[jbattle]

I might suffer from a lack of imagination - but prior to direct reading of thoughts from our brains - I don't see how "VR" will be any faster than input mechanisms we are already very familiar with. Think about a perfect VR that simulates reality flawlessly. You've only moved the goalposts. You are still stuck with the problem of how a user indicates their intentions to another agent (computer in this case - maybe a clever one). Are we going to turn virtual steering wheels? Use virtual pencils? I can certainly see some niche cases (virtual sculpture?) and video games will of course be better - but in terms of efficiency of input I don't see something better than keyboard + mouse before we get to mind-reading. Hell, I can even type almost as fast as I can speak. But maybe I'm unusual and keyboards will become a sort of estoeric form of input.

[ethbro]

Well, there's the superficial argument to "input mechanisms we are already very familiar with" - given that we as a community are probably drastically undervaluing removing typing as a prerequisite skill for computing.

However, if we're using a human as our black box (e.g. input via eyeballs, output via fingertips), then I'm admittedly more excited about VR from the input side.

To make a hardware metaphor, the additional sensory channels can be looked at as feeding functional units in our brains that are hitherto being underutilized. Adding or widening channels takes us into SIMD interface design. (I wrote superscalar, but that sounded like a terrible buzzphrase)

The caveat and challenge of course is whether or not these new resources can be effectively utilized. At least for anything less trivial that a richer consumptive experience (no offense intended to anyone in the multimedia industry).

[DonHopkins]

Remember when the "multimedia industry" used to be called the "CDROM industry"? It's kind of silly fetishizing the storage medium or the input device and ignoring the expanded definition of "reality" that "moving the goalposts" afforded.

While wondering how the term "virtual reality" will be thought of in the future, I am reminded of this dialog from the Pirate Bay trial:

>“When did you meet [Gottfrid] for the first time IRL?” asked the Prosecutor. “We do not use the expression IRL,” said Peter, “We use AFK.” “IRL?” questioned the judge. “In Real Life,” the Prosecutor explained to the judge.

>“We do not use that expression,” Peter noted. “Everything is in real life. We use AFK – Away From Keyboard.” “Well,” said Roswall. “It seems I am a little bit out of date.”

If what he did was not in real life, then why did they lock him up in a real prison for it?

Why don't we call the real world we interact with through keyboards, mice and 2D screens "virtual reality", even though some people who are a little bit out of date would claim it's not "real life"?

Is an expression of approval any more real and less virtual if I express it by clicking a "Like" button with a mouse, instead of looking at it, nodding my head, smiling and laughing? And does whether or not I have an HMD strapped to my head when I do that effect the sincerity of my expression?

If everything is in real life, then instead of "In Real Reality", maybe we use something like "AFR - Away from Rift"?

[tomjen3]

>I don't see how "VR" will be any faster than input mechanisms we are already very familiar with

If I had asked people what they wanted they would have said a faster horse.

This is going to be big, but it will not give your faster input. If you want that, take a course in faster typing.

[DonHopkins]

Did the mouse have to be the perfect pointing device that simulated the desktop perfectly?

Every time the goalposts move, the playing fields gets bigger.