Re: MOO and VRML 2.0 ?

• Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 10:24:56 PST
• From:
  Quinn <quinn@vv.com>
• Cc: jkweston@io.com, moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 08:42 AM 2/17/96 PST, 'Keith Weston' wrote:
>Thanks for allowing this MOO Luddite to express and opinion.  As designed, 
>MOO works best as a text-based, non-graphical system of real-time 
>communication.

Amen.  I agree.

For the most part.

One thing I see as enhancing MOO is sound, and this can be done with minimal
overhead without objective images intruding on the highly personal
mindscape.  Images can be easily and reliably related via words, but sounds
often require resorting to silly onomatopoetic phrase set off by asterisks.

I see VRML/MOO as an attempt "make the movie" out of the MOO book.  Images
used in this way contribute to a more imaginatively passive environment.
And, of course, the movie is rarely as good as the book.  Animation has a
long way to go before being both photorealistic and practical over the Net.
Besides that, the skill required to make such animations and scenes will
prohibit many people from building!

However, a well placed creak while walking through dark $rooms, a muted
sword clang while listening outside an $exit, or a meow from a $puppet cat:
these spark the imagination are are *true* to their RL perceptual counterparts.

So, SonicMOO is A-OK with me, but VRMOO...eh, I'll read the book.

-Quinn
-http://www.vv.com/~quinn/

• Prev: Re: MOO and VRML 2.0 ?
• Next: Re: MOO and VRML 2.0 ?
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows