🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <454@blake.acs.washington.edu> phaedra@blake.acs.washington.edu (J. Anderson) writes:

>	3) A keyboard with LCD or similar technology key caps, so that
>not only What-I-See-Is-What-I-Get but What-Button-I-Push-Is-What-I-Get

       It's been done, by a number of vendors.  It's not all that useful,
as it turns out, because the user has to keep looking at the keypad to
see what the keys mean now.  It's hard to type ahead when the keys are
being remapped under you.  It doesn't take advantage of the ability of
humans to memorize standard object positions in the working environment
at a low level, the ability that makes keyboards, typewriter or musical,
work.

       Touch screens are an extension of this concept, but they have not
been popular except for public-access applications, and even there, they
do not dominate.  The HP 150, the "going nowhere fast" MS-DOS machine, offered
a touch screen.  But it didn't sell.

       Strange though it seems, you don't really want the visual output
area in the same place you put your hands.  Your hands get in the way.
This is why mice and tablets have replaced lightpens and touchscreens.
But it took years before this became clear.

					John Nagle

In article <454@blake.acs.washington.edu> phaedra@blake.acs.washington.edu (J. Anderson) writes:
>...
>	2) A "Heads-Up" style display system (as I believe they are
>referred to in military parlance) which could be used as a pointer
>device by measuring the angle at which my corneas are in relation to
>the screen using a low-power laser or some similar method.
I think you are thinking of the technology that allows pilots to aim
weapons just by looking at the target...  Actually, this is not usually
done by eye-tracking, but rather, tracking the motion of the whole
helmet - besides the mechanical problems of non-invasive eye-tracking,
your eyes jump around a LOT, especially when looking at pictures (i.e.
icons?)  On the other hand, head-tracking devices are available now -
even for micros. There used to be (not sure if they're still around) a
company selling just such a device as a mouse replacement (for the Mac?)
based on a head unit that looked much like a pair of lightweight
headphones.
>	3) A keyboard with LCD or similar technology key caps, so that
>not only What-I-See-Is-What-I-Get but What-Button-I-Push-Is-What-I-Get
>(Note: If there are any system designers reading this, READ THIS
>FIRST.  This I would believe to be in the "Realizable Fantasies"
>column, and after countless hours of using cheat sheets to locate
>Control-Alt-Meta-Prime functions, something I would pay good money
>for)
Here here - a veritable dream come true... especially if one could
arrange to not sacrifice the feel of a good keyboard - I dont think I'd
enjoy a flat keyboard under any conditions.

Certainly, if we retain the keyboard at all, we'd not want to ask the
users to need to move thier hands from the keyboard to do anything.
Hopefully the keyboard itself should be designed so that all keys are in
one group and eaily reachable from "home" position (excellent current
examples of this are the Symbolics lisp-machine keyboards).  If we want
to go a little further, a keyboard layout based on ease of use instead of
backwards-compatability with mechanical typewriters would be nice - even
non-planar spacial arrangements (two hemispheres of keys, for instance).

As far as pointing devices go, I'd have no problem operating a small
trackball placed immediately below the spacebar with my thumbs, without
my fingers leaving the "home" row.  Of course, the head tracker seems ok
as long as you don't mind having to put something on to hack.  The only
other current-technology device that comes to mind which doesn't require
moving your hands from the keyboard is the footmouse (or foot-trackball).

-mike thome (mthome@bbn.com)

Keyboards with fiber-optically lit keytops are something that I've been
thinking about for a while.

In article <17939@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes:
>In article <454@blake.acs.washington.edu> phaedra@blake.acs.washington.edu (J. Anderson) writes:
>
>>	3) A keyboard with LCD or similar technology key caps, so that
>>not only What-I-See-Is-What-I-Get but What-Button-I-Push-Is-What-I-Get
>
>       It's been done, by a number of vendors.  It's not all that useful,
>as it turns out, because the user has to keep looking at the keypad to
>see what the keys mean now. 

