Frode Hegland: There you are. Sorry. My screens were all over the place. Morning. Morning. I can’t get this to run on my headset.
Andrew Thompson: You can’t get what to run.
Frode Hegland: The the new demo. Let me do it now before we properly start.
Andrew Thompson: Oh, it doesn’t run.
Frode Hegland: It’s. It opens. But there’s no I Rob. It may have been connection where I was earlier. Let me just try it again real quick.
Andrew Thompson: Okay. It’s also possible that, like, the upload had, like, a corrupted file. I could re-upload it. Let’s see. Let me double check on my end. I’m going to take the headset off, though. Okay.
Frode Hegland: Oh, wow. This is weird. It’s not rendering the flat screen right now, so the screen looks wavy. Okay, so. Hi, Rob. I’m just trying again. Andrew’s new build. Had an issue there earlier.
Peter Wasilko: I tried it the other day.
Frode Hegland: Yeah, the other day was okay, but this new one is this morning. So let me just make sure I’m not.
Peter Wasilko: But I’m agreeing with you. It’s hard to do work in there.
Frode Hegland: Yeah. It’s and also the trackpad is quite nice because you don’t have to stare at things. However, the trackpad and vision as in looking. Compete too much. Yeah, I got x y. Well, I got x and Z on the floor.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah, I think I know what’s happened. I took a quick look. I think the HTML file didn’t finish uploading, so I’m just going to re-upload that. Okay. So technically, if you like, changed the URL, it should work, but there’s no point in doing that. I’ll just upload it real fast.
Frode Hegland: Thank you. You’re going to re-up up. Did you ever watch The Wire back in the day?
Andrew Thompson: No I didn’t.
Frode Hegland: Oh, you missed a good series. Still worth it. Yes.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah. I didn’t watch a lot of shows.
Frode Hegland: Yeah. Well, so it’s a, it’s one way to waste time. Oh, I get this. I just changed the environment to White Sands. And it’s time now.
Speaker4: Well.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah, I I got this build finished, like, at midnight last night, so I didn’t bug test as well as I should have.
Frode Hegland: Oh, you’re a coder, I didn’t realize.
Speaker4: Oh. Very true.
Peter Wasilko: Oh, there we go.
Frode Hegland: Okay, I know that lifestyle. Not as a coder, but as a designer. Same weird attitude.
Andrew Thompson: I just I kept thinking of little bits that had to be improved on itself before I could show it. And, you know, that happened.
Frode Hegland: Yeah.
Andrew Thompson: Reload and let me know if that worked.
Frode Hegland: Well, the.
Peter Wasilko: Okay. Andrew, what’s the little blue spinning box?
Andrew Thompson: Blue spinning box. Are you on? Last version.
Peter Wasilko: Probably.
Andrew Thompson: Is it the one that’s like, in your head, or is it like the one on your hand?
Speaker4: Oh.
Peter Wasilko: It’s it’s floating around between the hands.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah. So that’s kind of like it was the center of the selector. It was just kind of like some abstract thing. And just to show that the selector was on that’s removed in the next version.
Peter Wasilko: Okay. Let me see if I can figure out how to go back.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah, I’m not sure. The gesture for the vision. But I know you can tap. There’s a button on the top of your headset. I think it’s on the right side. If you press that, you’ll go back to the menu.
Peter Wasilko: Yeah. Okay. And now I have. A circular document slanting up. At. That must be.
Speaker4: No.
Andrew Thompson: I think it’s what you were looking at. Probably rendering the screen.
Peter Wasilko: It’s in here. Yeah. I have the Inter VR. Yeah. That works okay.
Frode Hegland: The new movement with a vertical bar is good, but how do I move it forward and back towards me?
Andrew Thompson: It’s the same menu setting as before.
Frode Hegland: I can scale it, but how do I move it?
Andrew Thompson: What? You can scale it.
Frode Hegland: No, sorry. You’re right. It’s not scaling. It is moving. Absolutely, I was confusing.
Peter Wasilko: Okay, that’s the 6th of March. Where’s. Is there a new one?
Frode Hegland: Yes. Please go. Hang on.
Frode Hegland: Yes, yes, yes, there is a new one. Please go back to the page with the grandiose title of XR experiments and reload it on the top there. You will then see 13th of March.
Peter Wasilko: Okay x XR experiment repository.
Speaker4: No.
Frode Hegland: Hang on. I’ll give you the link here in the chat. Hello, everybody. Sneaking in while we’re on our headsets.
Dene Grigar: Everybody. I’m still making coffee, I overslept. I had insomnia last night and it’s spring break. I’m almost there.
Frode Hegland: It’s about time you sleep, Danny.
Dene Grigar: I’ve been waking up at three in the morning. I don’t know why. It just. It disrupts the rest of the day.
Speaker4: So I have noticed.
Peter Wasilko: I do that every day.
Dene Grigar: Yeah, it’s terrible, but normally I get up at six anyway. But today I slept, which I think is not a bad thing. Right.
Speaker4: It’s good.
Frode Hegland: So I will urge you to test Andrew’s new build straight away.
Speaker4: I will.
Frode Hegland: It’s really interesting. Regarding our pre-meeting conversation, I would say.
Dene Grigar: He’s influenced by by Beat Saber, too. And did you see my note about Daft Punk?
Andrew Thompson: It did. Yep.
Dene Grigar: Changed my life.
Peter Wasilko: Okay. Oh, I see, all right.
Andrew Thompson: Dean. He’s been wanting Daft Punk and Beat Saber, and somehow the developers heard her and added an entire album. So she’s been over the moon with that?
Frode Hegland: Yeah, we all have our issues in life.
Speaker6: Oh, look at this.
Frode Hegland: I’m going to make most of you jealous with my dark chocolate coated coffee beans. Oh, where’s that from?
Speaker4: Yeah.
Frode Hegland: Oh, I actually thought it was from Vancouver, Washington, but no, these have been replenished here. Oops, sorry. But the ones in Washington downtown were really nice from that moment up place anyway. Sorry about that. When I saw Kent, I realized the game was up.
Peter Wasilko: Okay, let’s see what this does.
Speaker4: Well. Yeah.
Peter Wasilko: The slider keeps disappearing. The menu.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah. You’re tapping your wrist.
Frode Hegland: The slider thing needs to be rethought. Absolutely. But the other things anyway. Danny, put your headset on. I’m quite excited for you to see this.
Dene Grigar: Well, just give me a second, okay? I’m almost there.
Speaker4: I’m almost only one.
Frode Hegland: Only one second.
Andrew Thompson: I think most of the like, the prism menu buttons need to be. I mean, they’re all there for testing right now. Nothing’s actually locked in. But I think ideally when I, when we picture the workflow, you’re not going to be constantly adjusting the distance. It’ll be like you set it once and leave it alone. And then you’ll have all three snap distances that you can go between, which is what I want to try to implement this next week. The snap distances. At least that’s that’s the plan in my head. Yeah. I’m thinking maybe you you move objects between snap distances from the menu. Maybe it has like a change snap distance option and you can pick their. I’m not sure. It wouldn’t be too. Fast. That would be more of a if you intend on just sort of moving it around horizontally. And not depthwise very often. Ultimately if we want to ditch the snap distances entirely. We can make the pulling actually sort of drift it further and away from you. But then we’re kind of getting back into the too much free movement, so we’ll see.
Frode Hegland: So, Danny, please make sure because Rob forgot. Please make sure you reload the page or future Text lab page.
Speaker4: Did you make.
Dene Grigar: Another change to it?
Frode Hegland: No, no, he hasn’t made one. Well, he’s made one in the last half an hour. Yes. There was a little thing missing, but as long as you click on the 13th of March. Reference block interactions for. You will see the. You will see the goodness.
Dene Grigar: All right. Thank you. No.
Peter Wasilko: Disappeared.
Dene Grigar: Okay. You know, Andrew, this is exactly what I wanted. So you gave me a really great gift.
Speaker4: You know, this.
Frode Hegland: Is this is a different thing now. Many, many things to polish and discuss. Like the lines showing the connections are nice, but obviously it shouldn’t be there all the time, things like that. And that’s the whole point of these discussions. But yeah Danny pretty amazing, right?
Dene Grigar: Yeah. I mean, this is we’re just talking about this, I, I, like I said, I’ve not had coffee, so language comes hard before I have a cup of coffee. I was talking about the movie arrival, which some of you might have seen. Rob, you probably know the short story, which is fantastic. Yeah, but in the movie, Amy and Anderson or Amy and and Adams plays a linguist who’s brought in to decipher the language of these of these Outer space creatures. These aliens and their language is round and everything they see is in round. And the world is round. And everything’s connected in this kind of round system. And what she introduces the language. It changes the way we think, like human beings think it. The idea is that we’re defined by our language as much as our language defines us. Anyway, we were talking about that and how the fact that I wanted more roundness in the work I do, the workspace, and that Greg told me yesterday, Andrew, that beat saver has a 360. Option, which I did not know, and I was crazy, but I have not had a chance to experiment with it yet. But that’s what I want. I want to live in the round I always have. I prefer sculpture over oil painting, for example. So anyway, this is. This is good. And we’ve gotten outside of our agenda. So we’re now in the Programing. So do you want to step back and start over? No.
Frode Hegland: I think what’s on the agenda because we’re talking. Yeah. No. You’re right. Sorry, I was thinking not on the agenda. I was thinking this was on the vision thing. Let me
Dene Grigar: You know, it’s actually Andrews. Andrews presentation.
Frode Hegland: Yeah. Can you please share the agenda? I’m just trying to to do something here real quick. To. Hang on. I’ll do it.
Dene Grigar: I’ll do it. Did you keep playing? And I’ll do it.
Speaker4: Okay.
Frode Hegland: I’m just trying to figure something out. One second.
Dene Grigar: I’m going to drop this into our channel. There’s our agenda for today.
Frode Hegland: Thank God now.
Dene Grigar: Okay, everybody. So we’re starting with announcements, author, vision, protesting, and progress. We have comments about working in Vision Pro and any other announcements. I kicked it off by saying I wanted more round and Andrew answered me already. So here we are. But one thing that I have found to be very limiting about about any of the VR experiences I’m having with the Vision Pro or anything really, is there’s so much as this right here, and our project right now is a piece of paper in front of us, like hovering. And we’re able to do things with that piece of paper. I think eventually what I want to see is more of a round experience. So I’m actually moving like this. And I think we’re heading that direction now. So comments about that or anybody else’s viewpoints on this.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah, I, I think that will happen naturally as we add more support inside the project. I think what’s doing it today, the bit that’s making it feel more round is the the fact that we can have multiple different text blocks rather than just one and that just wraps around you. So for people who want it round, it will absolutely work. And for those who, like, aren’t the biggest fan of round, they can just leave their stuff in front of them and not utilize the extra space. Of course that will end up being cluttered fast, so I think it’s going to force people to wrap it around, but it will be interesting to see how people make their own layouts.
Frode Hegland: Yeah, absolutely. So on the the comments, first of all, author vision, I hope to have it released so you guys can test it properly. An interesting thing I found is that working with my current build in AR is actually quite annoying because the native windows in vision are very rounded on top, and we had quite large margins. So I told the developers to get rid of the margins as much as possible, which is the opposite of what I want on a flat screen. It just felt like when I’m in R, I want to have a clue of what’s going on in the room, so don’t put stuff that I don’t want there, don’t put things. Because I was doing author. I had a web browser and I had music and suddenly the space was really cluttered. So it goes a little bit to what Denny was saying on Monday, that when you’re thinking you probably want to have a relatively clean space, depending on what kind of thinking and work you’re doing, of course, because things interfere. And that’s very different from my expectation. So that’s that was a surprise. Currently, I would say to do almost any work using a large desktop display wins over the Vision Pro. Hands down. That’s the way it is now, what you are doing, Andrew, specifically with the update today really goes towards changing that. So it’s very exciting. Denny and I were talking about that before the call, and we look forward to going into that properly. That was it from my side. No. Hang on. Yeah. That’s that’s me. Announcements. Peter.
Peter Wasilko: Yes, I was wondering, is there any perceptual distinction between turning your head while sitting stationary, or if you were sitting on a rotating chair, having the entire chair swing around?
Speaker4: Well. All right. Well, things. Well, things move when you, you.
Peter Wasilko: Know, can you use the chair to turn to reduce strain on the neck or does it depend on the neck twisting versus rotating your swivel chair?
Dene Grigar: Can I respond to that? As I talked to you last week, I sit here like this, right? And I’m moving like this, and I’m also moving my head. Right. And so I’m, I’m, I have tried really hard to build an environment that keeps me from just like this all day. I’m, I’m not quite at 360. I’m about a 270 in this space. Right. And my chair is not a swivel chair. My butt swivels. No, I move my butt around like this. And my body, which is good exercise, right? I’m moving like this. And then like this desk goes into standing mode. So when I want to do something for an extended period, I stand. So I’m constantly in motion right in this space. What I don’t ever do ever again is work on one monitor all day long. I can’t do it. And in Twitter. It’s been especially interesting because I can now, you know, I’m not on not Twitter, but on zoom. I’m on this computer and my laptop. When I’m with photo, I’m always on my big one because he doesn’t like my little one. But in the lab, it doesn’t matter because you guys don’t care, right? So I’m between them. But when I’m on my standing desk on my little computer, it’s nice because I can stand and zoom. And I was six hours on zoom yesterday, so it helps to be able to stand during some of that. Does that answer your question, Peter?
Frode Hegland: Yep. It’s a very important question and it’s very, very relevant today. So I was working in a coffee shop today, as I often do for a few hours in the morning, and I felt that the field of view was very myopic. But I was on a chair at the bar that was not movable at all. Right. So I just felt that I was very, very constrained, which is fine for some work. But now I am in a swivel chair. Look, it’s. Wow. So when I come back home here and I put on Andrew’s demo, I usually start here to the side and it is a completely different world. So it’s very relevant. Peter, thinking about how we physically move around in a space when the space is this wide. So thank you for highlighting that.
Speaker4: Peter, how.
Dene Grigar: Do you work? Let’s go to you. How do you work?
Speaker4: I tend to have.
Peter Wasilko: A swivel chair and more than one laptop open at a time, or a big monitor hooked up with the HDMI port.
Dene Grigar: Okay, so you’re at least two, two devices. Yeah.
Peter Wasilko: And then also I have a standing desk right next to it. So if I start to get uncomfortable with that, I’ll pop up onto the standing desk and shift the laptop up onto the standing desk. Which is also usually the way I’ll use the real big monitor, because with my bifocals, the big monitor is an awkward position, neck angle wise, in order to get it in my reading prescription, unless I’m at the standing desk. But if I’m at the standing desk, that relatively brings the big monitor down enough so that it can be viewed comfortably.
Dene Grigar: Okay. So that’s good. So when we put a headset on. So let’s talk about the difference between a headset and all these monitors. Right. As I mentioned last week I’m working on five devices. I’d like to have one the headset. So one one hardware. Lots and lots and lots of visions. Right? Which is why I think it’s called Vision Pro, perhaps. And so I don’t want to have to have all of these devices. I want to be able to stand up and sit down. And I’m not having to be just working on my laptop. I want to work whatever I’m doing on this device. I want to stand up and sit down and work on. So what I’m wanting for the headset experience to be is this with one headset and lots of different experiences. So maybe I’m zooming over here working on a paper over here. I mean, that’s what I’m imagining. It’s supposed to be one day where they’re headed. Right now. We can’t solve that problem. We’re not Apple. Right. All we can solve is how do we make this document over here more profound, a more profound and effective experience, you know, here. Does that make sense? Yes. Rob, you’re saying yes. Like smiling. Okay.
Peter Wasilko: Saying yes.
Speaker4: So.
Peter Wasilko: Also, I wonder as a bifocal user, if you’re in a headset, do you have to position all of your virtual screens so that they would fall within the near vision range of your bifocal prescription? Or, you know, how does that work for people with the bifocal issue? I really haven’t seen a good description from someone saying, you know, I’m a user, I have bifocals, I got a headset, and here’s what my headset is. Experience is like.
Speaker4: This is.
Frode Hegland: Yeah. Sorry, Danny, please.
Dene Grigar: I use when I buy glasses and spend the money to do it. I do trifocals right. But but I do the progressives. I spend the money for the progressives. But I like the trifocal experience. But I don’t want to spend $500 for a for a pair of glasses. I lose all the time. So now I’m just buying over the counter. Two points. Two times the size. It doesn’t. I mean, I see perfectly, it’s fantastic. And I have the they measure my insert and measure my eyes. Right. When you go through the exercise of getting Apple Vision Pro, it puts you through series of exercises. And it got my eyes perfectly.
