Recent general discussions have surfaced a degree of mutual incomprehension that seems to arise from unstated differing (internal) imaginings of what an XR space represents.
There is no wrong or right here. Certainly for individuals their internal perspective is entirely valid. The challenge comes in discussing a common goal but using differing and sometimes (unintentionally) conflicting perspectives and priorities that flow from the latter.
This article is designed to link together a few such discontinuities. If nothing else, surfacing these may help with working through some of the disconnections that occur in discussion.
We can think of these, as with many other human traits as a set of discrete axes. Some may happily work over a range of any given axis, others may be strongly set at one end or the other and this is where the miscomprehension creeps in. It is also the case that our perspectives may vary according to the task at hand.
Necessarily, there must be some generalisation and with it the opportunity for individuals to react against some descriptions. But, explicitly, it is not the intent to divide but simply to try to illuminate unstated differences in how we perceive XR spaces.
By ‘XR space’ I am talking about individually constructed environments such as my be given by an app or entered immersively from a web page. These spaces, which in some contexts are being termed ‘volumes’† will normally be filling the XR device’s entire projected space. I am not talking about ‘lobby’ type spaces such as seen when first starting an XR device.
†. ‘Volume’ in the spatial sense, not in that a series of connected printed works.
The list below is in no particular order:
- Mind Palace vs. Exploration Space
- Literal Text vs. Figurative Text
- Mapping vs. Diagramming
- Personal vs. Communal
- Describing XR spaces
Do you see what I see? (in XR)
Probably not, for the reasons given above. Thus, when planning or discussing XR environments, additional care is warranted to ensure all participants have as common a view as is possible. The likelihood of differing perspectives should be an expectation so as to avoid circular arguments born of such divergences.