A term for limits of interaction vs user expectation

Talk about Head Mounted Displays (HMDs), augmented reality, wearable computing, controller hardware, haptic feedback, motion tracking, and related topics here!
Post Reply
BillRoeske
Cross Eyed!
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 5:31 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

A term for limits of interaction vs user expectation

Post by BillRoeske »

One thing I've been thinking about off and on over the years is the idea that as our methods of interacting with VR become more capable, users are going to become more aware of the remaining limitations. Put another way: the closer virtual reality feels to simulating reality, the more jarring it will feel when a person tries to do something perfectly reasonable for real life, but that doesn't work in the simulation. This applies equally to hardware (ex: lack of positional tracking, avatar hand/finger mismatch, lack of resistance when pushing on a solid object) and software (ex: inability to snip a hole in a wire fence, being limited to a dialog tree with NPCs).

Is there already a common term used for discussing that concept? So far, the best candidate I've come across is "the uncanny valley of interaction," as coined by Extra Credits in their episode Kinect Disconnect.

geekmaster
Petrif-Eyed
Posts: 2708
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: A term for limits of interaction vs user expectation

Post by geekmaster »

BillRoeske wrote:One thing I've been thinking about off and on over the years is the idea that as our methods of interacting with VR become more capable, users are going to become more aware of the remaining limitations. Put another way: the closer virtual reality feels to simulating reality, the more jarring it will feel when a person tries to do something perfectly reasonable for real life, but that doesn't work in the simulation. This applies equally to hardware (ex: lack of positional tracking, avatar hand/finger mismatch, lack of resistance when pushing on a solid object) and software (ex: inability to snip a hole in a wire fence, being limited to a dialog tree with NPCs).

Is there already a common term used for discussing that concept? So far, the best candidate I've come across is "the uncanny valley of interaction," as coined by Extra Credits in their episode Kinect Disconnect.
Actually, "uncanny" and the "uncanny valley" are much older concepts (coined long before their mention in those video credits):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
The term was coined by the robotics professor Masahiro Mori as Bukimi no Tani Genshō (不気味の谷現象) in 1970. The hypothesis has been linked to Ernst Jentsch's concept of "the uncanny" identified in a 1906 essay, "On the Psychology of the Uncanny". Jentsch's conception was elaborated by Sigmund Freud in a 1919 essay entitled "The Uncanny" ("Das Unheimliche").[7]
And "uncanny" can be defined more in terms of what we can experience in VR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny
Because the uncanny is familiar, yet strange, it often creates cognitive dissonance within the experiencing subject due to the paradoxical nature of being attracted to, yet repulsed by an object at the same time. This cognitive dissonance often leads to an outright rejection of the object, as one would rather reject than rationalize.
EDIT: There is another thread here that is discussing a variation on this concept (VR dissonance):
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=120&t=16362

BillRoeske
Cross Eyed!
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 5:31 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: A term for limits of interaction vs user expectation

Post by BillRoeske »

I didn't mean to imply that the Extra Credits crew coined the original uncanny valley term, just the re spinning of it as it applies to user interfaces. Sorry about the confusion, there. :-)

The VR dissonance thread is interesting, but if I'm reading it correctly (and I'm just on a cell phone at the moment), seems to be more about intentionally giving each user interface shared simulation a different version of reality.

geekmaster
Petrif-Eyed
Posts: 2708
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: A term for limits of interaction vs user expectation

Post by geekmaster »

BillRoeske wrote:I didn't mean to imply that the Extra Credits crew coined the original uncanny valley term, just the re spinning of it as it applies to user interfaces. Sorry about the confusion, there. :-)
Your use of the word "coined" implied "first published use" of that phrase, which was the basis for my reply:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=coined
To create a new word.
Perhaps you should have used "quoted" or "referenced" instead, to carify your intended meaning.
BillRoeske wrote:... The VR dissonance thread is interesting, but if I'm reading it correctly (and I'm just on a cell phone at the moment), seems to be more about intentionally giving each user interface shared simulation a different version of reality.
It is. But in a shared VR world, giving your opponents cognitive dissonance could be a potent form of camouflage. If you want to keep others away, just use "uncanny valley" effects as a "natural repellant" to make it too creepy for them to stick around.
:D

BillRoeske
Cross Eyed!
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 5:31 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: A term for limits of interaction vs user expectation

Post by BillRoeske »

This is derailing the topic slightly, but I do share your interest in being technically correct wherever possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of ... Contextomy
Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context (as all quotes are) per se, but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words.
It's not that I don't appreciate the history and grammar lessons, and I'll applaud anyone who cites references (though Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary both have their issues), but I think you missed some important words when replying to the original post. The full phrase was "the uncanny valley of interaction" (which was grouped by quotes, even). You're right in that it is a reference to the recent broadening of the term "the uncanny valley," (which was originally applied to just robotics), but it's been specialized for the problems specifically facing natural user interfaces. Extra Credits was the first place I'm aware of to put a fine point on it, and they did so with that label.