Frode Hegland: In the headset, there is no different vocals. Mine are also trifocals my everyday glasses. However, the prescription that I used for the Apple vision was the normal distance because remember in the headset there’s only one distance. And your. As long as your eye has that prescription for normal distance, you’re absolutely fine. You don’t have to. There is no notion of of that in the headset. Hi, Brandel. Morning. Right. So case studies. Dini.
Dene Grigar: Yeah. So I haven’t done any. Made any progress on case studies. As I mentioned, I’ll probably be getting to that when school starts back. I’m on spring break right now and I’m heading to that funeral tomorrow, so I’m trying to get everything done before I go. And yesterday was a big zoom day, so lots of meetings. Mark’s not here right now. That’s too bad. I was hoping Mark would talk about libraries.
Frode Hegland: Just texting him.
Dene Grigar: But I will say that what he and I are interested in, in terms of library generally when I talk to my library and friends and I did have a librarian working in my lab for many years and was teaching in my in my program for 15. A library is an information space. It’s not a place for books. It’s not just books anymore. It’s a space where information is shared, held. It’s a repository. Right? In that sense. But for information all kinds. And so what is that? How do we how do we leverage that for what we’re talking about? There’s personal repositories on our desktops. There’s shared in space. The next the museum that I built and with my lab that’s a shared space. You know, there’s, there’s different ways to think about how libraries can be experienced. So he’s moving in the direction like that. I know, but I haven’t heard anything further from him.
Frode Hegland: Yeah, exactly. He may join us later. He is on a call now because of the time difference. Change rather. Right. Let’s dive into Andrew’s experience. Brandel, if you haven’t already, please have a look at the new work. And let’s discuss it. I’ll post the URL and chat here again. Also, Peter, I know I bug you constantly, but please, please, please try to get a slot with Apple to try this. I think you’ll be surprised at a lot of things. What is more dimensional? What is less dimensional? It’s It’s very, very odd. Very, very odd indeed. And for me, it’s very, very stressful because we are trying to do important work here. However, I have to say I’d much rather stress about this than anything else in the world. So I’m extremely grateful for the dialog with you guys. And of course, Andrew, I’m extremely grateful to you for realizing this, as you know, in the term of building. Right? So.
Frode Hegland: Randall, are you there?
Speaker4: Do.
Frode Hegland: You know, I’m trying to mirror from the vision ropes to hang on cables, obviously. It’s not working really well. I mean, I can’t get the connection. Is there anything I need to consider? I go into the vision, I click on screen mirroring, click on the name of my MacBook Pro. But then it doesn’t show up.
Speaker4: Find that everything’s on.
Brandel Zachernuk: The same network. You’re not using some kind of VPN on one versus the other. There’s a developer stuff that you may not be able to buy right now if it’s not available in the UK, but I tend to use or whatever the internal equivalent of it is.
Speaker4: Oh, the cable. Yeah. Oh, so I don’t know whether it happened. Sorry. Well, so it.
Brandel Zachernuk: Doesn’t do quite the same thing for people who are internal. When people are developing the headset itself, then you have a lot more abilities to modify. And that’s that’s why you’re not allowed to see my view is because internal tools and stuff have very different things available. But that goes for like my phone, my watch, my, my headset. So.
Frode Hegland: No, that’s fair enough. But I should be.
Brandel Zachernuk: But but the cable doesn’t help with a lot of things. It’ll it’ll opportunistically, to my knowledge, opt to use them for connections if you have one available.
Frode Hegland: I can buy the cable. So that should be
Brandel Zachernuk: Not until it’s available in the UK, but you would be able to purchase it then.
Frode Hegland: No, but I can have a dear friend in America do what did with XYZ, just buy them and send it right.
Speaker4: Yes. Yeah, yeah.
Frode Hegland: So will that then allow me to easily screen share.
Brandel Zachernuk: I suspect so I don’t. So that’s the thing. I know that that that something that looks a lot like a thing that’s attached to my device is available for the public to buy through the developer program. What I’m not certain of is what the extent of what it does. It wouldn’t make a lot of sense for me, for people to have made those capabilities available only for people who are inside the company. You know, as opposed to the do make sense like they have it’s called developer Strap or something like that.
Speaker4: To placate me. Account.
Frode Hegland: Apple developers drop USB-C dot dot, dot. Of course. It’s on eBay for $150. No thank you. Let’s see. There we go.
Speaker4: Do what it does.
Frode Hegland: Are you. Have you seen this build, by the way? Brundle.
Dene Grigar: So, Frodo, where did you put the XR? I mean, I just lost it. I thought you put it in the XR experiment repository.
Speaker4: Yeah.
Dene Grigar: Andrews.
Frode Hegland: The link is Here. I’ll give it again. It’s on the FTL website. You never get through to Zor experiments, and it’s on top there. 13th of March reference block interactions for.
Dene Grigar: I got it. Thank you. I lost it, I know where. What happened to it?
Frode Hegland: It’s not a very good Earl. I should have had a quicker one. Let’s see if I can update this a little bit. It’s really strange using the normal monitor with a headset on and it’s just fine. That’s like a normal Mac before retina display.
Dene Grigar: That’s an internal all the way around. It’s so nice.
Peter Wasilko: So nothing happens when you click on a line. Is that right? You can select, but you can’t. Move the text out into the margin.
Frode Hegland: What do you mean when you say click on a line?
Peter Wasilko: Well, I have a I have a curved document which is a little bit off, off center and too low.
Frode Hegland: Are you talking about? Are you talking about the gray vertical line?
Peter Wasilko: No, I don’t have a gray vertical line. I have a document curved around.
Speaker4: If you’re about.
Peter Wasilko: Halfway in front of me.
Speaker4: To the right.
Frode Hegland: Rob, sorry if you don’t have a gray vertical line, you don’t have the current build.
Dene Grigar: Look at that. It’s so cool. Andrew, I love.
Speaker4: You.
Dene Grigar: So much.
Frode Hegland: Just to get get Rob on the right page. So, Rob you’ve gone to the XR experiments page, right?
Speaker4: Yeah.
Frode Hegland: And you clicked on the 13th of March one. Yeah.
Frode Hegland: And. Okay, so when you’re in. Okay? Please. You know, that’s a bit odd because when you’re in there, you should definitely get the block of text that has the references on it has a new big gray vertical line attached it on the left. Do you.
Speaker4: Really?
Peter Wasilko: Yeah, there’s a vertical line. So what am I supposed to do with that?
Frode Hegland: You take your hand. And you pinch, and the pinch showing means that you have a selection dot moving about. So when the selection dot is on the gray line, you can then pinch your fingers together and move the whole thing around.
Dene Grigar: Can I say something to rob? What I’m getting when I, when I select something is a little menu that says detached from group, find and document or close.
Peter Wasilko: Yeah, that came up.
Dene Grigar: If I did detach from group I can actually move it across into that, into the space. Oh. It attaches. Like. See it? Whoops.
Peter Wasilko: Oh. Way down there. Okay.
Dene Grigar: Oh. Where. Detach control where it goes.
Peter Wasilko: Are we talking about.
Dene Grigar: Well, I found an A. I found something I wanted right. And highlighted in bold. Right whence it highlights. Then I get a menu that says do I want it attached? Okay. You see that?
Speaker4: But then I’ve got.
Peter Wasilko: One sticking halfway out.
Speaker4: Okay.
Frode Hegland: Do you need, have you pointed to the vertical line and for the main reference section and pinch together and then moved because you can move the whole thing that way.
Dene Grigar: Yeah I did absolutely. That’s what I’m saying. I’m doing all of that. But what I think is interesting and I like the the menu that you’re giving us, you’re giving us the reference note number four with the object with me being able to choose detach from group, find and document or close.
Speaker4: Okay. Yeah.
Peter Wasilko: Oh, that’s for a reference. I’ve got number 12 selected.
Dene Grigar: Okay, whatever you pick is what it’s going to show up. Right? I picked number four.
Speaker4: Well, I didn’t.
Peter Wasilko: Choose it deliberately. And let’s take number one. Okay. Find and document.
Speaker4: All right, so there we go. Andrew. All right. But I’m not.
Peter Wasilko: Oh, now I can move it. Oh, great.
Frode Hegland: Under. You can hear me, right?
Andrew Thompson: Yes I can.
Speaker4: So.
Frode Hegland: As I’ve said many times, very impressed. A couple of tweaks if everyone agrees. First of all, when you when your little cursor dot gets close to an interactive element, if it could be slightly magnetic, that would be really useful. I’m sure you’ve tried something like that. How does that feel?
Andrew Thompson: Oh, I’m not sure how to do that. Maybe.
Frode Hegland: Make it slightly bigger than the visual field. Like 10% on either side actually equals that, you know, like, they had the iOS keyboards in the beginning type thing.
Dene Grigar: Welcome, Mark. What do you think, Mark? You’re muted.
Speaker4: I don’t know what I’m doing.
Mark Anderson: I’ve gone into latest demo and I’m seeing curve of text, but I can’t do anything. I can’t interact with it. I mean, it’s opened over there. That’s fine. Whether I’m too close to it. Bearing in mind that I think the problem is that the it doesn’t work within the the sitting bound that I have set.
Speaker4: Okay.
Frode Hegland: Mark. Yeah. First thing is, when you do this, do you get a gray vertical bar next to the Annexed to the main block of text. That looks kind of important to check.
Mark Anderson: Yes I do. Yeah.
Speaker4: Okay.
Mark Anderson: I’m assuming I should be able to do this.
Frode Hegland: No no no no no no. It’s changed okay. It’s in the notes. But Andrew’s been a bit over productive and written so much, I won’t have a chance to read it. What you do now? Yeah. There is no longer flat tans. You pinch and make a gun pointing motion that produces a cursor that if it is on the gray bar, you can then pinch your fingers together to move it around. It’s all exciting.
Andrew Thompson: So it does still need the the three finger curl to activate, which I think at this point I’ll just remove. So it’s just pinch. But yeah, the three finger curl is still required.
Speaker4: Oh.
Frode Hegland: So why do you want to remove it? I’m confused.
Andrew Thompson: Because it no longer does anything on its own. The three finger curl was to turn on selector, but now selector is always active, so the only thing you care about is just the pinch. So why force the three finger curl? That was my mindset behind it.
Speaker4: Well, I’m.
Mark Anderson: I magically got it. Sorry I magically got into that mode anyway, but it looks nice. I’ll tinker with it more when I’ve got time. I mean, so I concentrate on this.
Frode Hegland: No, no, but this is what we’re doing right now. Mark, we are actually talking about this. It’s entirely appropriate.
Speaker4: Well, the thing.
Frode Hegland: Is, working in the vision outside of this. And so I bought the keyboard and trackpad because I really want to be able to type without having an issue and all of that stuff. So I spent that huge amount of money so that Brandle’s company can get more money because they need it. Right. Brandel. Part of the issue there is that my eyes and the trackpad sometimes competes, which is really annoying. I’m sure Apple will fix it, but in this world if we get to the point where too easily the dot moves around, you may actually move something accidentally. Anders, that’s my concern. So if you still keep it, I’m pointing. To. Then you have the dot. Otherwise, just move your hands. Think freely. Some people think like this and it has absolutely no interaction potential at all. What do you think?
Speaker4: Yeah.
Andrew Thompson: That’s fair. But like distinctly putting your fingers together is a gesture already. So it’s a determinant of when you’re pointing. Do you need to do specifically this or can you do this or this? Does it care about the other three fingers? That’s the question. And right now it does. But it also like for people who haven’t done the experience before, I was watching some of like Rob and Mark testing it and by instinct they were doing this because that’s how it works in everything else. So why would we add another constraint that is not by default? And the apps in general. That’s just like if we don’t need it, but we could totally keep it if it has some function.
Frode Hegland: Right. So let’s let’s walk through this. So on vision everything you look at is indicated. Pinch activates. We don’t have eye tracking of course. So that is why I think and I really want to have Mark in a second, that I think that if you’re just looking freely and nothing happens, you move your hands freely and nothing happens. It’s a positive. And now if you want to reach out and grab something, you just have that basic human pointing thing. And once you get to something interesting because it doesn’t follow the finger. Exactly. And I think that is a benefit because this is what you explained, I think two weeks ago. That means that when you do the the pinch to activate something, the whole thing doesn’t move. Do you think, Mark? We should keep the the pointing or what do you think?
Mark Anderson: My question was going to be. So I got to the point where I got the context menu up on the on the list, and I thought I should be pinching onto the I was getting a highlight onto a menu item, but I couldn’t click it. So nothing, nothing I can do was well, no, it doesn’t mean it’s an error. It just means I don’t know I’m doing the wrong thing. But so I was wondering. I was assuming I was supposed to click it because everything else seemed to be a click rather than a push. I mean, yes.
Andrew Thompson: You’re correct, Mark. You’re supposed to pinch. I’m not sure why it’s not doing anything. Which menu item were you trying to interact with? Maybe it was doing something you didn’t see.
Speaker4: It happened to.
Mark Anderson: Be closed, but.
Speaker4: Oh, yeah.
Andrew Thompson: Close will just close the pop up menu. That should have been obvious.
Speaker4: Yeah.
Mark Anderson: No, it doesn’t seem to be, but I mean, as I say, I wouldn’t take it too much. I mean, clearly, I’m, I’m just I’m just obviously not triggering the, the thing. Right. So I’m doing the right thing. I’ll just try it some more. That’s absolutely fine. I just thought I’d check in case I was supposed to do something else, but no, I mean, you know, it’s all looking nice. I like I like the idea of being able to take take something out because this, this, this absolutely. I think chimes with our exploratory nature. So it is about this decomposition. Okay, I’ve got this. I have this information object, this this thing. And I want to do something with it. So I now have that. I can take that. At the moment it’s coming out. So one of the questions is whether I’m moving that the original or I’m essentially creating an alias or a copy. But that’s not to ponder on unduly now, but in the information it spacing. So, so what’s at the back of my mind. So I’m looking at a list of references. Oh I want I’ll reuse that. So essentially I probably then I want to take a copy because I still need the list where I’m looking at it for other purposes. But I say don’t don’t, don’t rush to think unduly about that. Just park that as a thought.
Speaker4: Right. But when you.
Mark Anderson: When you, when we dismantle something we may at some point need to consider what we’re doing with that information object, whether we’re removing it or whether we’re copying it.
Speaker4: Sorry.
Frode Hegland: That’s exactly what we are discussing now. So I think that is an important point. Now, where should we write down ideas for next? Because I think Mark has a point. We currently have detach, which is fantastic. We should also have something like detach and keep in place or copy. These are definite, you know Andrew in your to do list. Why don’t you write down to have both types.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah I think that would be good. Maybe like a clone option clone and detach instead of just detach. Which that’s absolutely on track. That was one of the things I wanted anyways. Not under the term clone. I hadn’t thought of that yet, but yes.
Mark Anderson: I mean, no, it’s a it’s a problem isn’t it, that it all seems simpler then you look. Well, yes, but is it a copy or is it a clone? So when I edit this, am I editing the original? You know. But yeah. No, I think that’s I think that’s entirely pertinent. I mean, in the case of, in the case as it happens here references, most likely you’re either going to copy or remove it. You’re copying because you want to put it somewhere else or or maybe you’re moving it out because you actually, you may be filleting down a list and then you’re going to take the remain. In other words, you’re you’re taking out the ones you don’t want and then taking the other 300 or something. So that which is one way of sort of putting a list so that that all seems very pertinent. So thank you.
Speaker4: Yeah.
Frode Hegland: We need to think about these names. None of them are actually copy yet. Like a copy isn’t part of it yet. So I think we’ve agreed that it’s really nice to detach is where you lift the item as we have now. And you leave an empty space, or that empty space gets moved together, which will be slightly more elegant then we have
Frode Hegland: Clone. Which moves out and leaves original. And then we should also have copy, because any items or list should be copyable, whether it’s actually going to work now or not. And there is a second consideration. But those are. And then finally, I think Mark is suggesting either a hide or delete in that list. That’s definitely useful.
Andrew Thompson: So right now we have since I don’t want to remove the base citation block just for testing, because that’s all we have interactions based on you can remove the, the pop up references. So those have a different menu. You can remove those. And then when you detach leaving that gap is intentional because you can reattach and it’ll slide back into place. If you close the gap, you can no longer reattach it because like, where’s it going to go? Is it going to go back down to the bottom?
Speaker4: No, no, it’ll.
Frode Hegland: Go to the same location. It’ll open it up again.
Andrew Thompson: Okay.