Does this mean that, while typing, I need to look at every key to see which
letter it produces? No, but having the the letters clearly labeled on the keys
sure makes them easier to learn!!

>					John Nagle

Dave Fagan
genrad!otter!daf

In article <15063@genrad.UUCP>, daf@genrad.com (David A. Fagan) writes:
> Keyboards with fiber-optically lit keytops are something that I've been
> thinking about for a while.

Honeywell makes keycaps with LCD arrays in them. The War Toys bunch use them
in tanks and fighters and other big toys that make holes. (my, aren't we
cynical this morning).

This subject first came up some months ago in comp.society.futures, by the
way. I posted a great big article about my fantasies of a virtual reality
using the equivalent of the NASA VIVED virtual environment helmet. If you
used a helmet with LCDs and some clever optics in it you could switch your
attention between the virtual world and the real one just by changing your
focus (you can see through LCD displays). You'd need enormous resolution to
be able to read text at a resonable virtual distance, but that's just an
implementation detail.

Combine it with the Dataglove and an accelerometer, and you could do away
with screens, keyboards, and everything. It could "put" virtual paper on
your real desktop. You could type with the datagloves. Grab a peice of VP
with your real fingers and just place it in space somewhere handy.

Just be careful the metaphor doesn't get out of control.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva  `-_-'  Hackercorp.
...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.uu.net      'U`

In article <3166@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> This subject first came up some months ago in comp.society.futures, by the
> way. I posted a great big article about my fantasies of a virtual reality
> using the equivalent of the NASA VIVED virtual environment helmet. If you
> used a helmet with LCDs and some clever optics in it you could switch your
> attention between the virtual world and the real one just by changing your
> focus (you can see through LCD displays). You'd need enormous resolution to
> be able to read text at a resonable virtual distance, but that's just an
> implementation detail.

Physics Question.

What resolution (pixels per inch or meter) and contrast (bits, levels, ratio)
are needed to form a decent hologram.  

My concept of artificial reality goggles are a pair of hologram plates 
about 2 to 4 inches in front of the eyes that fill the field of view.
What is displayed is not the image but the hologram (computed) of the image.
This is illuminated by laser(s).  If the pixels have a fast enough response,
frame sequential color would be nice.   

How good would the display have to be, and how many instructions would need 
to be processed to display a frame.

 
Mark Zenier    uunet!nwnexus!pilchuck!ssc!markz    markz@ssc.uucp
                      uw-beaver!tikal!

In article <17939@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes:
}       Touch screens are an extension of this concept, but they have not
}been popular except for public-access applications, and even there, they
}do not dominate.  ...

Those who live in New York may have already noticed that Citibank's new
teller machines are touch screen based.  There are no hardware buttons
at all (for customer use), just touch zones on the graphics display.

Citicorp's market research folks say the customers love it.

The system definitely allows for flexibility.  The screen can actually
display a full typewriter keyboard so customers can send messages to the
bank. (I don't think that one's gone public, yet, but I've played with it
in-house).  New products and features are easy to add and even more
advanced stuff is in the pipe (but I've probably said too much already).

-- 
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com)  Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI                                                 Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 452-9191, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe

In article <1611@ssc.UUCP> markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) writes:
}What resolution (pixels per inch or meter) and contrast (bits, levels, ratio)
}are needed to form a decent hologram.

Pixels would have to be separated by no more than half the wavelength of
the light used, a distance commonly measured in Angstroms.  That's well
beyond the ability of current technology to create, let alone drive.

}How good would the display have to be, and how many instructions would need 
}to be processed to display a frame.

You're talking about millions of pixels _per inch_.  I'm not sure it's even
theoretically possible, let alone feasible.  The processing capacity to
drive such a display would be mind boggling, even by today's standards.

-- 
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com)  Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI                                                 Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 452-9191, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe

In article <3637@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>  I'm not sure it's even
>theoretically possible, let alone feasible.

