOHA packet-radio network
>worked well enough.  Implementing this at keyboard bandwidths should be
>childsplay.

A big difference between wireless networks and a wireless keyboard is
power levels.  Packet radio and microwave ethernets can use higher
power, so small disturbances aren't as likely to disrupt
communications.

>If someone walking between keyboard and computer interrupts communication,
>the keyboard should retry until the data is received.  Of course, to do that
>it has to *know* whether the data was received or not!

That's what I meant when I said that an error-detecting protocol is
needed.  The protocol would also need to be able to recognize and
discard duplicates, or else you'll get duplicate keystrokes when the
acknowledgement is lost.  To do this generally requires a processor
and memory, which would make the keyboard noticeably more expensive.
I'm currently skeptical that the benefits of a wireless keyboard (I
can't think of any myself -- why does the keyboard ever need to be
more than a foot or two from the monitor?) are worth the cost of
materials and development (not large, but not trivial, either).

By the way, the original article I was responding to also suggested a
wireless display (this would answer my question about why the keyboard
should be far from the monitor -- the keyboard/monitor combination
might want to be far from the CPU).  In this case, the bandwidth
requirements are much higher.


Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

In article <4941@enterprise.UUCP> timd@cognos.UUCP (Tim Dudley) writes:
>In article <82828@sun.uucp> shiffman@sun.UUCP (Hank Shiffman) writes:
>>
>>Just a small correction.  Rooms comes from Envos, not ParcPlace.  
>
>WOW!  Do Card and Henderson know this??  Here they've had the wrong company on
>all their papers they've published!
>

I believe that Card and Henderson are still in residence at Xerox
PARC, where Rooms was developed.  Xerox PARC (the Palo Alto Research
Center) should not be confused with ParcPlace OR Envos, which are not
part of Xerox.  In any event, Envos has the rights to market Rooms.
ParcPlace does not.


-- 
Hank Shiffman                                     (415) 336-4658
AI Product Marketing Technical Specialist       ...!sun!shiffman
Sun Microsystems, Inc.                          shiffman@Sun.com

Zippy sez:
  RELATIVES!!

In article <5486@boulder.Colorado.EDU> hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) writes:
>I have heard about a VERY interesting though likely to fail new method of 
>3-d displays.  It basically is like a crt except that a mirror *vibrates*
>at 60hz (probably audible) back and forth, producing a "scanned" block
>of apparent display space left on the retina.  I would be cheap, but the
>moving part aspect will probably kill it.
>
>Any other Cheap <read Practical> ideas [Until Holograms can be dynamically 
>   projected]?

	In a Late '70s Byte (when it was still useful) there was an article
on how to contruct a 3-d display, which used a rotating mirror on top of
a CRT.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup

There were some guys at the MIT Media Lab who were working on a crt mounted
on a pedestal that moved at prescribed rate to creat just that desired effect.
Don't know how well it worked out though.

==============================================================================
Samuel Druker			|	ARPA: maxsmith@athena.mit.edu
Zortech, Inc.           	|	Bix: maxsmith
Arlington, MA           	|	"Basically, my boss doesn't even
    				|	  *know* I'm on the net."

In article <1116@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes:

>In article <5486@boulder.Colorado.EDU> hassell@tramp.Colorado.EDU
>(Christopher Hassell) writes:
>
>>I have heard about a VERY interesting though likely to fail new method of 
>>3-d displays.  It basically is like a crt except that a mirror *vibrates*
>[Edited...]
>>Any other Cheap <read Practical> ideas [Until Holograms can be dynamically 
>>projected]?
>
>Yes.  Design your graphical interface to alternate rapidly between two
>perspective images of the same object.  Interface that with a special pair
>of glasses whos lenses are made of a rapid acting LCD material.  Set the
>glasses so that the lenses alternate clear/dark in synch with the display.
>
>The result of this is that your eyes each see only the perspective view
>appropriate for that eye, and persistence of vision causes you to see
>it in full color 3-D.  (None of this red/green junk!)
>
>Such glasses and graphics already exist.  They are being used in at least
>one video game (some sort of driving game); and are available on the open
>market (not sure who from, check with comp.sys.amiga, since that's where
>I saw it mentioned most recently).  I've also seen at least one NOVA program
>that talked about them (computer graphics).