Frode Hegland: But. Okay. Let’s. Yeah, I think that would make sense. But the other thing is, okay, let’s not have a delete. But I do think hide would be good at this point.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah. No, I’m saying like you’re correct. Having a delete or hide would be great. It’s just right now that would just end the experience. No no.
Speaker4: No what I mean, so in.
Andrew Thompson: The future, once we have a way of pulling up citation blocks, that’s absolutely something we need.
Frode Hegland: Okay, let’s see if we’re on the same virtual page here. I think what Mark is saying is that and this is what I’m saying, if I point to a specific item in the list and I select hide.
Speaker4: Then okay, the.
Frode Hegland: Item should no longer be visible and the gap should disappear.
Andrew Thompson: I missed that. I thought you were talking about the whole thing. That’s my bad. Okay, so let’s hide the individual citation lines in case you don’t want them.
Frode Hegland: Yeah. I think this is a phenomenally wonderful discussion, because what we’re talking about here is any entity selected should have the maximum amount of useful interactions, but not too many, obviously. So all items should be copyable, all items should be hideable. And so we’re just by playing around, we’re beginning to introduce a vocabulary, which is really wonderful. Now also quite soon, what I would like is the ability to show and hide those lines.
Speaker4: Ideally.
Frode Hegland: Right now, I think the line should only appear when we highlight.
Frode Hegland: Highlight what produces the lights.
Andrew Thompson: That’s a good idea. I can do.
Speaker4: That.
Brandel Zachernuk: Forgive me for for not doing the homework, but I’m I. I didn’t follow how when it was when I wasn’t in it, I wasn’t it didn’t follow what one does to actually address so I can touch my wrist. I can’t do anything with that panel. In terms of, like, a curl and a finger guns or anything. So what are the things that you do in this world, Brian?
Frode Hegland: I’m going to let Rob. Excuse me. I’m going to let Andrew answer that. But the thing is, don’t say I didn’t do your homework. This isn’t available until the meeting. So for us to do it together is actually perfect.
Speaker4: Okay.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah. So the the radial menu thing you’re looking at that prism thing that’s a bit outdated at this point, but you can interact with it by touching it with your index finger of the hand that doesn’t have the sphere, it’s only supports one hand right now. Just for ease of implementation. Okay. The only thing on there you really need to care about is the slider. And that’s just distance. Mostly for testing. Right now, the main things we are interacting with today is the sort of selector dot, which is a pinch end point.
Brandel Zachernuk: Is it possible to assign label information to these things?
Andrew Thompson: Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I just didn’t do it because it’s all for debug I understand. But yeah, I when we make an actual menu of course I’ll put labels there.
Speaker4: Oh cool.
Brandel Zachernuk: Okay. So so so the main point of this one that you said is finger. Is it, is it three fingers. Yeah.
Andrew Thompson: It’s specifically the sort of point interaction. So right now it’s three finger curl and then it just kind of acts like a regular selector dot.
Speaker4: Okay. I’m not seeing any action.
Andrew Thompson: It only works on the hand that doesn’t have the sphere. Once again, I only put it on one hand. Yeah. And then.
Dene Grigar: It’s.
Andrew Thompson: Gonna not come out of the pointer finger. It’s going to kind of project based on between the two fingers.
Brandel Zachernuk: I see, so the the orb is on the wrist menu is on my left.
Speaker4: Okay.
Andrew Thompson: So then you’d use your right hand. Yeah, that’s that would be the gesture. And then sort of bring your two fingers together and use the average of those two to point. It’ll start to make sense once you see the dots show up.
Brandel Zachernuk: Okay, I’m not saying that.
Andrew Thompson: Are you pointing at the text?
Speaker4: The hypertext matter.
Brandel Zachernuk: History.
Andrew Thompson: The big citation. Menu.
Speaker9: Oh, is it needs to be horizontal.
Andrew Thompson: Yes. I’m sorry.
Brandel Zachernuk: Okay. So so so there are three conditions. There’s three finger curl. And it needs to be horizontal because it doesn’t work like this.
Andrew Thompson: Yes, because it’s projecting. Yeah, that makes sense.
Brandel Zachernuk: It I see, I see. Okay, cool. Cool.
Speaker4: Yeah. If you had.
Brandel Zachernuk: Feedback, sort of transitional feedback toward that action, then it would be easier to guide people into what it’s doing.
Andrew Thompson: Originally we did but we removed all of the lasers and gesture stuff. So it’s just the dot at this point, so you can’t really tell you’re turning it on or off. Which was one of my concerns going into this change. But perhaps as a group, we can figure out a solution for that.
Brandel Zachernuk: Yeah. So I mean, one of the things that, as you’ve seen in the metal world is that there is a persistent pointer vector emanating from between your thumb and forefinger that they’ve put a lot of work into maintaining stability of, so that you have an idea of if or whenever you’re pointing that the pointing direction is going to be this. And that’s really useful because it means that you have a really consistent mechanism and mode for for pointing that is idiomatic on the platform. And one of the challenges with supporting something that’s cross-platform between Meta and Apple is that what’s idiomatic on Apple is eyes and hands, which we have support for in visionOS of 1.1. You, if you’ve seen that if there’s no 1.1 actually has what’s called transient endpoint, transient transient input available, there’s a the blog post that I wrote for webkit.org should be going up in the next few days. But what it means is that you get the pinch ray, you get you get the selection ray. That comes from where your eyes are looking in a given moment, and you look somewhere and you pinch and you get where that pinch is, but you also get where your eyes are pointing, which is pretty special. So that that could be a useful thing to integrate, but you would need to be testing that on a, on a visionOS device, because that’s one of the places where the idioms and the metaphors of selection are fundamentally irreconcilable, based on the capabilities of the two sets of devices. But yeah, I strongly encourage feedback like even at the cost of simplicity like feedback, uncertainty for people, because most people are going to be less familiar with what this is. And so giving them the clues rather than making it beautiful for the people who are more experienced, is generally going to be better.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah, we still have the the laser and all of that. In the code, it just got commented out because. People wanted to see it without that. So perhaps we can discuss a way of And this is like more of a fraud comment because I know you really didn’t want the laser. But maybe, like a smaller laser or something like that. That still points in the direction. Why didn’t you.
Brandel Zachernuk: On the laser?
Frode Hegland: Because I think they’re absolutely horrible things.
Speaker4: I.
Brandel Zachernuk: That’s I hear what you’re saying.
Speaker4: I.
Brandel Zachernuk: Haven’t.
Frode Hegland: You haven’t yet. You haven’t heard yet what I’m saying.
Brandel Zachernuk: Well, then you didn’t say it yet. It would be great for you to be more substantive in your response.
Frode Hegland: Randall. It was just the beginning of a sentence.
Speaker4: And you could have begun it better. I think is an.
Brandel Zachernuk: Important thing for.
Speaker4: And it’s.
Brandel Zachernuk: Pejorative to begin with something like horrible. It’s just an encouragement. I think that something that you have the vocabulary to be able to do better on. So please go ahead.
Dene Grigar: I’m so sorry I missed that exchange. Brandon. What? What was said?
Brandel Zachernuk: It does. Protocol, something horrible. And I don’t think it was a constructive opening gambit.
Speaker4: Okay.
Brandel Zachernuk: So please try again.
Frode Hegland: I think it would be wise to move on to something else. This is supposed to be an unrecorded open forum. We were talking about an interaction. Not a company, not a person, not an institution, not a flavor of food.
Dene Grigar: Can I recommend something? We’re all right. I’m going to step in as the only woman in the room, and I feel like the emotional load is usually on us. And I’m happy to take that load today in this group. So this team, these people that have donated their time today for two hours to talk to us. Sometimes things bother us. And it’s important, as I see us as a family, right? We all have to have each other’s backs and we all have to listen to each other, right? And if Randall has a concern, then we need to directly address that. And you have a right to respond to that. But certainly we don’t just gloss over it. I’ve been sitting in faculty meetings. Let me just finish. I’ve been sitting in faculty meetings all my life, and I there’s there’s productive ones and there’s unproductive ones. And when they’re unproductive, things fester. And then things blow up and people leave. They quit the department, they go to another job. I don’t want to see that happen. We can’t lose any of you. You’re all important. So, Brandel, your concern was he used the word horrible, and it’s. And it was not a productive word for talking about the apple experience. Frodo. We won’t do that.
Speaker4: I think so, yeah.
Brandel Zachernuk: Yes, it was about. It was about the word horrible. It wasn’t about the Apple experience at all. It was. It was about the And I. My apologies. It may seem excessive because I do also understand that what you’re saying was often I would strongly encourage you, nevertheless, to to try to be a little bit more substantive and constructive in the framing of your feedback, because one of the challenges of candid feedback is that it’s always also productive and constructive. That doesn’t need mean positive, but it does mean actionable and and concrete in terms of what it actually what what it’s in reference to. And, you know, one thing that I can say about Apple culture and other creative cultures that I’ve been in before is that when people are giving critical feedback, it is like they can be crushing with it, but if they also have the capacity to be concrete in their crushing, then it leads much more immediately to positive outcomes. And so again, like, I totally understand that what you are saying was, I don’t enjoy the experience of having these rays consistently present. The thing that I was would have liked to have been able to kind of respond with is that it is useful feedback. And so it would be valuable for us to find a mechanism that allows people to bridge from one sort of category or classification of use into the next, and have those kinds of things configurable. What Andrew was suggesting is that you, you make some system where it’s simply smaller. My encouragement would be to understand that a user of a system exists on a continuum and a journey, and make sure that we have either, you know punctuated points within the user interface that allow people to have those training wheels taken off by default, or to have some kind of configurable system, and to the end of not having the label based feedback on the user panel, I think it would be well worth everybody’s time to invest in something that is sort of extensible enough to be able to support those modalities and those options to provide the the immediate feedback and information so that they have the ability to know one what’s happening next, to have a sort of tutorial mode sort of baked into the system that’s very successful for a lot of game development, but also for to be able to kind of give sort of customizable mode status indications of what kind of customized mode you happen to be in today, rather than using a series of arcane gestures in order to be able to configure that.
Brandel Zachernuk: So there are a few things in there. Some of it is to do with sort of alone. Some of it is more to do with my, my preference of a learnable system and where I would expect that the, the broad base of users within this, within the sort of the context and the timeline of this experiment and exploration. Yeah. My goal was to be able to get to a point where we could talk about those things rather than begin with merely something, saying something as horrible. And I just, I just call it out to say, like, I would love for people to be cognizant that people are I suggested that as well. And so to hear that it is possible is a little insulting. And again, I understand that it’s that it was offhand, I would just prefer that you try to think a little bit more about the context in which those comments sort of land, even as they are the first sort of introductions.
Dene Grigar: So in a creative critique, in what we teach in our program, right, because we do creative critiques and all of the work we do. And so what does that mean? How do we teach people to create, to critique in a way that’s useful? And we, in my creative critiques that teach students are never allowed to use I like, I like, I like, or this is good, it’s good or bad or bu they have to say this works because this doesn’t work in this context. They have to contextualize what they’re saying, and they don’t evaluate necessarily from the perspective of I. So in other words, if they’re looking at like what Andrew has done this morning from the perspective of the way I use the hardware in my office, it’s much more likened to that. And that’s for me, that’s useful. Right. And I could see moving forward in this direction, it’s very, very useful. There are things that can be enhanced, but certainly we’re on the right track because. Right. So if we can catch things from that perspective, then we will move forward faster. And we’re not just making an opinion that is just locked in something that’s in our head. Andrew has his hands up.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah. Listening to everyone I kind of got a bit of an idea that may. Work for both. For the laser thing. It’s pretty easy just to detect if the user hasn’t pointed at anything in a while and like some set amount of time and have the laser kind of like fade in. So maybe by default the laser is there and you start pointing at stuff and the laser just sort of fades out. You just have the cursor dot, and as long as you’re proficient in the software, you’ll be consistently pointing at things and the laser will never show up. But if you’re sitting there lost and you don’t know where your hand’s pointing, sure enough you haven’t pointed at something in five seconds or something. The line slowly shows up. And all is right in the world. The one downside I could see is if you’re trying to just read and you don’t want the laser, and then, like, you have your hands down, and then the laser kind of fades in, that’d be a little obnoxious. Maybe there’s a turn off training wheels setting somewhere in the menu, but By default. I think that’d be useful.
Brandel Zachernuk: Yeah. So so I was what you’re saying is that the laser was, was was persistently present no matter what. Right. So that’s definitely just visual noise to Mark’s point earlier in the week is that, that when you don’t when you don’t have any sort of intention to use it, then I can definitely concede that that’s not a constructive thing to have present in the world. And so, so I’m totally with with you there. I think that what’s, what would be successful is, like I said, and we can we can kind of go through it. But using that pose distance to, to kind of model something because state is broadly reflective of the pose distance, I find to be a pretty successful thing. And again, you can go back to the meta UI where there’s that sort of that sort of trapezoidal or conic rounded cone that, that sort of squeezes and, and like, it starts as a, as a very wide cone and sharpens to a point at such time as the pointing has, has occurred. So I would strongly recommend that I think that’s, that’s that would be a much more successful because you have, you have an indicator, you see sort of functionally the pose distance to these things.
Brandel Zachernuk: And then you have the, the germane details of what it actually constitutes. As it, as a selection action only at the time when it’s relevant. We can also work on making that more beautiful. So I also take your point that the single vertex line is not a wonderful experience. Again, something that can be taken from the meta experiences that they have a box geometry effectively that has a vignette from, you know, transparent from opaque to transparent. Along that line you can make it a single ray, or you can make it something that flares out like that. So, so there are there are a number of things that we can do in order to improve the quality of life. I would also recommend using a better light. I inconsistently was receiving what was was inconsistently sort of going between having one directional light or two, it seemed directional light or dark directional light of intensity 1 or 2. I would strongly recommend using an image based light, one that actually generally cheaper. And two, they they give you the ability to, to confer a much more rich environment. They can be compatible, but they’re not necessary to include with with an image, with an environment map so that you’d have the ability to, to have it sort of relate to the environment as, as somebody actually sees around them.
Brandel Zachernuk: But if you don’t have the wherewithal to construct one or you don’t want to do that, you can download them from a website like Poly haven.com, royalty free all of the ones that come with blender. So that would be a strong recommendation. I would also, I mean, I you may have a rationale for it, but I would prefer I would prefer to see the entire mesh hands, the Oculus hands rather than the ball hands, and just find those to be a lot easier to be able to cope with. In terms of an indication of what my, my actions are, if this is hand tracked, then, you know, making sure that those hands do the job of what what you mean them to be would be would be a really constructive thing to do. And if you’re running into problems with you shouldn’t run into problems with either with performance either on quest or on on Vision Pro by using those. But yeah, like the web examples should be relatively straightforward. If not, then my boilerplate actually has.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah, I’ve been using.
Brandel Zachernuk: The.
Andrew Thompson: The joints just because it was easier for programing. I could see which joint was where and I could calculate distance easier. So it was, it was fully just for testing. So the.
Brandel Zachernuk: Joints still exist using the mesh hands, you go like you know what? The hands get up, get object by name, index, fingertip. It’s those those things still exist.
Andrew Thompson: I know they’re still there. I’m just saying, visually, it was easier for me to develop. But I think you’re right. It’s probably about time to swap them over because we’re starting to get base gestures more locked in. I know they’re not finished, but so I need less access to them now.
Speaker4: Yeah. Yeah.
Brandel Zachernuk: So I mean again, you know, modality modalities and clear sort of UI feedback settings panels, these are these are tremendously valuable things. I would not I would not consider that to be excessive like overhead to have the ability to have some kind of configurable settings panel that also calls itself out as such, you know, a settings icon, a little gear icon. These kinds of things are, are, you know, the common commonplace in everybody’s kind of experience of systems these days. And so I don’t I don’t think it would be too scary to have an additional panel that’s called out like that. If you want some extra help making these spatial interfaces. There’s a really great library called you’ll, it’s purely canvas based so that you can so that you can you kind of construct new panels and input tabs and stuff like that. It doesn’t quite work with webXR out of the box, but there are a couple of tweaks that I’d be happy to share in order to make it work. But, you know, it’s as you may have noticed while building that settings panel. Like once you have a sort of a schema like, I want a slider, I want it to go from here to here, and I want to want I want pinches to to to undertake this action. I mean, it’s not that hard to extend if you have sort of you know, a common kind of lexicon for those things and have the ability to, to, to, to move those objects around. So it’s up to you as to which, which way you approach it. But yeah. Like having a way that allows you to easily add slider panel and have a label that has the ability to update with information as a result of interactions with it. Is is you know, not only worthwhile, but but I would consider sort of a vital piece of the infrastructure for being able to contain something just it just saves you some. Yeah.