Well, it's been done.  A couple of years ago I saw a
computer-generated hologram on display at the MIT Media Laboratory.
I believe it was static (i.e. like a photograph), not dynamic (like an
animated display).  I don't know anything about the technology used to
produce it.

Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

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

In article <3637@ttidca.TTI.COM>, hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) writes:
> In article <1611@ssc.UUCP> markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) writes:
> }What resolution (pixels per inch or meter) and contrast (bits, levels, ratio)
> }are needed to form a decent hologram.
> Pixels would have to be separated by no more than half the wavelength of
> the light used, a distance commonly measured in Angstroms.  That's well
> beyond the ability of current technology to create, let alone drive.

5000 angstroms = 500 nanometers = .5 micrometer = bluegreen
Another generation or two of advances in microlithography and you're there.
Why do you think they keep talking about using X-Rays to make the next 
generation of memory chips.

I don't think that Liquid Crystals will work but something else might.

> You're talking about millions of pixels _per inch_.  

10.E9 per square inch at 1/2 wave spacing.

> The processing capacity to
> drive such a display would be mind boggling, even by today's standards.

Got to do something to soak up the CPU cycles so that the A.I. people don't
have them around to play with :-).


Mark Zenier    uunet!nwnexus!pilchuck!ssc!markz    markz@ssc.uucp
                            uunet!amc!
                      uw-beaver!tikal!

In article <35144@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes:
}In article <3637@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
}>  I'm not sure it's even
}>theoretically possible, let alone feasible.
}
}Well, it's been done.  A couple of years ago I saw a
}computer-generated hologram on display at the MIT Media Laboratory.
}I believe it was static (i.e. like a photograph), not dynamic (like an
}animated display).  I don't know anything about the technology used to
}produce it.

I was refering to using an LCD as the medium for displaying a hologram.
Other technologies are coming right along.  I think your example is a
system under development for General Motors.

-- 
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com)  Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI                                                 Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 452-9191, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe

hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) writes:
> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes:
> } hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
> }>  I'm not sure it's even
> }>theoretically possible, let alone feasible.
> }
> }Well, it's been done.  A couple of years ago I saw a
> }computer-generated hologram on display at the MIT Media Laboratory.
> }I believe it was static (i.e. like a photograph), not dynamic (like an
> }animated display).  I don't know anything about the technology used to
> }produce it.
> 
> I was refering to using an LCD as the medium for displaying a hologram.
> Other technologies are coming right along.  I think your example is a
> system under development for General Motors.

Indeed.  The process for making computer-generated holograms
is fairly straightforward; you just have to simulate the
interference pattern that is produced by traditional 
holographic methods (fourier transforms, anyone?), print it out
on some medium (enlarged), and optically or electronically
reduce it to the appropriate size on film.  Computer-generated
holograms of this sort have been around since the mid-seventies,
or possibly earlier (I forget).

LCD is a different matter; holographic film has
a resolution of at least 3000 grains to the inch.
we definitely have a way to go before we can
create such resolution in any kind of dynamic media.


			Robert Reimann
			rmr@inferno.sgi.com
--


mrx@inferno.sgi.com
rmr@inferno.sgi.com

I believe there was a whole issue of some big physics journal (phys rev???)
within the last two years which was dedicated entirely to computer generated
holography.  If anyone is interested, I can go to the library myself and
find it, but if you are that interested, you'll have to go yourself to
actually see it :-).

Eric Hughes
hughes@math.berkeley.edu

In article <3636@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>
>Those who live in New York may have already noticed that Citibank's new
>teller machines are touch screen based.  There are no hardware buttons
>at all (for customer use), just touch zones on the graphics display.
>
Citibank is doing wonderful things with their ATMs. Their Humanware division
has some really energetic, devoted people working on this. The only complaint
I've heard about the touch-screens is from a blind user who can't use them.

-- 
                                       {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!jzitt
Joe Zitt                                 Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix 
		                        also: uunet!wwd!joe (WorldWide Data)
The worldlines of the needle and the digit intersect -- Paul Pedersen, 1988