I know that such a system has been available for the Atari ST for at least a
year.  I seem to remember that the needed hardware cost about $170.  I would
assume that the same thing, or something similar, is available for other
computers.  Anyway, I tried it out in the shop on a few of programs (one
game and a few animated graphics displays), and found the 3D effect to be
pretty convincing, though the lower the ambient room light, the better it
seemed to work.


  888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
  88                                                                       88
  88  What's the ugliest part of your body?          Barth Richards        88
  88  What's the ugliest part of your body?          AT&T Bell Labs        88
  88  Some say your nose, some say your toes,        Naperville, IL        88
  88  But I think it's your mind....                 !att!ihlpl!barth      88
  88                                                                       88
  88           -The Mothers of Invention                                   88
  88                                                                       88
  888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

In article <3504@geaclib.UUCP> rae@geaclib.UUCP (Reid Ellis) writes:
[stuff about omni-directionality (?) of RF deleted]
>Now since we have other RF devices in the home [radio
>telephones spring to mind] which also can co-exist nicely, using different
>frequencies, why not keyboards?
>
>Is it a question of cost?

I don't think so - modems have been developed that use RF to communicate.
It's more a problem of RF waves from each keyboard interfering with
neighboring ones.  For wireless modems, this problem usually doesn't rear
its ugly head simply because no one would place 2 or more pairs of wireless
modems in the same room - in fact, if you need to 2 computers within the
same room, null modem cables usually suffice.  After all, the effective
transmission range of wireless modems is pretty short.

On the other hand, you're VERY LIKELY (in an office environment) to have
DOZENS of computers sitting in one room.  You could insist that the computer
companies concerned make their keyboards "tunable", but I doubt many people
would like to fiddle around with recessed potientiometers on the bottoms of
their keyboards, trying to adjust their transmission frequencies to avoid
interefering with other keyboards in the vicinity.

I think there may be problems regarding FCC clearance as well, but I'm not
an expert in that field, so I'll leave it to those in the know to enlighten
us all further.  Suffice it to say that the problems encountered with many
RF transmitters within a small space renders this idea somewhat impractical.

Vive la cable!!  8-)

>-- 
>Reid Ellis
>geaclib!rae@geac.uucp

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Ho a.k.a. The Cybermat Rider	  University of California, Berkeley
c60a-2di@web.berkeley.edu
Disclaimer:  Nobody takes me seriously, so is it really necessary?

In article <8299@ihlpl.ATT.COM> barth@ihlpl.UUCP (BARTH RICHARDS) writes:
>In article <1116@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes:
>>Yes.  Design your graphical interface to alternate rapidly between two
>>perspective images of the same object.  Interface that with a special pair
>>of glasses whos lenses are made of a rapid acting LCD material.  Set the
>>glasses so that the lenses alternate clear/dark in synch with the display.
>I know that such a system has been available for the Atari ST for at least a
>year.  I seem to remember that the needed hardware cost about $170. 

My SO brought up an interesting point on the practicality of
glasses... What if you are doing real work (as in not just playing
games), where you need to look away from the monitor to read a piece
of paper?  I have never used either of the 3D glasses ideas presented
here, but wouldn't the LCD idea interfere with normal vision?  Or is
the time that they are dark not long enough to really notice?  

Also, with the rotating polarized screen in front of the monitor for 
the other idea (polarized glasses), what happens when the screen is 
at a 45 degree angle w.r.t. the glasses?  what would be on the screen?