Anyway, please, let's move on. :tiphat:



I do admit that constantly typing out "the uncanny valley of interaction" is cumbersome, so something shorter would be nice. Though it has become somewhat generic, "the uncanny valley" still seems to immediately conjure images of glassy-eyed avatars to most people, so I think using it would confuse discussion. I kind of like "the uncanny sandbox," since it evokes being able sense the walls of the simulation. It's also big enough of a blanket term that it can cover technical issues software and missteps in design, not just hardware limitations. I just wasn't sure if there was an adequate phrase in use already.

Mostly what I wanted to call out by starting this thread is the notion that as the methods for interacting with VR become more natural, the fine cracks around the edges in the interaction will be magnified. I'd like to have a label handy for when we get to what will be the actual interesting discussions. That is, how to subtly hide those cracks from the users and help keep them immersed.

geekmaster
Petrif-Eyed
Posts: 2708
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: A term for limits of interaction vs user expectation

Post by geekmaster »

BillRoeske wrote:
Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context".
...
I think in the context of a forum such as this (with limited room for quotes contained within a post), contextotomy is both natural and dependent on the intent of the quote. If it is just quoting the points relevant to the reply (within the expertise and interest of the reply), that is fine and dandy. But when used with malicious intent as shown by examples in your wikipedia link, that is neither fine nor dandy. It is evil when put to an evil purpose, and that is not my intent when I use snippets of posts as quotes in which to frame my replies (as do others). That is why I try to include ellipses "..." to indicate incised text in an effor to NOT hide my intended usage of the partial quote.
BillRoeske wrote:... I do admit that constantly typing out "the uncanny valley of interaction" is cumbersome, so something shorter would be nice. Though it has become somewhat generic, "the uncanny valley" still seems to immediately conjure images of glassy-eyed avatars to most people, so I think using it would confuse discussion. I kind of like "the uncanny sandbox," since it evokes being able sense the walls of the simulation. It's also big enough of a blanket term that it can cover technical issues software and missteps in design, not just hardware limitations. I just wasn't sure if there was an adequate phrase in use already. ...
"Uncanny sandbox" sounds fine to me. It implies an environment that is clearly limited in its richness and boundaries. Perhaps as simulation quality improves to the point that the central area is indistinguishable from reality most of the time for most of the people, that part can be known as the "uncanny walled garden", implying a fully rich environment with clearly limited boundaries.

English is such an imprecise language to be used in a multicultural forum such as this, but so be it. It is a good idea to pin down the definitions of technical words and phrases that we intent to use commonly when describing our shared experiences and interests in this forum, to prevent misunderstanding and wasted efforts, and perhaps to minimize anxiety or frustration while dealing with others who misunderstand us (or whom we misunderstand).

Thanks for pinning down a useful phrase (different enough from existing terminology to avoid confusion) to define your intended meaning and direction for this thread.
:D

danadams01
One Eyed Hopeful
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed May 11, 2022 7:13 am

Re: A term for limits of interaction vs user expectation

Post by danadams01 »

BillRoeske wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:22 am One thing I've been thinking about off and on over the years is the idea that as our methods of interacting with VR become more capable, users are going to become more aware of the remaining limitations. Put another way: the closer virtual reality feels to simulating reality, the more jarring it will feel when a person tries to do something perfectly reasonable for real life, but that doesn't work in the simulation. or just ask top cv review for help - just visit site. This will help you find a job as quickly as possible and use your resume effectively.This applies equally to hardware (ex: lack of positional tracking, avatar hand/finger mismatch, lack of resistance when pushing on a solid object) and software (ex: inability to snip a hole in a wire fence, being limited to a dialog tree with NPCs).
And "uncanny" can be defined more in terms of what we can experience in VR:

Post Reply

Return to “General VR/AR Discussion”