Andrew Thompson: That’s that’s been the plan for the, the prism menu. That’s what that’s for. I only have so many hours each week and I’m the only one working on it. So I try to prioritize what the group wants to see each week. I agree having a menu with a bunch of settings would be fabulous. I want you to. I don’t have the time.
Dene Grigar: For rest of your life. Just this. You sleep, no eat nothing.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah. So if people want that as like the next priority, I can do that. It just kind of depends on where people want me to go each week. But I think this is a solid vote in that direction.
Speaker4: Cool.
Brandel Zachernuk: Like, take that, take this. For what it’s worth, I’m not obviously paying your bills. And I’m not technically involved in the project. I. But but these are the things that I would do, not just for making it making it nice, but also making it nice for me as a developer.
Speaker4: Yeah.
Brandel Zachernuk: I love.
Andrew Thompson: Your feedback. It is. It really is fabulous. I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m dismissing it because I think it’s it is great and I. I agree with that.
Speaker4: That’s all I got from this. So I’m sure.
Brandel Zachernuk: My apologies if I annoyed anybody.
Andrew Thompson: I give you Mark you’re muted still.
Mark Anderson: I press the right button I do. No I do like this idea of having a varying degree of metadata or labeling whatever, because I’m just reminded that actually even when you used to a tool, it’s quite easy to actually get lost slightly. And it’s better to have it’s nice to have something then just turn it off and on again, completely to just basically, you know, reset yourself in terms of, you know, what you’re interacting with. In other words, you may want to show a bit more of the training rails, just enough to put your focus back. And it was interesting listening to the discussion. I totally get your point about, well, actually showing the the sort of the nodal points in the hand for the programing, and that did occur to me that that actually might also prove useful, possibly in some of the training stuff. So if you want people to make a particular gesture, which you’re not used to having the, having the, the sort of nodal points of separate things might make it easier to indicate when something has effectively been recognized as a gesture.
Mark Anderson: So as part of the learning thing of course, you could do it with a whole projected hand and color that. But it strikes me it’s probably more expressive to the learner, so. Oh, right. So these fingers are right. I’ve got it now, you know, I and then you sort of you pretty quickly learn. That’s the kind of thing I think we internalize quite quickly. But you can sail really close to the right position. And if you didn’t get some quite innocent, quite visible feedback, you wouldn’t know. So that I think is another interesting plus there for potentially where where needed, being able to shade in and out of that. I mean I presume listening to what Brandon’s been saying that it’s it’s sort of in a sense it’s, it’s a headset, it’s another but it’s a setting somewhere that the one can, one can change if needed. And I but I totally take I too, totally take your points about showing the hands as they are at the moment, because I can see that does make a little easier for you to see where things are.
Speaker4: Thanks.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah, I realize also we’re in a very unique situation where We’re ultimately building a prototype even in the end. So when we show this off we don’t need a full blown tutorial, even though that would be nice if the development time would rather be put towards features or whatnot. Because we will be actually standing next to the person and just being like, yeah, put your hand like this. Like, that’s so much faster. That would not be an end goal, but that would be if, say, September rolls around and we’re don’t have a nice polished tutorial yet. It is not the end of the world. Luckilly.
Mark Anderson: An interesting observation came out from something Fabian said on Monday, which was unsurprisingly, he’s a great advert. He’s a great he’s a you know, likes, likes to sort of have lots of lots of demos and often but he made the point and write a bit about them. One of the things that did reflect to me, having written more documentation with the small D than I would like over time, is that basically you only know you’re doing it right when people stop complaining, and sometimes they never do. But what I really take from that is that even with time and practice, that providing the right information, the right minimal information at the start is often remarkably difficult, not least of which normally because when you’re writing it, you know how the wretched thing works. And so what it’s really difficult to hold on to is what is not obvious. Like, you know if I’m supposed to be standing up and I have to be sitting down, but I didn’t know that’s not something I would think to point out. So there may be there may be some useful practice for us in a sense. I don’t I don’t conceive this in terms of being extra homework, but thinking how to do this in a way that doesn’t, so it doesn’t become extra homework, but practicing this sort of necessary and sufficient onboarding. Because you’re absolutely right. Whilst we will have someone around to show them there is this interesting thing of what what you need to know sort of inside the environment, whether that’s being spoken in your ear or maybe shown to you in a panel and what can be spoken to you from outside the environment, because the latter is limited by unless they’re seeing a mirror of your view, they’re obviously not experiencing the thing. And some says it’s sort of knowing, so which things are which confusions are to do with where you are in relation to something else and which is. No, no, just press the red button. Got it? Thanks.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah, absolutely. And we want to make it as adaptable as possible to as many situations like sitting versus standing. That was one we came across pretty early on. And it, it should at least it works now. But it’s, you know, not polished but it does adjust when you stand up. So little things like that that isn’t assumed at first. Like I didn’t consider a swap between standing and sitting when I started. It seems so obvious now. That’s partially the user stories will come in. And then, like especially all the testing we get every week, it’s fabulous.
Speaker4: Yeah, totally.
Brandel Zachernuk: So one of the things that that sort of brings to mind is the having. So we talked a little bit about jigs. Not sure if you were in the room at the time on Monday, but something that would be really something that is really useful to have as a, as a jig, as a, as a ready to hand solution is a dialog box or something that has the ability to kind of reflect information about something or other, and it just means that you have a very easy thing to throw information in at a time when it’s relevant based on a debug level, you know, and assertion is a term. I’m not sure if you’ve studied software engineering as well as sort of computer programing in sort of a artistic context. But in software engineering, assertions are are a critical component where you assert the most basic things about the nature of data flow or execution stability. You know, if you’re if you’re managing, we don’t call them semaphores anymore, but asynchronous sort of data flows, things like that. So so, so having the capacity for doing sort of dialog boxes, debug information and being able to kind of make very easy snap decisions about, well, you know, this isn’t relevant for everybody, but it’s worth it for somebody who is in debug level two to have that information. That is useful, that that kind of thing has a great deal of benefit when you’re trying to track down like, oh, why isn’t this working? Oh, it’s because the system thinks I’m sitting because I’m in a chair, but it’s a little bit taller than usual, and I’ve got this set up so that it’s only working like.
Brandel Zachernuk: Or it thinks my hand is vertical versus horizontal. I think I was wrong about that. I think it did work, but it’s just that the deflection angle is so much farther to the left when I have my hand held oriented vertically than horizontally that I wasn’t able to successfully target it. But again, like transient non-persistent, even if debug ray would help ameliorate that and get people used to what what direction it’s going to be going in, because right now we’re only. Yeah. So, so yeah I just you know, can’t recommend heartily enough. Like, they don’t need to be beautiful. They don’t need to be fast, but they just they need to be ready to hand in order to make sure that they don’t cross, because no one of them is going to cross your threshold of frustration for like, oh, I really need to build the system to be able to get this information up. In a way that means that I can make an assessment about what’s how it’s contributing positively or negatively to my to the flow of my experience. But but, you know, take that to mean that, like, they all get so close to one that it’s worth recognizing that cumulative effect of not having them and being able to make a determination on that basis, that those problems become more prevalent as the system becomes more sophisticated, not less.
Andrew Thompson: Yeah, this is a bit of a topic jump. So if anyone has a response to brand, all you guys go first. Okay. This topic jumped backwards in.
Frode Hegland: Response to my response to Brandel is. To be very clear, I’m in shock. I am very, very upset. I’m literally shaking. I’ve been shaking for the last ten minutes. I am not used to as an adult to be told how to speak. I am not used to as an adult be interrupted. I expect expressed an emotion on an interaction. I didn’t insult you, Randall, nor anybody specific to me. The lines feel horrible. I don’t understand in this warm and loving community why it’s not okay to say that. And what I’m trying to say is. You know where I see you not being happy with this. Me saying this to Annie. And you know, you.
Dene Grigar: Know, I’ve been I’ve been texting with you for the past ten minutes about why we don’t have these kind of conversations like this. I’ve been trying really hard to get it across to, to to you that an effective conversation among equals. Is to. Use language that is helpful for moving things forward and not making a proclamation that seems to be something that we should all agree with. Like I don’t agree with. Horrible. And okay.
Frode Hegland: Danny, why are you can I can I please finish? Right when I made the prop and I have seen your text, you have also pointed out things I’ve said earlier that you were unhappy with. So I understand that. I apologize for that. But in this community, I mean, if I said, Randall, you’re horrible or the vision is horrible, that would be one thing, right? But my visceral reaction to lasers coming out of my hands, it feels horrible. Right? Why do you take that? As I’ll keep talking for a bit. First of all, rhetorical question and then real question. Why do you feel that is being such a horrible thing to say, right? If if it was something that someone had ownership over or that’s one thing. But also, you know, Dean is saying it as though I expect us all to share that. Absolutely not. I mean, Mark and me disagree on most things in the world, and we have very strong discussions on that in different ways. You know, we try to have a very good demeanor in the group. And I mean, Randall, I care for you a lot, right? Dearly. And, you know, we have an important job. It’s very relevant to this. You did start this whole community going down this route when you very often come late to the meetings. I don’t ignore that. I actively inform you what what we’ve gone through because I value you so much. Right. I understand you’re late. That is not an insult to you that I’m saying it now, Dean, I see your facial expressions. Please.
Speaker4: This is.
Frode Hegland: This is my demonstration of my respect for Randall, right? There’s no reason anybody should be on time for this meetings. People can’t do that. And that’s absolutely fine. I just mean to indicate that I tried to do things to make him in particular because of this situation, very valued in the group. And when it comes to the use of language, you know, it is it’s to be frank, honest and clear. I don’t know when it comes to this kind of stuff. If I’m going to be able to be more kind of politically correct, right. I wouldn’t say anything truly bad about someone, but if something feels horrible, it it truly doesn’t. I don’t mean to project a bad thing for that, and I’m entire. The discussion you’ve had for the last ten minutes is entirely valuable. But my perspective on something feeling horrible at a certain point, or whatever word it is, it isn’t meant to quieten discussion. It’s meant to encourage the discussion. As in, you asked me. You asked me why I didn’t like that interaction. I wanted to explain the reasons why and I never got to it over. Why did this feel so bad to you, Randall?
Speaker4: Well.
Brandel Zachernuk: So my so in the in the in the context as I read it, I had gone through a few minutes of explaining why I think it is valuable to have ray input. My recollection of your response was that that you said that they are horrible, rather than that they happen to feel horrible in this specific instance. And I then tried to encourage you to to reach for a more substantive response. I would also say like, I agree, it’s not necessary to be to be sugarcoating, but I think that it would be valuable and in everybody’s interests for you to have done a little bit more work with with regard to clarifying what your substantive response is about, why it makes you feel horrible, so absolutely valid. You know, you don’t want to ignore those feelings. What I think would be really constructive for you to be able to do is spend a little bit of time. I literally do this in a notes document. I go like, why don’t I like this? And I try to describe it.
Speaker4: I tried to.
Brandel Zachernuk: I describe.
Speaker4: I don’t mean.
Frode Hegland: To, I don’t mean to cut you off. But when this happened as well, I do mean to cut you off. I was trying to do that. It was just the beginning. It is horrible. And I was going to try to do because. And it wasn’t just as horrible, you know, mic drop that that was the that was the point of this. And, you know, I don’t want to waste our time talking about personalities and wording and all of that stuff, but I do think it is important.
Speaker4: Yeah. Okay.
Frode Hegland: Danny, I’m sorry for interrupting. Brandel. Look. Okay. I felt that I was interrupted when I said that, which is kind of the point. All right. Okay.
Speaker4: Yeah.
Brandel Zachernuk: I was trying to to to get you off onto a better foot. And what I felt like the conversation did was it went into a doubling down onto the, the intrinsic value of a, of a thing that I would really love to encourage people into moving beyond in terms of their immediate responses. And I do think that it is valuable for folks to be able to, to, to, to get straight off the cuff with those kinds of things. A feedback session actually does work better when people have the capacity and the wherewithal to do a little bit more of that work ahead of the the head of the space. There’s a difference between what you want to say and what people need to hear.
Frode Hegland: Yeah, but, Brandel, I did feel.
Speaker4: Look, I’m.
Frode Hegland: Not a computer scientist. I’m seeing my advisors on Friday. The PhD is not going through. It’s not going to happen. I am an artist by background, right? I have a degree from Chelsea School of Art. That’s where I come from. I am an artistic demeanor person. I am not logical and intelligent like you are. We all need to figure out our different.
Speaker4: Ways to.
Frode Hegland: Work together. Demonstrably true. But the point is that.
Speaker4: But I’m.
Frode Hegland: Sorry. It has to be that if someone says an emotional thing and as long as they don’t just say the emotional thing and stop, and it’s an insult as long as they qualified. And I was trying and I felt interrupted. I really think in the way that you are logical and clear, that that kind of voice should be okay, right? I didn’t say, Brandel, what you said is horrible. My experience with using the quest and having these laser things is what I think is horrible, and I was trying to explain that. Right. So to be shut down, the thing here, I mean, Brandel, first of all, you started this. Thank God you did right. I think the work we’re doing is important. It’s exciting. It’s also quite stressful thinking through the issues of what’s at stake here is a huge fucking deal, right? Yeah. So the emotions will come in here, you know, and people some of us here have well kind of all of us have spent some time together. I will make an effort to not use too much provocative language. I will make an effort. But I cannot promise not to do that, because that is my. That is who I am.
Speaker4: Right. I also know.
Brandel Zachernuk: We need to give ourselves the room for that.
Frode Hegland: I also have a problem with resting bitch face. Right. That’s what the kids call it. It has come up a few times recently where people think I’m angry when I’m not. Right? Right now I am a little bit agitated, but I think there is enough love and respect and there’s room to move beyond this. So what I hope we will do is both try to be careful with language, but also. It is a bit of a treasure to be told how to speak, right? So I apologize for being triggered by it. I hope it can move on. I hope we can, you know, remove the finger pointing laser thing and the conversation and get back on track where we’re talking, so I will make an effort.
Dene Grigar: I’d like to add that we’re all volunteers here, and in my experience, at any time that I’m working in a situation where I’m on a board, like the electronic literature organization where everybody’s volunteering time. Or symphony or whatever it is I’m on. Goodwill has got to stand, right? And. I do want us to follow some protocols. It’d be so important for us to be respectful. So the interruption issue is a big one, right? And being able to Be careful with our language, not just say the first thing that comes out of our mouths. And Brandon, Brandon, I think the the point is well taken that we’re getting this these builds by Andrew, and we’re looking at them in real time during the meeting and just kind of responding to them immediately. And we do this in our design classes. Right? We do have these design critiques in the moment. At the same time, when we start these design critiques, you know, we’re very thoughtful about how we go about it. There’s a process, and we teach that process at the beginning of the semester. And so I think we want to maybe step back and think about as we’re putting that headset on and looking at this, what are the questions we want to be asking? You know, what are we trying to answer here? And how do we move this project forward as opposed to what is my gut feeling? I’m always looking. Whenever I put the Vision Pro on, it’s always, wow, this is really cool, right? This is this is what I want or this is what I want to see differently. But it might not be the same reaction as other people. So I think we want to couch our language within a confines of expressions that might be useful going forward. Keeping in mind that all of us are smart and froda. You don’t know about that PhD yet, and even if you don’t get it and you decide not to pursue it, it doesn’t matter. Because I don’t think everybody in this room has a PhD.
Frode Hegland: I’m not worried about the PhD. It is annoying, but you know, that’s that. Now, I think there is something really important here, and it really goes to the core of what we’re trying to do.
Speaker4: When I show.
Frode Hegland: Something that I’ve done and it’s criticized and in a non-super ridiculously nice way, I can very easily be offended by that. I think Brando felt that I was that what I was talking about was his perspective on what was being presented. And for me then to say, that’s horrible.
Speaker4: That will be.
Frode Hegland: Completely out of.
Speaker4: Line.
Frode Hegland: So I think what we need to because we do need to deepen and grow the dialog here. It is very, very crucial that we all feel free to talk. And thinking about it that way. Randall, I think we need to just make it clear to all of us that we’re going to be critical over our own feelings and how things are going on, how we feel about certain things, about interactions and all of that. But I don’t see anybody criticizing either other people or their work in this community.
Brandel Zachernuk: I didn’t take it that way. I was it was an explicit attempt on my part to police your language. And I stand by it.
Dene Grigar: Okay, so Mark has his hand up.
