-----Original Message-----


<snip>
>important. The VR technologies we develop should be both accessible and
>applicable to people with various cultural backgrounds - if they are to be
>adopted. Maybe to develop such systems the question of what is VR should be
>clarified in a decontexualised manner...?

<snip>

My 2 yen's worth:

In the past I have expressed the value of iconic representation (inevitably
culturally based) as a "bandwidth economic" representation of information,
and have worked towards finding culturally neutral icons ... "doors" between
"rooms" etc. (even trying to bring some architectural sensibilities to bear
upon them and therefore looking at "thresholds" between "zones"). But put as
starkly as you have, my immediate reaction is no thank you (well it was a
little riper than that actually).

Context is _all_

A wheel _means_ nothing in and of itself, a wheel behind a dashboard and
windscreen is a widely understood metaphor for directional control. We have
to learn to drive, its not entirely intuitive, but thats not to say I cant
ever learn to steer the thing (one day!).
What seems important to me is that there is a pleasure and a satisfaction in
mastering its control that keeps me trying.

Im pretty certain your Malaysian student derives as much pleasure from a
Nintendo as I do: same metaphors, different cultural background, (same
amount of time frittered), but both of us had to learn to control it. When I
go to Japan (IRL) I dont expect to be as expert at surviving as a local, and
its the pleasure of learning these differences that keeps me saving up my
pennies.

Please lets not aim for a lowest common denominator Esperanto VR, but rather
look for the richest deepest metaphors and paradigms (hopefully intuitive)
from wherever.

James Attree
t: ++44 (0)171 815 7179
f: ++44 (0)171 815 7330
e: [log in to unmask]



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%