3 ms·

But what you described doesn’t augment what I was doing: it lowers the local interactions, eg by removing subtle visual cues for interactions between people, wh

But what you described doesn’t augment what I was doing: it lowers the local interactions, eg by removing subtle visual cues for interactions between people, while not offering something I see as better. I’d rather interact with the people next to me than fake touch things while adjacent to other people. Further, if I want to fake touch things with other people — why would I do it with us both wearing immersive displays instead of AR and a shared projection we can collaboratively touch? In this case, AR seems like a genuine augmentation of what I was doing, while VR sounds like a regression in quality. What you describe sounds like what a planetarium would install, not anything I need in my living room — precisely because I have limited need to be engaged with content over adjacent persons. > Let's ignore the fact you were watching the content passively and thus making your argument moot given we're talking about a technology designed to hold your complete attention. Yes, that’s precisely what I’m trying to call out: in one situation I’m freely switching between passive content and local interactions, while the other insists on my full, continuous attention. They’re not really equivalent activities, so I’m confused why they’re compared. I have very little use for a full attention display, because that’s the minority of content I engage with or interactions I want to have.

coldtea 8y ago
>But what you described doesn’t augment what I was doing: it lowers the local interactions, eg by removing subtle visual cues for interactions between people, while not offering something I see as better. Which is great for introverted people, people who are bored with their spouses/s.os, and people who don't care for "subtle visual cues for interactions between people" compared to the possibility to experience an alternate reality. It's as if some people can't understand why others would rather escape in an alternate reality than have "quality time"... >I’d rather interact with the people next to me than fake touch things while adjacent to other people. Further, if I want to fake touch things with other people — why would I do it with us both wearing immersive displays instead of AR and a shared projection we can collaboratively touch? Because that way you don't immerse yourselves into another world, just project stuff into your living room. >They’re not really equivalent activities, so I’m confused why they’re compared. They don't have to be "really equivalent" for one to eat in (or overtake) the other, it's enough that they compete for people's spare entertainment time in the house. Nothing before TV was "really equivalent" to TV, and yet it replaced what people did before in their living rooms by a large margin.

coldtea 8y ago

>But what you described doesn’t augment what I was doing: it lowers the local interactions, eg by removing subtle visual cues for interactions between people, while not offering something I see as better. Which is great for introverted people, people who are bored with their spouses/s.os, and people who don't care for "subtle visual cues for interactions between people" compared to the possibility to experience an alternate reality. It's as if some people can't understand why others would rather escape in an alternate reality than have "quality time"... >I’d rather interact with the people next to me than fake touch things while adjacent to other people. Further, if I want to fake touch things with other people — why would I do it with us both wearing immersive displays instead of AR and a shared projection we can collaboratively touch? Because that way you don't immerse yourselves into another world, just project stuff into your living room. >They’re not really equivalent activities, so I’m confused why they’re compared. They don't have to be "really equivalent" for one to eat in (or overtake) the other, it's enough that they compete for people's spare entertainment time in the house. Nothing before TV was "really equivalent" to TV, and yet it replaced what people did before in their living rooms by a large margin.