Mark Anderson: I do, I do have my hand up. And I was just I was just going to say, I think, funnily enough, I’m trying to get better at looking things before time, but I really appreciate the ability to look at them in time, because normally, as I’ve done yet again today, that doesn’t seem to be working. And my my, I’m learning over time. This is only because I’m doing it wrong. But that’s interesting in the sense of why am I doing it wrong? Is it, you know, do I have the wrong perspective or am I, you know, just pressing wrong button. But but I really I really like the opportunity actually to do this. When Andrew’s here, partly because I’m really conscious of I’m doing another project at the moment and I keep saying I want to meet up face to face because you’ve asked for some feedback on something, and I’ve been where you are. And I know that if you read everything I want to tell you, it’s going to feel like someone’s just taking all your homework done this. And that is explicitly not what I’m trying to do. It’s much easier to build something and then, you know, have I understood this correctly or what I see from this? And I think in the sort of loops back to what Brandon was saying, and I certainly regard myself as as corrective as well, actually, in the sense that, yes a sort of trying to sort of hold on to that practice of just it’s, it’s often about perspective in which you place the comment when you’re trying, when trying to critique things and I, I will put my hand up and say, I’m often really, really bad at that and I need to do better.
Frode Hegland: So, Mark, that’s the thing. There is nothing to do before the session because Andrew makes the work available right before the session. So to come in and put it on your head and try it in dialog with Andrew is actually our work and it’s actually good.
Mark Anderson: Sorry. What I meant was that what I try and do is at least sort of just make sure it opens so that I’m not taking other people’s time saying, where’s the start button? So that’s what I meant. I mean, not that I’ve necessarily spent hours in it, but it just says, okay, I’ve got the right demo. I’ve seen that and at the moment, anyway, they’re sort of simple enough that you can actually get a, you know, just a few minutes. We’ll give you, give you some sense. But then I then I think it puts me. I’m not saying I expect everyone to do it. I’m trying to do it because I think it puts me in a position where I can make hopefully more, if I dare I say, more intelligent questions arising arising from it. Because I’m looking back, I tended to be asking, how does how do I make it stop?
Frode Hegland: Look still, as Andrew saying that is the testing now including ha, that is part of the testing. So it is absolutely not a waste of time. What? Okay, so when it comes to the laser discussion I think the graduated discussion you had is totally fine. We need to test these things further and see how it goes. I have a preference against weird things going out of my fingers, but, you know, I think you solved that pretty much in terms of how we’re going to be experimenting with it. We don’t have that much time left. Are there other points on Andrew’s demo? Andrew, specifically, do you have questions on things you want or do you have enough to work on, etc.?
Andrew Thompson: I have a big list of like, little things people want to see implemented. So unless anyone has like a specific, larger direction they want me to go on. I’ll probably just work on those. Try to add some, like more minor additions to the pop up menu for now and then. The try to tinker a bit with the lines and then a whole bunch of other, like, little things. If I’ve run out of main stuff to do I’d love to work on the menu a bit. The prism menu clear out a bunch of the debug stuff, and then I’m thinking of like a debug mode or something based on the discussion we had here where it’s just like you can toggle that on or off, but it just shows a whole bunch of. Things that I want to see when developing, but you don’t want to see in the final product. Things like the access on the floor and the center point and maybe the hands with the joints and all those things. Just switch them on and off with a setting. Whether or not that stays into the presented version or not, we will see. That’s the direction I’m going. Anyone have anything they want to add?
Dene Grigar: Mark has his hand up.
Mark Anderson: Just just just a short one. And I’ll preface it by saying this is not a critique of this not happening in the past, but something I’m also interested to hear about is, in a sense what’s not working or what’s proved to be unexpected. Difficult. Not not not necessarily just in the actual programing, but almost in the sort of the, almost the informational level. So it’s between the experience and the environment and the actual code. So in other words, and have we got the right building blocks or would it be it would be easier to do what we want to do if we were able to interact with the source material in different way? I only ask that because I think that’s something that I can I can help with, you know, providing you with better materials. So I suppose the point is, if you do come across that, by all means note it down and it will it will be taken away and hopefully acted on. But thank you.
Andrew Thompson: Nice. And one thing we could potentially look into, not immediately, but in the future along that route would be preparing a almost like a fake document in the style of the ACM papers that acts as a tutorial. So it loads that document in and then the content of that document explains what to do to the document, and that opens up citations, which then explain what they are and what to do, things like that that might be useful. We just use the work, the tools we already have.
Mark Anderson: Yeah, yeah. And email me or DM me if there’s anything particular you’d like, and I’ll try and make a stop on that for you.
Speaker4: When it.
Frode Hegland: Comes to that. Mark with how to interact with it. This is where I know everyone’s busy, but this is where it’d be really good if you can write down things like Dan is working on the case studies. If you look at the similar look at what’s currently termed libraries, but also what are the interactions for deconstructing a document and so on. That would be really nice to have the lists to go through. And on that note let’s move on to the next bit. I’m going to share a screen with you. Now I’m going to show you a provocation that builds directly from what we’re talking about. You can all see the screen, right? So just a few slides of potentially how we can show our own book using the building blocks that Andrew’s developed. So imagine you open up the future text five. And it shows up like this. Did everybody see the animation? It’s very exciting. Right. So you have the articles and you have all the elements on the side like we’ve talked about many times. So if you go through the articles, you point to them. You get the first paragraph or an abstract. If you activate, then you get at least in this view, the PDF version with images on top, article cited on the left, and so on. A table of contents for the article. If we start doing something like color coding, we can take brundle’s dots and we can have them available so we can have. This is just the most basic way to show a 3D element with this, right? So the point of this really brief and quite in a sense, pathetic little slideshow is just to provoke you all into thinking about what the ideal article can look like. Because in this we can put anything we want. And as happens again and again, when we actually mock something up a lot of things. Get looser and a lot of things get firmer. So I wonder if maybe we can think a little bit about. The first article in our book being the introduction to how to view this, which is exactly what you guys just talked about.
Brandel Zachernuk: And no, I love it. I mean, it’s if you’ve ever played games like braid is really good. Portal is really good. Super Meat Boy by Ed Macmillan is also stunning at Macmillan is just a genius. I don’t know. You seem pretty cool. But they’re all inherent. Like, they’re all like, the first game is tutorial, and they’re just so deftly integrated. It’s stunning as an experience because you just feel so clever, you know, going through it and having these things kind of leveraged very gently. So definitely worth kind of honestly study to, to to see how that works. Because like, if you were to jump dropped into the middle of Super Meat Boy, you would just throw all of your computing devices out the window because of how frustratingly difficult it gets. But it’s mostly okay for people if they’ve actually been along on the learning curve. And it’s just woe betide anybody who tries to pick up somebody else’s save games. But yeah. Like it’s it’s it’s really, really great thing to be able to do, I think to, to have have those things be sort of introduced and introduced generally there’s too quickly. There’s also a big frustration because of the because of the way that the significance of the actions is no longer is not yet sort of visible or legible. So so I hardly encourage that. I definitely but but to check out on the, check out the pacing, what are the sort of equivalent kind of exemplars of, of the best, best practices would be, would be kind of a worthwhile venture and to, to, to cast a pretty wide net as well. So I think that’s why I recommend video games as well as as, as well as sort of tools for thought.
Mark Anderson: So I am working on the thing on libraries. It’s it’s I mean, it’s partly because I’ve been trying to find readers documentation of what it thinks a library is, because the problem is, unless I can look at the design assertions underneath it, it’s actually it becomes conjectural. And what I’m trying to do is to draw meaningful difference between a couple of meanings of the words anyway. But that’s all. That’s all. That’s all coming along. I was thinking to the piece just shown and the interesting provocation. One of the things that I’ve been giving a lot of thought to and I’m, I don’t have much to write down about it yet, is I keep feeling when I try to deconstruct documents, I, I sort of end up with something pedestrian. I end up essentially with accountable bits. Oh, that’s a heading. Let’s put all the headings somewhere. And I’m thinking, is that sort of meaningful? So for instance. Is a picture meaningful? Wouldn’t it be more meaningful if the picture, say, was actually with its associated text? If it’s a table maybe you know that being attached to possibly data, if it’s available within the, you know, within the field of the of the document.
Mark Anderson: None of this, I hasten to add, is a critique of what was just shown. It’s more that the point being, it’s provocation. It’s saying to me, I’m thinking, yeah, that there’s more. I sort of know there’s more in the document, and I’m not yet seeing it as as a richer deconstruction or as rich as I think it can be. And it’s, it’s almost getting to the heart of, well, okay, so what is the internal hypertext of a document of a of a digital native, digitally native and designed to be digitally native document, which admittedly is something we don’t quite have. We have we have a sort of adumbration of it at the moment, but it’s not there yet. So yeah, I’ll continue to think on that, because I think that, again, being able to being able to find those other ways in which we do the deconstruction will only play into the richness of the the wow factor, such as there can be in this work context in Excel free.
Speaker4: Just just.
Frode Hegland: Really quickly, I see Randall has to leave. Yeah. Randall, you and I will have to have an espresso soon and have lots of fun. You know, thank you for starting this absolute madness. It’s all your fault and the best possible way. And don’t forget when you guys think about our magical book. Obviously Vishal Mehta is the world to me. You can think of it as a model of whatever the heck you want. We have perfect metadata for everything. You know, if you want to have a graph in there, the graph is fully interactive 100%.
Speaker4: Right.
Frode Hegland: All of that is entirely possible because Andrew Carmichael. See you later, Randall. Yeah. So the provocation Mark is clearly working, and it’s. I’m glad you take it as such, because most of what we can do with the countable bits, as you say, is not interesting. It really isn’t. It doesn’t help.
Mark Anderson: I’d agree. And the difficult thing is, I think in the light of the conversation we’re having earlier that, you know, the temptation is to say, well, it’s not very exciting in the sense that it isn’t, but that’s not the point we’re trying to make. It’s not to say this is bad. Saying we’re not imagining hard enough. I think at the moment because I think the magic, the magic starts when we when we can do more than we can do with just sort of in a sense, you know, taking the paper and printing it out one sided and cutting it into strips, you know, good old fashioned cut and paste. So yeah, I think there’s some fun to be had there. I mean, one of the things that it does make me conscious of is scale, because in the mind’s eye, all of these things are sort of, in a sense, cost free and resource free. So I can imagine this, this graph in this paper backing on to several terabytes of resource data. Well, yes. That’s fine in the imagination, but obviously so, so there’s some there is some interesting sort of shimming that needs to be done there, which is part of, I think, learning to think how this new, how we write this document should be, because it’s one thing to say, oh, it should all be there.
Mark Anderson: I mean, you know, people are now at least writing papers where they’re pointing to the data to get around this. It’s all in the paper. And in fact, it isn’t. And that’s another research of itself to go and find the data. So we’re getting better at that. And that’s because partly because, you know, the internet is more connected up than it used to be for most of us. We haven’t yet addressed we haven’t yet addressed that, that sort of scale because you, you don’t know this, this flat picture, when it’s attached to its background might be the whole the Twitter firehose or something. And, you know, we you may be in your environment in a position not to do that. So there’s a, there is there’s, there are some interesting edges to that I think so.
Frode Hegland: We have a perfect environment here. I don’t think we need to worry about that, because our job partly is to say, to use our imagination and the implementation genius of Andrew to say, you know, put this on your head, oh my gosh, this is amazing. And for someone to come out, I mean, I had a meeting with the ACM yesterday and you know, this is only recorded secretly for us, but it was really, really awful for a couple of reasons. Number one. Oh I this I that, you know, they’ve been using AI to check their references to see if there are mistakes in their actual metadata. And they found that 15% had issues which they could then, you know, create scripts to clean up. But the point of it is, until someone like us actually shows what an ideal ish metadata world is and interact can be, no one’s going to care. So yeah, we have it all marked in our imagination. Dean, please.
Dene Grigar: Yeah. I was going to let me just piggyback on what you just said. We don’t have to come up with a darn thing at the end of this. We can say, hey, there’s nothing we can do. This is not going to work. We are not building a product. We’re not trying to take something to market. We’re not. We don’t have a board of directors telling us we got to sell something. We don’t have to put out a beta, a crappy beta. All we’re doing is asking the question, is there a better way for academics to work in a VR environment? And if so, what does that look like? And we can come back and say under the current circumstances, there’s nothing in the headsets right now that are that is doing stuff for us. We want to see X things. These aren’t yet possible. But, you know, we tried and that’s all we have to do. I mean, that’s what we just need to keep in our brains. And so but I that said, I’ll end by saying we are showing that there’s things you can do. And Andrew has done a great job articulating the vision that we’re all like, try this, try this, try this. And he’s like, okay, you know, I’ve got a little bug testing list. I got a little list to put together for next week. That’s great. I think we’re going to come back to Sloan and say we have found some answers, and here they are. Here’s where the deficits are still. And we take those to the producers and say, here’s what we want. You know, this is what academics want. And if academics want it, this means that a lot of other people could use it too. And here’s how they could use it. So that’s that’s where I see us going. So we’re we’re actually quite productive. Thank you.
Mark Anderson: I just, I just, I just loop around back in my point of scale because I, I agree with Fred’s point. You know, we can show these things. I think I think I’m mindful of what I’ve learned from trying to do sort of data of data viz type stuff is that the bit that actually breaks is rarely the pure code end or the pure graphics end. It’s it’s always the reality of the data that’s in the middle, which, you know, not most of us. And I’m when I say us, I don’t mean I’m any more expert than anybody else have a facility with. So one of the valuable things is, is in looking at this, the issue of scale is not so much saying, oh, you can’t do this or you mustn’t do that, I said is to is to sort of put in the frame of if you want to be doing this, you need to understand that you, for instance, you might need to structure your different your, your data in a different way. If you wanted to do this sort of presentation, you probably don’t want to attach your graph to, say, the whole of some massive data API. You might want to build a filter layer. So. So in other words, it has an interesting implication for how we present data. As we as we move into a sort of a, an era where more people are actually interacting with bodies of data and sort of doing things with it. So and I think, I think we’re in a position to make some really quite valuable insights there and suggestions because these these necessarily will feed into the tools that we don’t have at present, do the, do the very thing we’re trying to do at the moment.
Speaker4: Yeah.
Frode Hegland: I mean. I really have to stress that we have perfect data.
Speaker4: Right.
Frode Hegland: We have to in order to to work on these interactions and by perfect data. Obviously that doesn’t exist in the real world. So that means that if someone falls in love with the interactions we present, then we have a very strong argument saying, this is how you can improve your data. Right. That’s why that discussion I don’t think we need to have other than kind of as an acknowledgment, what I do think we need to do now, because Andrew’s given us a very good framework, is to look at what interactions are useful out there and also what interaction styles like. There was a discussion recently about should we have pop up menus or should they be in a circles and so on. That is absolutely, completely legitimate thing. But it needs to go on parallel with what you started earlier today, Mark, or is it a copy or a move or what is it? You know, these are crucial things now. And we need to let Andrew, obviously, we all agree get on with polishing these things because at some point soon we need to be able to have that academic with a headset on, be able to do stuff, but then get something out of it, whether an insight or a work product or whatever. So we need to start looking at that. Of course, any.
Dene Grigar: Yeah, I was going to say that at the very least, we’re heading in the right direction. We take my hand down, it drives me crazy. See? Yellow thing over my head. We’re heading in the right direction, and we just take our time and not push to the point where we can’t get something done right. It’s better to get a little bit of good stuff done than a lot of crap. Despite the fact that software companies generally like to put out the crap first, right? We’re going to try to do the opposite. I also want us to to think about what it, you know, beyond the academic use, what is it we’re trying to do that might be useful to others. And so even though we’re focusing on academic, I think there’s a broader issue here. So I’ll stop. Thanks.
Frode Hegland: A lot of it will come down to exactly that DNA. And once we get more and more real with this one of the things I’m noticing today is that I think it is not very pleasant to make sure I use the right language trying to be funny as I’m trying to be lighthearted. What?
Rob Swigart: Not funny.
Speaker4: Okay, Mark.
Mark Anderson: I just thought I’d explain. When I put in the sidebar, it says, what do you mean by perfect data? That wasn’t me being so snippy. I, I, I sat thinking to myself, well, what is it? And I think, I mean, I think why I asked myself for that question is that it’s almost going back to my earlier point is, well, so what’s what’s meaningful so that because there’s sort of there’s perfect as in error free and we can sort of fake that. But the more challenging thing actually is to have something that is sort of it is, is meaningful in that it it actually is like real data because real data is lumpy. It can be correct, but it’s still lumpy. So in other words, it never behaves quite as you want. You know, it turns out that all the things are in the wrong. You know, they’re all in one bin when you’d like them to be equally distributed and things like this or there’s just, there’s, there’s sort of too much, you know, your, your options are everything and not enough. And that’s sort of really more what I’m thinking about in terms of how you structure things.