+C
-- 
Cory ( "...Love is like Oxygen..." ) Kempf
UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory
	"...it's a mistake in the making."	-KT

[re: problems with multiple keyboards/computers using RF interfaces in ]
[     the same room.                                                   ]

I'm not so sure this would be a problem. In the rock bands that use such
devices, you see as many as half a dozen different instruments on the stage
at once, each using an RF device, each using a separate amplifier, etc., and
this problem never develops. I apologize for not being able to furnish more
specific technical information.

I really would like to see this idea pursued at greater length. Just think of
the convenience of having *all* the support hardware interface via RF: hard
disks, printers, modems, CPU's, etc. could be tucked neatly away on a bookshelf
across the room. No more piling 80 pounds of technojunk on top of your desk,
not to mention doing away with that big mess of cables. 

Ron

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
>  Ron Morgan      {ames, utah-cs, uunet, gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!osmigo  <
>  Univ. of Texas    {harvard, pyramid, sequent}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!osmigo   <
>  Austin, Texas          osmigo@ut-emx.UUCP       osmigo@emx.utexas.edu       <
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

I just thought of another (possibly) restrictive factor with respect to
RF-transmitting keyboards: power requirements.  I assume that the keyboard
would have an on-board power source (probably a battery pack), as I don't
know of any power transmission systems whose receivers are small enough to
fit in a keyboard.  Therefore, power drain would become an important
consideration.

I know from personal experience (with IR remote controls, no less) that IR
LEDs draw just a little power, and even considering the number of characters
transmitted during an average session, I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult
to develop a battery pack that would allow activation of an IR LED at least
10 billion times (rechargable battery packs would be even better - just set
it down in a special charging tray when you've finished).

However, I'm not so sure about power requirements of RF transmitters.  Can
anyone with practical experience make an educated guess as to the power
drain of a miniature transmitter (in the context of a wireless keyboard)?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Ho a.k.a. The Cybermat Rider	  University of California, Berkeley
c60a-2di@web.berkeley.edu
Disclaimer:  Nobody takes me seriously, so is it really necessary?

In article <4362@pitt.UUCP> bonar@pitt.UUCP (Dr. Jeffrey Bonar) writes:
>
>I have an invitation for net readers - create a metaphor for computing 
>systems that goes beyond the desktop cliche.  Four years ago, Apple 
>had something with the Macintosh desktop: a new way to think about 
>computing.  Now, everyone is copying the desktop: Microsoft, IBM, 
>AT&T.  Even the new NeXT machine provides little more than a 
>desktop with some cute simulated depth.
>

I suggest all people who are involved with Information Technology be
required to read the following article before being allowed to
post netnews:

%A Vannevar Bush
%T As We May Think
%J Altantic Monthly
%D August 21945
%X This article described an information
handling workstation of the future, at which a user could sit and browse
information which would appear on rear-projection screens;  links between
places in different documents would connect related information, and the
machine would be able to switch over to those related documents if they
were stored on the system (a concept today called "hypertext").
.br
This article also describes the concept of intertextual links {margin
notes} that became part of the documents and allow establishing
correlations and cross-references.  It also posited the concept of an
information space and a world-wide data space.

My point is that the above citation seems to be unknown to serious
researchers.  It describes a set of concepts that have not yet been
achieved.   A vague glimmering was attempted by Doug Englebert at SRI
in his Augmented Knowledge Workshop.   I feel that people need to
re-examine a lot of the past as I seem to see people keep re-inventing
old ideas that have become forgotten.

Of course, one should remember that had not Alfred Einstein been
around Vannevar Bush would have been the most famous scientist in the
USA.   It isn't surprising that his idea was so seminal.