Mark Anderson: Because we can absolutely simulate things that we know we need. So if we need, you know, this many things of this type in order to test this particular interaction or this visualization that absolutely, I think is well within our grasp. But I also think it’s interesting to just look about There is, there is. I constantly find myself sort of getting grounded on this thing, that the difference between my imagination and the the practicalities of its implementation are not always just because I’m not thinking hard enough about it. It’s normally that as you get closer to the use, you uncover things you know well in the way that you know. Now we can move things around in our on our on our simulation. What are we doing with them? Well, of course, it’s not necessarily obvious what you might do with them until you can actually do it, because up until that point, you’re only imagining it. And in your imagination, you’re unlimited. Which is not to argue against imagination, absolutely far from it. But it’s that difficult thing of saying, okay, where where is the where is the the fair interaction of those of those two forces, right.
Speaker4: Right.
Frode Hegland: A couple of things. The previous thing I was trying to say is. And, Danny, please don’t be upset with me for having emotions. I was trying to be lighthearted, and, you know, to get a response like that. I mean, we’re all friends here. I don’t understand why I’m so upsetting to you guys today. You know, it’s not cool. I was trying to say in the environment that Andrew has built now, which is very much what we’ve asked for. There are lots of things that are surprising feelings. For instance, I feel that the the wall of references is almost like a cage because it is a column around us. It’s really heavy. I’m not very pleasant. And that’s a really interesting realization, at least from my perspective. And these are the kind of emotions I think we need to look at. And that means that in the
Speaker4: How? Okay. All right.
Dene Grigar: Writing anything. And this is. I’m just saying that when we make snide remarks, whether it’s in joke or whatever, it stymies us. It doesn’t do much to build a community. So your comments about, I mean, I don’t know your relationship about with Mark, I don’t I’ve only seen you at conferences, but you may, you know, always using Mark as an example of someone that is disagreeing, disagreeing with you. I don’t see him disagreeing with you all the time in this, in this space. And so when you make these remarks, it’s like, why? Why pick on Mark? Why say these things when you know that it’s it’s not helping and it comes across as being denigrating rather than uplifting? I can’t imagine saying these things to my lab mates. For example, I’m getting ready to go in my own lab meeting, and I can’t imagine saying ugly things about our snide things about Andrew. You know, Andrew wouldn’t want to work with me, you know? And I like to think that everybody that’s in that space is there because they want to be there. In that case, they are getting paid, but they don’t have to work for me. Right? In this case, we’re all volunteers. Most of these folks aren’t getting paid at all. And if anything, we want to we want to like, you know, say things that are going to make them feel like they’re part of everything and that that’s not the that’s not what snide remarks do. When you made the comment about Beat Saber and you said only women like Beat Saber.
Speaker4: I didn’t say.
Frode Hegland: That. I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that. Absolutely didn’t say that. I made an observation of all my friends who play Beat Saber. They are only women, which is interesting. What is wrong with saying that it wasn’t a blanket thing? It was an observation and a question. What in the world is that? Is that something snide about that? And when I talk about Mark and me disagreeing because I believe Mark and I are relatively close, we often disagree very firmly and we talk through it. And that I think that is a very, very good thing. How is that a snide remark? I was trying to be very light hearted now and say something, and clearly there is more going on. I apologize for stifling the community. Yeah, I can only apologize.
Dene Grigar: You didn’t even let me finish with my comment about Beat Saber. So just know that when you said that you did, you you relegated me to it. To a gender, making it a point that beat saber is not interesting to men. It’s something only women like. And I was taught Beat Saber by two men, right? I did not learn about Beat Saber from women. And so it is not a true statement that women like that. The only people that use Beat Saber are women.
Speaker4: I didn’t make that statement.
Dene Grigar: That was excited. I mean, I guess the thing was, I was just to say this when we say these things, just to take it out of me when we make these comments, we’re excited about something. And those kind of comments squish us, right? And make us feel like we’re not like we’re something’s wrong with us. Mark, you take over.
Mark Anderson: Well, I if I can if I can wander back towards topic is interesting. I was just interested. Interested by Fred’s observation, about this enclosure. And just so I get it, my understanding is correct is the reason we’re doing that at the moment is. So we got essentially an equidistant focus distance for a panel, which would be. Why? Because it was if it were, were it to be on a centrally on a flat surface, presumably we you get some sort of minor parallax effect or something. Because what we’re trying to do is to make that essentially easily readable. Would that be correct, Andrew?
Andrew Thompson: Yeah, well, I mean, if you’re talking just why it’s curved. That’s absolutely correct. Having a flat panel, which we tested in some of the early swipes you really can only read what’s directly in front of you. It’s not adding any extra useful space. It’s adding visual space so you can look to your left and right and be like there’s stuff way down there. I can’t read it, I can’t interact with it, but it’s there and that’s cool. It’s, you.
Speaker4: Know, I only.
Mark Anderson: Ask because I and again, because this wasn’t again, this wasn’t me critiquing sort of what Fred and I thought was an interesting observation. So I was just I was just double checking that, that the reason we’re at this point or this design point was simply for a essentially a pragmatic issue of the limitations over focal distance in the, in the thing. So thanks, Andrew. That’s messy.
Frode Hegland: So the reason we have the curved column is because Danny was very strong on 360 work, which we all agreed with, which you can’t do if you’re working only on a flat thing. The point I was trying to make is that on the Vision Pro, when you pull something towards you, it starts getting at an angle so you don’t have it always straight in your face if it’s closed. So. I was just trying to say that at some point maybe we’ll start doing those kinds of interactions here. So it’s not like you feel you’re getting more and more enclosed, but Yeah. That’s
Mark Anderson: That’s really interesting. And as someone who spent less time in the space, I mean, I do find that really interesting is, is certainly something I, something I, I just hadn’t seen coming was just, in a sense, just just how hard can it be to put something in the right place where you can sort of see it consistently? And, you know, I think what I’m seeing is actually it’s a lot harder than imagined some of which I’m sure relates to the technology. And of course, we have we have the added thing now that we’re working through two slightly different technologies that probably work in in slightly different ways, which is interesting, but a good challenge, too, because it reminds us that it’s not one size fits all.
Dene Grigar: My. I’m going to my lab meeting.
Speaker4: Okay. Thanks, Andrew.
Andrew Thompson: Take care guys.
Speaker4: Yeah.
Mark Anderson: Okay, cool. Right.
Speaker4: I have to.
Frode Hegland: Ask you to rob. You know me a little. Mark. You know me a lot. But because Danny was texting all kinds of things here about how I’ve been insulting about this and snide remarks and on and on and on in order to improve the community. Please answer me honestly, and don’t just try to be nice because I’m the only one in the room. Am I that insulting and aggressive in the meetings or I mean, what needs to change? I feel absolutely shaken today after, you know, Randall telling me not to use a word in the beginning, and then Deeney coming up with a bit of a barrage. How about is it for you guys?
Peter Wasilko: I just felt there was a cultural miscue. That was like a little speed bump. I don’t I don’t take these things terribly seriously because there’s a there’s a subject to the meeting. That takes precedence. But people get their. Feathers ruffled and. React. But it’s a reaction. So it comes and goes.
Frode Hegland: Yeah. I mean, it’s just tough because I felt that in the community we built up for all of us a certain amount of, of goodwill. So when Deeney is upset at me saying, I’m surprised that of all my friends who do beat saber, it’s women. That’s some kind of a sexist remark. It’s not at all meant to be that, you know, it’s like saying, oh, all you Americans do this. That’s interesting. It’s not at all meant to be a thing.
Mark Anderson: I think Deeney was trying to say to you is sometimes and we all do it and I’m scared to see anyone. It’s it’s not it’s not a matter of what we think. It’s a matter of how the other person receives it. And I think that’s all Brant was saying. And the only I would say the lesson for life for me is sometimes just say sorry and just don’t discuss it further, because the act of discussing it further means that effectively, one’s not apologizing. So, I mean, the easiest thing is, I know it’s difficult and sometimes because especially if it’s not something I intended, but I think the easiest thing is to just, you know, not not try and dissect it because, you know, miscommunications occur. We all do it. I mean, I’ve had it lifelong because I can’t judge conversational pause at all. So I mean, I even when I even when I’m trying to be reasonable, I always keep talking over people and I hate it and it makes me feel terrible, but it happens. And I’m, you know, I’m just not I’m just not wired up to do it properly. But, I mean, so I do a lot of apologizing, but I think that, you know, the thing is, I is to not is to not try and deconstruct it too much. And as, as Rob said, I mean, miscommunications occur. And I actually thought not in the context of you, but I actually thought, reflecting on Randall’s point as someone who hasn’t worked in large teams or large teams of people I’m not particularly familiar with for a long time I sort of took away a few learning points from that about, you know, how I, how I sort of phrase things so I, you know, I didn’t really think there was anything particularly pointed about it.
Speaker4: I mean.
Frode Hegland: That was one thing, but, you know, there was a lot like Deeney seems to be upset on your behalf, Mark, that I use you as an example of having, you know, discussions. That was just it’s just well anyway.
Mark Anderson: If you ask.
Frode Hegland: Second.
Mark Anderson: Guess if you ask it is it is annoying. It’s slightly demeaning because it makes me seem argumentative. And I don’t think I particularly am. I mean, we disagree about things because we have different perspectives, and I, I’m not sure we argue necessarily, but I mean but it’s it what happens is these things become a trope. It’s a bit like, you know, flattery is great, but if you flatter everyone, it becomes meaningless. So the thing is to to try and avoid the habit of something becoming a tic, because it basically becomes a conversational film and it’s not meant it’s not I know it’s not meant sort of badly, but it’s sort of, if I’m honest, it gets tiresome after a while because it you do wonder if other people in the room are quite getting, quite getting the right steer. But don’t take, don’t, don’t take that to heart. But the point is, you ask me the direct question, and that’s the answer.
Peter Wasilko: I’m remembering a meeting at the institute where two. Fairly strong egos got into a a real confrontation, kind of vicious, confrontational confrontation. And there was a facilitator I really liked named David Sibert. And he said, let’s take a pause. And and just accept the idea that we are all smart people here and our job is to solve a problem together. And completely changed the dynamic of the of the meeting. I was very impressed by the. You know, we all have something to contribute. I don’t have a lot to contribute about this development part yet, but I’m beginning to see possibilities, so maybe I’ll be more constructive in the future. But. As Mark said, these are these are they’re glitches in interpersonal communication. They happen all the time. They happen with, you know, intimate partners. I’m afraid. And You know, it’s a learning process, just figuring out how to negotiate it. But I think that’s right. Don’t don’t overthink it. Just. Take a deep breath and let it go.
Speaker4: Yeah, I’m trying.
Frode Hegland: To think it, but, you know, at a certain level it can be a bit overwhelming. Deeney was also upset that she did charts and pages and. And I said, well why don’t you use keynote. And she now texted saying that it was very insulting. I did that in front of colleagues. And you know, I’m also a camera guy. You know, when you hang out with equipment people, it’s like, well, why don’t you do this? Hey, you know, what’s that? You know, it’s like there is a certain kind of easygoing discussion of these things. And, you know, I most certainly, you know, the only thing that I have is this is a community. That is what I’m trying to build.
Mark Anderson: So, Fred, I mean.
Frode Hegland: There’s been especially from Dina, there’s been a lot of character upsetness.
Mark Anderson: So just interesting your point about sort of, you know, pages versus something. I mean, so, you know, I’m sort of wondering about to Randall’s point. So maybe had one said If if one were to use this, you would have these extra facilities. Because I mean, often we tend to do something because, you know, it’s taken us a bloody day to do it. And just in this thing alone. And the other thing being mentioned is a world of the unknown. Because most of these things are horrendously even things simple like, you know, Word or Excel actually are remarkably complicated if you don’t really know what you’re doing past the basics. So I suspect that’s probably why why it landed oddly. Because it it how it landed. What you what you meant to what you were essentially saying. So there’s actually a better tool. There’s a tool you would find more useful for it. And so what I’m saying and what someone here is you’re using the wrong tool. Or you know, why? Why can’t you bother to learn a different tool now that I’m sure wasn’t what you meant at all. But it’s this problem. It’s just. It’s just a problem of a thing of framing. And I’m. I am absolutely not going to tell anyone how to do it. I’m. I’m appalling myself at these sort of things. So I, I’m constantly I’m constantly on a learning track for that. But I mean I that’s my honest reflection on, on essentially what’s being raised.
Speaker4: Yeah, I don’t know.
Frode Hegland: I don’t know. I mean, obviously you weren’t there. And obviously I was, you know, I was a little surprised. And, you know, you know, Deeney can be very, very, very sensitive as well. You know, we were having dinner on the last night. We went to a Japanese place, cheap place in Portland. I wanted to take them out but it turned out it was a cheap place, so it wasn’t a big deal, you know, just to thank her and John. Anyway, we were having miso soup, and I just made a comment. Oh, you know, you know, in Japan, we don’t use the spoon. We just drink from the bowl. And her reaction was so surprising. Her head went like this immediately. And she started doing it like I physically assaulted her. It was like a thing. And then she just copied, you know? And that was a real lesson for me. It’s like, okay, I have to be gentle, you know, there is something going on there. But, you know, today was a little bit of a large amount of things coming out on.
Speaker4: On.
Frode Hegland: This and also.
Speaker4: Well, don’t worry.
Mark Anderson: I know it’s difficult. I mean, I know that you are someone who is, you know, quite emotive compared to, say, someone like me and I, and I fully understand that. But all I can say is don’t take it too much to heart. The point is, don’t. If the more you think about it, the more it’ll feel bad. But the reality is it’s just some froth to blow over. And if you know the best thing.
Speaker4: It’s not.
Mark Anderson: It’s not to is is not to to think it over too.
Speaker4: Much.
Frode Hegland: It’s not froth because, you know, I do have the problem with my damn face. You know, I had a big argument with my brother a couple of weeks ago where he thought I was furious or that I wasn’t right. It is my resting bitch face, to use the modern phrase. Not very polite, but you know, I have a very flat face, so sometimes people think I’m more aggressive than I mean to be, you know? So there is an issue we all can improve in our demeanor. But, you know, working with Danish can be very sensitive. And a lot of ways, you know, I thought we had enough of a cushion. But to have all our text messages today and also to hear from Randall, the most easygoing guy, be upset because I said that I think an interaction is horrible. I do think it is horrible. You know, I don’t understand why that’s a bad thing. You know, having these laser things going around, you know, I could of course, I can learn to use gentler language, but I don’t know.
Mark Anderson: I don’t worry for it, but, I mean, that’s what I mean, that if you keep going back over it, you didn’t mean to. You didn’t mean something. He, in turn, actually was not was not actually calling you out in the way that you think he was making a point that actually, if you just express a disagreement in terms of something actual to the other party, because otherwise it’s in our nature that even if, you know, I may say something to you and and not mean something, you may hear it and think something bad. And the next thing is, we’re all bent out of shape and then everyone’s going hammer and tongs. So the the gentle point he was actually making you know, I really wouldn’t I just wouldn’t dwell on it too much because you you in looking for in looking for meaning in it that isn’t there. You’ll just get upset.
Frode Hegland: I think there is a bit of meaning there because for two reasons. Number one, he interrupted me to say it right, which does say quite a bit because I wasn’t just saying it’s horrible. End of story. You know, I was trying to say it’s horrible because and as Dean texted you know, this has clearly been something on him for a while. You know, as in it he reacted because of if. It was only one thing I ever said, it probably wouldn’t be anything. So I don’t know. Anyway, obviously this has been niggling him. She was texting. Anyway, I appreciate the involvement from both of you. Not sure what’s going to be going on there. I spend way too much waste on personal thing like the issue with Alan, you know, not knowing how to be part of the group in the beginning, kind of taking over before we were ready for him to take over things. And then Danny saying in one of the background videos straight out that she doesn’t want him to work on this wasn’t very helpful. And Adam is very, very adverse to interpersonal nonsense. So I think that’s one of the reasons we’re seeing less of him. So it’s Yeah. It’s not very cool. This should be just nice design discussions. Right anyway.
Mark Anderson: A very quick question for you. Just a precise point on on author, because this arises from the the article I was asked to, you know, I think I was asked to do about libraries is I don’t see anything in author in the menus or the descriptions that relate specifically to the library as used in reader. But would I be correct in saying that’s generally in in your mind? I won’t call it anything as formal as a roadmap, but but your the way that the tools interrelate seem to be structured that it would, it would occur to me that you would see the library as being something broadly common to both. Would that be a. But fair understanding?
Frode Hegland: No idea. I just spent 3,000 pounds on programing for author, for vision. Money I don’t have. Which is.
Mark Anderson: Don’t worry. I mean, if the answer is not sure that’s a good enough answer.
Frode Hegland: Right? What? No, no, no, let me answer properly. It’s a very good question. So my programmer for author in America is expensive and extremely unreliable because I can’t afford any more to pay him half a month, $5,000 a month. Right. So very little. I have very little control over what’s in author. So author provision is done by different team. The team who’s doing reader. So currently my thinking of the library is just a list of documents that you have that are PDFs. That’s it.
Frode Hegland: Right now you have you have very well asked the question of what the heck is a library in this context? Which is something we need. We need to keep elaborating on of course, your own documents, your manuscripts before publication. May maybe we use the term shelf? I don’t know, maybe it is a library, I don’t know, these are very, very worthwhile discussions.
Mark Anderson: It’s fine. I all I was all I the reason I even thought it was pertinent in this is I was so broadly the sense that, well, I mean, there are, you know, libraries, you know, the place you go to down the road kind of thing then. So personal libraries, which most of us have in, you know, for just personal reference and things, I think there’s a, there’s a slightly tighter thing of people who are either researchers or academics which are two faced at the same thing, really. Where the difference is things tend to be narrow but deep, so they may still have books of reference like anybody else, but you’ll have stuff on a subject that 3 or 4 other people on the planet might have. Now, whether it’s a book or whether it’s a digital document or something, it’s sort of neither here nor there, but in a library sense, I would I would envisage as the stuff that you sort of have basically on your system as opposed, you know, the fact that you may be able to find stuff on, on the internet is wonderful, but it’s this kind of separate thing. It’s, it’s that’s much looser than The the the when when something is being shown in reader. This is not a it’s not a like a better, worse or a kind of zero sum judgment. What I’m, what I wanted to map was when I’m, when I say if I’m showing reader and I’m saying, and this is the library that what I’m implying is that the universe of the documents is this and that broadly, the design assumptions underneath it are this. Only so that if somebody then makes a comment or using the same broad term in a different thing, that we understand that, that’s fine, because if the two don’t align, it doesn’t matter, because basically they’re they are just discrete things doing perfectly pertinent things just happen to be nested under under one title. Because if we don’t, there’s I think there’s some scope for confusion which doesn’t matter, but less confusion is always good. So that that’s basically my driver there.
Speaker4: So let me ask.
Frode Hegland: Rob in relation to this, the amazing living room you have with books all over the place and the context of library shelves collections, what would you call that?
Peter Wasilko: I’d call it a library.
Peter Wasilko: So I have a room that is a library because it’s only shelves.
Speaker4: So the.
Peter Wasilko: Living room also has furniture in it, so it’s It’s more than a library. But, you know, the whole house is a library. It’s just what I’ve accumulated over. Several decades.
Frode Hegland: So I’m guessing then that we’re using the term library for many different things.
Mark Anderson: Yeah, and that’s not bad. I absolutely want to stress that this is this is my whole thing. It’s absolutely not bad. And it’s not a sort of it’s not a qualitative judgment. It’s more understanding that if you if this word in this context means this quite bounded sense in because in terms of the question you just asked Robin, you are saying the room here, I mean, library is an elastic term. It really is. It’s what you consider your library. Ask two people. You’ll probably get two slightly different answers. So there’s a limit to which we should try and put a hard edge on that. It’s more just saying that I think it’s useful to understand that when talking in because when we often we look at stuff about visual metaphor and reader and things, it’s just to have the clear understanding that what this is related to, what we’re really talking about is a effectively a section folder, folder set, but a basically a set of your, of your local system, which where. Which is the entirety of that library. Whereas in the wider sense it might mean something in your attic, it might mean something in your cellar. It might mean the book immediately to hand. On one level, it’s a trivial difference, but if someone’s trying to understand the tool, I think it’s useful to understand the difference.
Speaker4: As to I think this.
Frode Hegland: Is very important. And when it comes to my PhD these days one of the big problems I’m having is some things are obvious, such as the there is it’s valuable to have documents lost for a long time. It’s not actually written down hardly anywhere, like even the British Library or Oxford’s Library or Southampton. They don’t actually say we have a duty or obligation to make sure content lasts for X period of time, or for as long as possible. They don’t actually state that it’s too obvious. Came also up with the discussion yesterday with the ACM. They have they have no such thing. So the digital dark age is a notion that I recently rediscovered, which I’m using to kind of cover my perspective on that point. But when it comes to the notion of a library, especially in, in reader is quite simply. Distributed is good. As you said, Mark, the stuff you have in your system is your personal library. Whether it’s printed or on your hard drive, only matters to a degree. Right.
Speaker4: Yeah.
Frode Hegland: So there are public libraries, personal libraries. There are specific libraries. Acm is a digital library, of course, in itself. And of course, all of these things should interrelate. You know, that’s really, really important. And the big battle I’m having now, which is really, really stressful. Partly with the thesis, but also with this community is visual meta make it does something right. And one of the things that does is robustness. You have it. And secondly is speed. But anybody can run an LM on a document, but it takes a bit of time. If you have a couple of hundred documents that all have metadata on them, you can do things instantaneously. That’s a hugely different thing. So that’s why when you’re talking about libraries, you can do things instantaneously. If you have the documents and you can do it slightly slower if you don’t.
Mark Anderson: Yeah, sure. And I must admit, I there wasn’t a there wasn’t a suitable pause in the thing for me to apologize when I sort of I settled the spur of the moment. But that thing’s not changing the price of fish. What I was actually alluding to is that I think one of the I mean, I think the most useful aspect of, of, of visual media is, is actually as a, as a sort of concept because as you just alluded to, one of the things is to make sure the stuff is sort of basically not fussed with going forward. So you, you, well, you hope it was right when you put it in, but let’s assume it is. But from that point on, it should be reusable without being screwed over. Because one of the early conversations we had moons ago about reference managers and the fact that, you know, well, there are as many reference managers almost as there are people, is that every time you move between things, you potentially drop stuff on the floor. And that’s because most of us have bigger things to be doing than worrying about the minutia of that tool. Now, any tool will have a little cluster of people around it who understand it perfectly, who will explain to you that if only you knew, if you’d done this to that, it would all be perfect.
Mark Anderson: But we know the reality is you have an imperfect transfer. So in that sense, I think visual metaphors really sort of really interesting. The challenge and it’s it’s coming up in several projects, especially the thing I’m doing with re-use of research data for the universities, you know, but I keep saying, well, yes, but where’s the meaningful metadata? The point being that we can collect an awful lot of stuff. The question is, can we do anything with it? Because there are two there are two things in parallel. One is the integrity of what you have, which is important and a challenge. And the other is did we put the right stuff in the top of the hopper to start with? And the truth is, we don’t know. I think most of the time we don’t know. And I think but I think we tend to I think we tend to fib about it because it makes us feel better about the incompleteness of it.
Frode Hegland: So this is why I think we are close friends, because we have fought over this before, but at least we managed to fight. And the thing is, you know, the most recent argument, quote unquote, we’ve had is over what’s after PDF and I and you are very intelligently drawing it broad and I say it’s got to be a substrate. So what is so frustrating in this community for me intellectually is. Everything can be perfectly stored, including things like when you wrote the damn thing where you were all the stuff we’ve talked about. So when you talk about what should be the countable bits, that is a very important question. And we have the opportunity to start experimenting with that now. So if we want to embed one, we writing what music we were listening to, what the temperature was, all of that stuff just to start experimenting. We can bloody well do that. And it’s simple. Right. So I’m not saying any of those were good examples, but this is what I wanted to talk about in the community. You know, this is what I think we need to have on the record. And since none of us writes anything, which is hilarious, it’s kind of got to be in the calls. So yeah, I think what should the countable things be? How should they be stored? How can we interact with them and start again is absolutely crucial.
Mark Anderson: Yeah, because what part of what comes out of that I sorry the thing I if I appear to be distracted I was looking for this is a slide I made when I was at the Cabinet Office who were sort of saying, well, what’s the problem? And, you know, we just we just run past a digital barrier without without, you know, realizing no one, no one’s fault or intent. But most of, most of the human wetware backup we had in the days of paper where there’d be someone around the back of the office who probably didn’t even work there, but who knew where all the stuff was. That’s all gone. And we didn’t replace that with any any software at all. It’s gone and we ain’t going to get it back. But I the thing I looping through, it’s, it’s, it’s like when I look at a document I think, okay, I can find this and I can it’s been really interesting for instance, with the ACM metadata, the number of times people say, oh, it’ll be really useful if you have all the organizations. I said, why? And then people will say, because you can do and then they’ll tail off as the penny drops that, well, actually no, because, you know, people change organization all the time. So unless you have another massive data set on the back that actually mashes that together, it’s actually pretty meaningless. And if you’ve got a paper with seven authors who all work somewhere else, whereas where where did that work happen? So there’s some really naive assumptions that we make about the usability of some of these things. It’s useful to know if author A versus author B, if that is your interest. But I’m when I sort of keep this at the back of the mind, I find it that crops up remarkably rarely. Sorry. Fruit.
Frode Hegland: No, no, don’t be sorry. That’s exactly the point now. So. This is tractable. It’s a very tractable problem. Having affiliations is important if it can be interacted with in a useful way. You know, some people have gone between Oxford and Southampton, for instance, right? So to be able to have a thing of this is their association when they wrote this paper. Is a part of the puzzle, and it can be useful for one type of view. And then for us to build using the interactions that Andrew is now providing, the means through which we can take a person and add metadata to that person. So we can either manually say is now on Southampton if we want to or say this is actually the same author. So the system then knows that they are associated with two things, then we can choose in some views to build up like a people map. But it’s got to be understood as being fluid and not just one person, one thing. But these are the kinds of interactions that may or may not be useful. It may, at the end of the day, not be useful for more than 15 minutes of a graduate student learning the field to begin with, I don’t know, but it’s the kind. It’s the kind of stuff to at least consider, but it’s certainly not a panacea.
Mark Anderson: Yeah, I mean, we can collect what I find problematic when there’s a wrong word. What is actually genuine challenges is how to sort of do it, because I’m trying to think where I’ve been to a publisher and actually found author information that is that complete. So there’ll be a profile. We’ll start with the first time they turned up in the corpus and stuff, might or might not get added if it’s found and somehow automatically done, because only a very small number of people actually engage with the publishers and sort of correct that stuff, because why would they, you know, so it’s the most, the most do you think they have those who think they have lots to gain will do it, but it’s certainly a very small number. So those things are mostly inaccurate. So you’ll go there and you’ll find that someone. Yeah. So here. So in the hypertext field, Frank Shipman is Frank Shipman. He’s Frank Frank H. Shipman I think Frank H. Shipman the third. And he’ll probably have four profiles in the system because nobody thought it was their job. And understandably to resolve that. And unless a person does and and we we, we kid ourselves that it’s easily tractable. But all I can say is, having worked on a large number of author names, I, I have trust issues about that, that assertion.
Frode Hegland: I’m not I’m not saying it’s tractable, but what I am saying is it’s important. What I am saying is that it’s a it’s a job. It’s a function where, as you bring up, I agree with that. The system should help the user do that because it is important to know who people are, but the system cannot be relied upon to know it already.
Mark Anderson: That’s true. It’s difficult in a federated system, though, because in a sense, if we’re all doing this in our doing this in Rich.
Frode Hegland: Oh, we’ve lost him. Rob, it’s just us now.
Peter Wasilko: Well. He froze.
Speaker4: He frozen.
Frode Hegland: What was my connection?
Rob Swigart: Well, I was thinking about I was thinking about the Internet Archive because. What’s the difference between a library and an archive? I mean, the the internet archives. Mission that Brewster Kahle articulated. 30 years ago or more. Was to preserve the internet. All of it. And I’ve, I’ve found great use for it over the years. So you know it. Is it a library? I it he he thinks of it as a library. You can borrow things from it. But a library is also something very local. And a library just means books. So. How they’re organized is important. And and mine are only semi semi-organized.
Frode Hegland: Yeah. No, no. That’s. Absolutely.
Speaker4: I’m sorry.
Mark Anderson: My internet just dropped out.
Speaker4: Yeah. No.
Frode Hegland: That’s okay. Rob was just talking about, you know, what’s the library and what’s an archive? And of course, these are there are different terminologies that mean different things, but they most certainly are related, that’s for sure.
Mark Anderson: Yeah. And I tell you this, right? I really don’t have fixed views on all these things. And the great joy of most of my adult education being starting with things that didn’t work. It just means that I’m, I’m I’m ever the pragmatist, you know? I mean, I love the sunny optimism of being able to assume that it’s going to work just because I say so. So I suppose because so many things have started amidst the smoking ruins of something that was supposed to just work. It’s always instructive. The useful thing is you can normally find a few gems in the remains and build and build out of that. So, you know, looping back to the thing of, of sort of using authors as an example to a certain extent, knowing where somebody was and what they did becomes useful quite late in the fact, because you’re probably finding that out when you, you edge up to the fact that you’ve in other words, it’s normally a useful bit of the jigsaw puzzle when you have a sense that there’s a interrelation there. Just knowing that two people randomly were in the same place at the same time mainly tells you that they might have come across one another, and therefore they might have had they might have had exposure to an idea or a paper. But the more I think about it and the more I when I, and I sort of now begin to sort of see it in writing, is that that that sort of sense of the usefulness of knowing where people are actually is a really useful bit of late stage research. It’s just another nice bit of icing to sort of sort of glue to put things in. But very rarely does it seem to be the the original C chord. And that’s a problem in terms of. So you think just how much work you do to get all that to a state where much, much later you may ask a question because you have to ask yourself, is it worth the overhead en route?
Frode Hegland: So we were thinking of having discussions just on interactions. We should definitely have discussions on this, I say. It may be under your. Maybe this could be your topic. Where? When you talk about library, you mean, first of all, what should be in the library?
Mark Anderson: I will. Yes. Well, it depends on which which of the two sorts of libraries we’re talking about. I mean, for each person, what’s in the library will be necessary and sufficient, and that will vary widely in terms of both the media the sort of the scope of the period. So funnily enough, I think it’s something that’s something we want to hold in very gentle hands and not try and put an edge on because it needs to be the sort of shape it is. I think the I think the way to, to look into the sort of library is actually to use the medium because. Boy, is it more limited than I thought, and that’s fine. But that’s actually really useful because going back to the pragmatic approach. Okay, so what can I do? What can I do now? Because I think that that gives us an impetus to do more. We can imagine all sorts of things we can’t do, but we can’t do them today. And they’re just being friendly, difficult. There’s a generation of tools that are missing.
Speaker4: Am I missing.
Frode Hegland: Too, uncle Mark?
Speaker4: Is this mine? I’ll tell you.
Frode Hegland: When you sit on my lap.
Speaker4: And listen.
Mark Anderson: Hello there. I think I know who that is. Hello, sir.
Speaker4: Oh.
Peter Wasilko: Karate kid.
Mark Anderson: Oh, Easter Bunny’s arrived. Crikey.
Speaker4: Okay.
Speaker11: Yeah. That’s mine.
Speaker4: Can you say bye bye?
Frode Hegland: Mark was in the middle of talking when you interrupted.
Speaker4: Bye bye. Man has.
Mark Anderson: Man has places to go. Things to do. Yeah. So, funnily enough, I do actually think what we’re doing at the moment is remarkably rich, because I was just reflecting from earlier and thinking, okay, well, now I know I can detach something from a list. What is it and what can I do with it? I can imagine all sorts of things I might do with it, but the reality of sort of what it broadly looks like, I find very instructive in me being slightly less, slightly less sort of dreamy about what it might do, because each of the things that we achieve that are actually achievable with what we have at the moment unlocks a little bit more. Otherwise the danger, the danger is with the best of intent, we end up sort of, you know, we end up chasing a rainbow and full of good intent, but we never quite get there. Whereas what we’re doing at the moment seems remarkably pedestrian, because some way. Yeah.
Frode Hegland: Mark, what you’re talking about is very important. I’ll see you later. Rob. We.
Speaker4: Have to go.
Rob Swigart: I want to talk some time about the difference between a physical library, which includes all kinds of different media, and a digital library, which is all the same.
Frode Hegland: We’re going to talk about that next Wednesday, and Mark is going to share that. So next Wednesday.