-- 
=Dennis L. Mumaugh
 Lisle, IL       ...!{att,lll-crg}!cuuxb!dlm  OR cuuxb!dlm@arpa.att.com

In article <4362@pitt.UUCP> bonar@pitt.UUCP (Dr. Jeffrey Bonar) writes:
>
>I have an invitation for net readers - create a metaphor for computing 
>systems that goes beyond the desktop cliche.  Four years ago, Apple 
>had something with the Macintosh desktop: a new way to think about 
>computing.  Now, everyone is copying the desktop: Microsoft, IBM, 
>AT&T.  Even the new NeXT machine provides little more than a 
>desktop with some cute simulated depth.
>
>Marshall McLuhan said that a new medium always began by 
>imitating the old medium: cow paths were paved to make roads for 
>the "horseless carriage", film began by putting a camera in front of a 
>play, and finally, computer screens now look like a desktop.  What if 
>we really let go into our new medium; what should a computer work 
>space really look like?
>
One of these years I hope to meet up with some one who has read some
old fashioned Science Fiction!!!

%A Arthur Clarke
%T Imperial Earth
%X Novel about a delegate to the Tri-centennial of the US
Independence.   Plot surrounds relationship with an old chum who
is billiant and unstable.  Major plot element is the portable,
personal "computer" which is a lifelong companion, secretary,
notebook,
filing cabinet and general reference library.  Said object when
attached to the local equivalent "telephone" with ISDN and a global
access becomes one's entry to the world.

Check the book out.  That book along with Vannevar Bush's article
(see previous post) descibe a potential that makes cyberpunk look
sick. 
-- 
=Dennis L. Mumaugh
 Lisle, IL       ...!{att,lll-crg}!cuuxb!dlm  OR cuuxb!dlm@arpa.att.com

In article <2350@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes:
>[description of an article from 1945]
>My point is that the above citation seems to be unknown to serious
>researchers.  It describes a set of concepts that have not yet been
>achieved.   A vague glimmering was attempted by Doug Englebert at SRI
>in his Augmented Knowledge Workshop.   I feel that people need to
>re-examine a lot of the past as I seem to see people keep re-inventing
>old ideas that have become forgotten.

No one's re-inventing the wheel, but hand waving is hand waving.  The
real advances are going to be in actual systems.  You seem to be assuming
that the problem is a shortage of ideas, and complaining that we should be
spending more time seeing what's already out there.  Well, the real shortage
is in things like technology, funding, resources, and time.  Just because
current hand waving bears a striking resemblance to past hand waving, it
doesn't mean your re-invention alarm has to go off.  Most work from
1945 is probably so extrapolative as to make it worthless.  Who in 1945
could have predicted which vision of the future would seem right 40+ years
later?  The fact that one guy seems to have gotten it right is irrelevant.
We don't want to have to constantly search through all the chaff of
the past n years for the gems.
    On the other hand, similar papers published today (I have a few references
if anyone is interested), while proposing very similar ideas, are of a
better grade of hand waving, since their ideas are actually technologically
feasible.  (Of course, Technologically is only one species of Feasible.)  And
I certainly wouldn't expect people to grind through today's ideas forty years
from now to see what they can find.  If they still want cyberspace or office
metaphors in forty years, good for them, but it won't be because someone looked
up some forty year old articles, it'll be because the idea was good enough to
be continually re-invented until someone had the bright idea of doing something
about it.  If you're worried about the original idea-man not getting credit
for his good extrapolation, well that's life, and besides, there's nothing new
under the sun anyhow, right?

                                               -Dan

p.s. i haven't read the article in question, i am responding only to the
     ideas expressed in the message posted

In article <2350@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes:
>%A Vannevar Bush
>%T As We May Think
>%J Altantic Monthly
>%D August 21945

It's in the first of the Microsoft CD-Rom books if you library doesn't
carry Atlantic Monthly back to 1945.  Dennis is absolutely right on
this one; if you haven't read this article, then you haven't got
enough perspective on what information technology really can be like.

If anyone has on-line ASCII text of the article I'd love to have it,
or post it to comp.text.

--Ed

>%A Vannevar Bush
>%T As We May Think
>%J Altantic Monthly
>%D August 2 1945

More easily found in:

Irene Grief (ed.), COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK:  A BOOK OF READINGS,
Morgan-Kaufman, CA, 1988.

along with all kinds of other good stuff.

Bill