Peter Wasilko: Okay.
Mark Anderson: Next Wednesday, next Wednesday I can’t. I have to go to I, there’s a meeting I can’t go to next Monday.
Frode Hegland: Next. Whatever.
Speaker4: Right. Yeah, right.
Frode Hegland: So that was obviously hell a little bit earlier, but also a lot of productive today I hope I can manage to deal with, not deal with. That’s incorrect. Manage to correctly behave in front of Denny and Randall. Now in terms of what you’re talking about, please don’t waste your breath on me now because everything you’re saying are the important issues.
Speaker4: Sure, sure.
Frode Hegland: Yeah, yeah, I would really like it if you chair discussion on that. Maybe this Monday, next Monday, whenever you’re ready. Soon. Because this is probably a little bit in where we thought Allen might come into this. And the question is, you know, what data. Why in which way? How to connect. These are absolutely crucial. And they are completely different from interactions.
Mark Anderson: No, not not different.
Frode Hegland: Related.
Mark Anderson: But no. No, exactly. That’s what that’s what I mean. Because. Yeah. Because one of the things I was thinking about when we talk about interactions is that, of course, and it’s very chicken egg, because the interactions you might want to have rather draw upon the substrate that the stuff you’re, you’re interacting upon. And of course and as we move from the imagined space to the, the possible implausible in the near term space there’s a really interesting interrelation of the two because, I mean, there are there are the close in things, like things you might do with your hand in terms of indicating intent, but on the slightly wider sense, the interaction. Well, okay, I’ve got this list. What might I want to do with it. Well, what I might want to do with it depends on to the degree, the level of addressability. And this is, this is something that’s I is really interesting and I’m, I’m glad I picked myself to, to actually go and sort out the extra HTML based papers because, you know, prophetically, I always keep thinking back to when Brandel said, actually, well, the easiest way to get stuff in, who knew? Was probably in HTML, not because it’s good, but because it’s basically usable. And I think that’s one of the ways of us getting, in a sense, our fake data in because we can do a fair amount of addressability. But as I found from putting the papers into gabo’s mentor system, it it made me think a lot about. Well.
Mark Anderson: What are the parts? Because that’s a chat. It’s a chat based system. It’s one of these things it calls has block Addressability. Well, a block is basically whatever you decide a block is. Well, if you’re taking if you’re taking a paper, in essence, a paper document that has n 100 years of lineage as to what that sort of means, and just putting it into blocks that are whatever they are. That’s a really interesting moment to stop and ask yourself and say, well, okay, so what are the blocks, you know, and what are the mega blocks and the blocks? And that’s something I’m exploring at the moment. I have absolutely no answers. All I know is it’s really rather exciting because I think it offers it offers us a way out of the maze, out of the cultural prism. At the moment, if we know how to do things, and it’s really hard to imagine something outside that sphere. Because you can sort of imagine it. But is that difficult thing to but to truly break away and say, no, no, no, I’m just going to I’m, I’m going to look at this from a completely different viewpoint where the only commonality is, well, it’s got some text in it is back where the commonality is and I am I am sort of working on that at the moment. Anyway, I must get on, sir.
Speaker4: Yeah, there is to me.
Mark Anderson: And I just. I mean, this most genuine I know, I know, I know this is something and Well, I say this because something I myself struggle with it, but, you know, hard as it is, don’t dwell on stuff.
Speaker4: Tie off and leave on. Good.
Mark Anderson: These are these. These are actually in the main.
Speaker4: Passing cloud.
Frode Hegland: Yeah. Learn and move on, right?
Mark Anderson: Yeah, but I mean, learn in the sense of, you know, it’s not a matter of sort of feeling chastised. It’s partly a matter of crap. But clearly this is a subpar thing to do. I mean, that’s that’s in a sense, my take on it every time, because I have made so many mistakes along the way for all sorts of reasons. But I just sort of think, yeah, you know, you because there are other things set aside, lots of good things set aside. So this is not it’s very easy to dwell on, on, you know, what’s out of kilter and forget what’s in. And you know, I know Dean is aware of both. So don’t think that, you know, always bent out of shape that.
Frode Hegland: Fair point. Okay. I’ll be in Southampton on Friday, will you? University? I mean.
Mark Anderson: I fear not, I have to I, I I’m, I’ve got something on. Luckily, I’m also emergency driver for Lizzy. Who. Poor thing’s got shingles again. So and because effectively, our NHS has disappeared to a dot in the center of the screen, I’m essentially on call as emergency ambulance driver in case I have to take her up. So we got sort of six days in which it may all go pear shaped rather fast. So I’m, I’m sort of mainly stuck here and doing some things, but I do have a. Yeah. Friday morning, sadly. I’m sorry, I do apologize. I meant to reply to you earlier. Things have been somewhat in flux anyway with things going on. No, no, no, and I apologize, I well, I’m glad I did. Well, at least you now know I meant to write to you about this. But basically, it’s the stuff I’m doing for Sammy, who you might remember in the department so that the Sky project. But as I’m, I’m sort of doing, I’m doing well notionally a day a week for them. And this this happens to be next week is their day. So I can’t really escape that. I’ve run out of excuses to say no. Plus the fact that I’m I’m going to give some critique on a system, well, feedback on a system that I don’t want to do, I just don’t want to do it over the wires because I, the I, I sort of minded of how it might come apart. It’s that classic thing that, you know, there’s something that’s just been got to the stage where it works. And we’re now everyone. I’m not the only person. I say, well, that’s great, but what we really need is this. So in other words, it’s a bit like someone said, yeah, good try. But basically zero marks. As I say, I can have a good conversation with a guy who did all the initial build, but I owe it to him. Be in the room when we discuss it.
Frode Hegland: The room where it happens.
Frode Hegland: Never a bad thing. Okay. Yeah, but I should be.
Mark Anderson: There for Monday. And Monday, of course, will be 3:00 in. I’m sorry. The reason I was late was I was actually talking someone down off the ceiling. It was a I went to print my print out my thesis, and everything disappeared. So I so dealing with someone who’s tad stressed on a deadline to get a late stage dissertation in. So I’m sorry about that.
Frode Hegland: We know all about that stress.
Mark Anderson: Well, indeed, I thought you might. Seriously. I mean, I just just so I know not not because I made it my own, but, I mean, so is this a meeting in the department on Friday you’re going down for.
Frode Hegland: Yeah. I’m saying, Dave, to talk a little bit about the thesis and then also maybe talk about some kind of collaboration in XR with the department. Yeah, which is quite unlikely, but I’m really not very happy because I am not an academic and that’s fine. That’s, that’s neither here nor there. But you know, Wendy got me into this and never gave me a single bit of advice. You know, we just gossiped when I saw her. So, you know, years went by. It was great talking to you, Chris. You know, great getting into the community. And then Dave comes along really late, not because of his fault, but he was kind of brought in. Really helps things. But his perspective is different from Klaus and Nick. So, you know, it’s like the whole entire research question, the main one, they don’t see the validity of. Come on.
Mark Anderson: So it’s Nick Gibbons, your internal, you said Nick. Okay. Right. Yeah, I could see some because of course Nick’s done a lot of structured data work. So you’re, you’re up against a quite engineering centric. So, so one of the, one of the problems I often see, I think, with systems in this area is that it’s not it’s not quite an art sciences thing. It’s more to do with engineering versus not. And that’s not again, it’s not a sort of confrontational thing. It’s more that it’s the engineering engineers do tend to start with certainty. If you’re going to build a bridge, you don’t just just knock it together. It has to stand on things. So there’s a there’s. A strong empirical base to it that I think sometimes sort of bleeds out of where it needs to be. In other words, everything becomes empirical in a way that’s not helpful. The far, the, the far end of it being the person who’s well, that’s just like your opinion, man, which is equally valid but not helpful. And trying to find the middle ground, I mean, I and if it’s any consolation, I mean Les Blessum did next to nothing for me, but I think that was part of his getting the groove with people. But suffice it to say, it was it was Dave who brought the whole thing you know, to in for me and I actually I had Nick as my I had Nick as my internal. Funny enough.
Speaker4: It’s.
Mark Anderson: I still I mean, I feel for you because if people are kicking around at the question, I mean. Have they given you anything useful in terms of how the question might be restated? Because, I mean, the point is there’s a limit. There’s a limit of wiggle room for them as well. Because if they’re going to say, well, those aren’t sort of, you know, valid questions, well then what’s left? If they’re if they’re saying, well, the the question needs restating that can be done. I essentially had to do that. I basically, you know, so you’re probably in a, in a way in a similar position where they sort of said, okay, we know what you did. So you did some research. The research. We don’t quite see how that map, you know, what what question does this research answer? And that was that was something that took me a good actually, nine months in, right up to the wire to write. Who knew it would be so hard? But I think the difficult thing is. So she was on call earlier. I was saying, well, because they were saying, well, I’ve just had all these changes back, and I’m saying, right. But so you’re saying they’re not clear. And so where we are, we’re at the stage where someone’s kindly walked in the room and said, I don’t like the color. I think it’s entirely the question you can fairly put back in a sort of non non pointy ways. I understand that you don’t like, you don’t sort of like the color, but can you explain what color you were expecting. But because this is where I and I don’t think people mean to be sort of vague in that sense, I think it’s it’s a classic thing. It’s clear in their mind’s eye. It’s clear what they’re saying, but it sounds as though it’s not being expressed through to you in a, in a helpfully clear enough manner such that you can sorry that you can, you know, that you can actually take action. And that’s tremendously frustrating, I’m sure.
Speaker4: Yes.
Frode Hegland: That is frustrating, but I’ll see what they can help with that on Friday.
Speaker4: But yeah, I mean, I.
Mark Anderson: Must say I understand your point, but, you know, so Dave had a different view. Well, the one thing I would say is, I must say, I find I did find actually, Dave. Actually very constructive in ways I didn’t realize at the time. So who kept pushing back towards something? And the other thing I think that’s really useful about Dave is that I do think Dave’s actually. I do think he is someone who’s sort of from the informational hypertextual side, I think is is well bedded in it. I mean arguably classes as well, but I find I find class more of an engineer when I speak to him. It’s been really interesting talking to him. And because, you know, one of the things I love about him, he’s doing spatial hypertext. So almost the last man standing in it. And I’ve been trying to say, well, you know, could you find, you know, ways you can do it? Because I think one of the sadnesses is what he’s doing keeps being basically researched on to smaller scale. So a small engineering firm ain’t big enough. If someone had let him look at something like part of a regional government or something, I think you’d get you get something really interesting back. Because the problem is his system is not solving big enough problems, that people can see the worth of the effort to build out the system that he’s doing. And so yeah. But anyhow. But I, I it’s any consolation, I’m, I’m a much I love class. I’m, I’m, I’m blindsided more often than I am with about things that I thought he would agree with in which he was fundamentally opposed. Well, not opposed, but you know, did did not, did not by the same. Did not by the same thing.
Frode Hegland: It is quite frustrating on many levels. But this is recorded even though it’s not going to be made very public. So I shall be temporarily.
Mark Anderson: Sorry, I didn’t realize you were recording, but you probably locked that bit off because.
Speaker4: It’s going this.
Frode Hegland: Is not for public. This is for our long term archival, but still. And that’s my way of saying yes, I’ve had my differences of opinion with Klaus as well, despite him being a lovely guy for sure.
Mark Anderson: Yeah, but I no, I just meant I just meant in, in the, in the, it’s just, it’s in this erstwhile sort of. A false relationship of getting through the end of the end of the thesis. Yeah.
Speaker4: Candy. Well.
Speaker9: That’s all I can say. Stick at it. Thanks for today. Thanks for all. Okay, thanks.
Speaker4: Bye bye.
Chat Log:
15:02:32 From Peter Wasilko : Brunching in New York.
15:04:49 From Frode Hegland : https://futuretextlab.info/current-testing/
15:12:47 From Dene Grigar : https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/NvGUpSYusYPCkvxu8GuqWbQK
15:24:50 From Frode Hegland : https://futuretextlab.info/current-testing/
15:29:08 From Frode Hegland : https://futuretextlab.info/current-testing/
15:29:09 From Brandel Zachernuk : Just tending to my cats
15:33:19 From Mark Anderson : Sorry I’m late, got stuck on a “my world has ended thesis tech support” call.
15:40:43 From Frode Hegland : Close can also mean close the object
15:41:00 From Frode Hegland : So we need to separate close menu or close/hide object
15:41:04 From Andrew Thompson : Right now I have “remove” for that, but we can easily change terms
15:43:21 From Peter Wasilko : Do we want to introduce a notion of prototype based inheritance?
15:46:08 From Mark Anderson : Yay, got the ‘close’ to work so clearly me being kackhanded.
15:46:39 From Frode Hegland : (1 min)
15:46:45 From Dene Grigar : Dear Colleagues,
Last days to submit your contribution to our Special Session on “eXtended Reality as a gateway to the Metaverse: Practices, Theories, Technologies and Applications” – IEEE International Conference on Metrology for eXtended Reality, Artificial Intelligence, and Neural Engineering (IEEE MetroXRAINE 2024) October 21-23, 2024 – St Albans, London, UK – https://metroxraine.org/special-session-6.
I want to remind you that the deadline of March 15 is for the submission of a 1-2 page Abstract or a Graphical Abstract to show the idea you are proposing. You will have time to finalize your work by the deadline of April 30.
Please see the CfP below for details and forward it to colleagues who might be interested in contributing to this special session.
I look forward to meeting you at IEEE MetroXRAINE 2024. Please feel free to reach out if you need more time.
I apologize if you have received this CFP more than once.
Best wishes,
Giuseppe Caggianese
15:49:10 From Frode Hegland : Interesting Dene
15:49:58 From Frode Hegland : So we have a new criteria today/frame: This is made for an academic in their office, ideally on a swivel chair, not to sit locked in a coffee shop 🥽
15:50:02 From Frode Hegland : Agree?
15:51:28 From Dene Grigar : I agree since so many academics don’t have access to a coffee shop
15:52:01 From Peter Wasilko : I think the swivel chair will be a key piece of kit going forward!
15:53:08 From Mark Anderson : Replying to “I think the swivel c…”
Swivel chairs FTW
15:54:03 From Mark Anderson : Peter has his hand up!
15:54:39 From Peter Wasilko : I am going to have to drop off now, see you all on Monday.
15:54:49 From Andrew Thompson : Thanks for being here Peter!
15:55:22 From Mark Anderson : Bye Peter
15:59:05 From Mark Anderson : Even with much use, it can be easy to get confused as to mode. Being able to ease in/out of more labelling in the UI/environment makes a lot of sense.
16:21:22 From Dene Grigar To Frode Hegland(privately) : You interrupt but hate being interrupted
16:29:13 From Frode Hegland : It’s not available before the meeting Mark
16:29:20 From Frode Hegland : So this is correct, to do it with Andrew
16:30:36 From Andrew Thompson : That’s correct, I usually don’t have the demo up until late the night before. (usually last minute bug fixes)
16:30:39 From Andrew Thompson : I do think it’s very useful to get feedback and see confusion live.
16:33:34 From Brandel Zachernuk : Oh I just realized that it’s possible the Quest hands emit a “TargetRaySpace” that is equivalent to the Quest-native direction that the OS leverages for interaction – definitely worth checking, though there’s an inherent incompatibility with visionOS
16:33:51 From Dene Grigar : nods
16:39:35 From Brandel Zachernuk : Oh I have to drop to make it to my next meeting – my apologies for raising the temperature today… my intention was not to insult but to encourage the use of more constructive language (if somewhat too firmly and hypocritically!)
16:40:10 From Frode Hegland : Reacted to “Oh I have to drop to…” with ❤️
16:40:13 From Frode Hegland : Interactive table, absolutely. VM.
16:44:10 From Mark Anderson : AI: never send a computer to do a human’s job. 🙄
16:48:09 From Mark Anderson : What do we define as ‘perfect’ data?
16:50:50 From Dene Grigar : Rob, Margie’s Memorial is Saturday at Newport Beach
16:51:11 From Dene Grigar : Stephanie is flying in to meet me. Deena is driving down to join us
16:52:09 From Dene Grigar : Kate hayles is coming in for the day.
16:52:10 From Frode Hegland : Imagination is not unlimited but unframed.
16:52:55 From Dene Grigar : Your snide remarks stifle
16:53:06 From Dene Grigar : they do not help to build community
16:53:16 From Dene Grigar : they denigrate not support
16:58:56 From Dene Grigar : I have no own lab meeting. bye folks
17:22:39 From Mark Anderson : The digital dark age