CS855 – Week 4 – Focused Discussion of an Innovation Idea that might be implemented in the ext 10 -20 years, suggested to the class during the second week.
For that activity I suggested the following:
“Full Virtual Reality Immersion - suits using 'artificial muscles' controlled by electro-magnetic fields to provide haptic/textures and also using audio/video output so that the user "becomes" the avatar in the Second life paradigm.”
The more that I thought about this, the more that I realized that I was missing an important point: motion! In order for the user to ‘enter’ the ‘virtual holodeck’ that I was thinking about to get the full immersion experience from the use of the full body suit to act as a ‘reverse exoskeleton’ (giving the illusion of weight and resistance in lifting, holding, touching, and so forth, the objects of the virtual world), the user needs an omni-directional treadmill so that he/she can walk, run, etc., about the world!
Now, there are some present attempts for this, one company produces a 7-ft diameter “hamster ball” that people can enter and then walk about in any direction, but it has a couple of problems: it has only one ‘floor’ (the rounded bottom); and cannot instantly change direction (forward to backward is not bad, but forward-to-a-hard-right will knock the user down)! A couple of VR games lock the user in a waist-level “cage” above a slick surface, so that the user’s feet are barely touching the ‘ground’ and can seem to change direction as the game progresses. But neither seem, to me, to be the way to go. What is needed is a “semi-liquid” surface with no inertia that would allow the user to walk or run, or turn or twist in any direction and would ‘carry’ the user’s feet around its surface. Robert Heinlein suggested such a thing in his 1940 story The Roads Must Roll, though, of course, the technology was never described, the roads just ‘magically moved’ like infinite moving sidewalks.
One modern haptic technology uses electroactive polymers that change their viscosity or shape as they have electricity or electromagnetic fields applied to them. So, I rather envision a Dance, Dance Revolution – type floor mat that has a ‘mobile surface’ that is both solid and able to flow and move under the users’ feet!
Now, the suit itself also uses this technology to create, as I commented on before, a reverse-ex0-skeleton. I call it a reverse-exo-skeleton not because it is not an exo-skeleton, but because it will be there not to give motion to immobile limbs or to make the user stronger, but to use, essential, isometric forces to simulate weight, resistance, create a wall or a chair, though sitting on a high desk or wall might not work so well (**chuckle**)! The suit will pull the hands down for a weight, or stop in position to assist in holding an object. Body-position sensors would keep the user and the game in synchronization.
From outside, it should look rather like the user is performing a mime act – walking, leaning, sitting in mid-air, grabbing, etc.
Now I am assuming that 3D glasses/goggles will continue to improve and that the VR/gaming helmet will cover the whole face and mouth, which then means that it must also have temperature elements (hot sun, cold ‘winds’, etc.) and ‘smell-a-vision’ to add scent to the other senses!
My research is showing that vibration can simulate some movement and depth-perception. Vision tends to also add depth, and the electroactive polymers could be used in the boots and gloves to provide tactile/textural clues as well.
I see the full-immersion suit as looking a lot like the costumes used in both the old and new TRON movies, kind of a cross between the jumpsuits on Star Trek: The Next Generation and the wetsuits used in scuba diving today.
On a comfort level, the suit would have to allow the user to sweat and cool down, and breathe and, maybe take a drink or eat, though I have to admit that this one has me stumped, for a full-face mask and eating seem to be mutually exclusive, but that is only now and the limit of my imagination!
Discuss it in terms of the Delphi Method or the Nominal Group Technique (NGT)
The real difference between the NGT and the Delphi is in the privacy factors. NGT groups are known to each other, as they are all members of a given class/course. Individual responses to the questionnaires in each method are private but, at least in the NGT, the writing style or opinions expressed may be familiar to the participants and allow them to guess who-said-what.
Both systems use an interactive format and both have the participants answer questions that are then collated and returned with feedback for the next round. NGT is directed to class/course work evaluations, while Delphi can be used for anything.
It seems to me that my class, if it is going to evaluate the “Innovation Ideas”, then we need to use a modified version of the NGT, for we have no privacy and our names are associated with our comments, but we do need to develop a set of standard questions so that we can evaluate all the different ideas, but collate the data from them in the same manner.
For me, I think the standard set should be something like this:
1. Is this a reasonable Innovation (i.e., do you believe that it will be implemented in the 10 -20 year time frame)?
a. If “NO”, please explain: _________________________________________________
2. Does the Innovation represent a logical progression of existing technology or a new breakthrough?
a. If YES, explain the technology progression as you see it:_____________________
b. If NO, explain your thoughts on what the breakthrough might be: ____________
3. Does the explanation given by your classmate match your mental image of the Innovation?
a. If YES, explain the commonalities between your image and your classmate’s:_____________________
b. If NO, explain how your thoughts on differ: ____________
What we are trying to do here is establish a common language to discuss the Innovation. Dr’s D .H. and A.M. Rhodes of MIT’s System Engineering Advancement Research Initiative, define five aspects to a common language or taxonomy: Structural, Behavioral, Contextual, Temporal, and Perceptual.
For use all to properly describe and discuss our proposed innovations, we need to establish a common:
• Structural language to describe the components of the new system, so that we are all calling the same parts by the same names.
• Behavioral language to describe how the users will respond to the stimuli produced by the new system
• Contextual language to describe how the new system will fit into the lives of the users
• Temporal language to describe what happens when and how with the new system
• Perceptual language to describe how we see the device fitting the needs of the stakeholders
In this case, with my Full Immersion VR Suit-&-Floorpad, we need, in my opinion, to concentrate on the Structural, Behavioral and Contextual taxonomies first, and on the Temporal and Perceptual later, after we have established that we all understand WHAT (Structural) it is, HOW (Contextual) the users will experience the innovation and HOW it will fit into the users’ lives.
Discuss two forces that may support it.
Behavioral Forces will assist this process: In the course of our classes at the Institute for Advanced Studies, most of the members of this class are in the same “cohort” or starting group from over a year ago and, as such, are well known to each other and have built up a level of trust and common set of societal rules or community.
Contextual Forces will also assist in this process: All members of the class are working toward a common goal – completing the class successfully and with a good grade (hopefully an “A”) and so will work together to complete the operation.
Temporal Forces will assist in this process: All members are located in areas far removed from each other in distance and in time zone, so they are all logging in to participate in an asynchronous mode, but we all share the same time frame for completion – that set by the Instructor and the syllabus of the course.
Discuss two forces that may impede its success.
Political Forces will tend to work against the process: we are all human and have specific likes and dislikes, along with biases. Some of the class members may not like each other or have decided that the student is not worthy of co-operation. This can be the result of some personal interaction, expressed opinions or such. Lack of co-operation will definitely impede the process.
Cultural Forces could work against the process: the class includes a very diverse group – different races, nationalities, and age groups. The basic assumptions behind the communications of the participants could be far enough apart to cause misunderstandings. Think of this in the slang term “bad”, if someone does not know that “You so bad!” is a compliment, then it could be construed as an insult, and the interaction could further degrade from there!
How does open or closed collaboration in the Delphi or NGT process affect the results? Anonymity takes time, yet may reduce peer pressure or bias.
Both the Delphi and NGT allow for the referring of the participants and the addition of questions or comments from the monitoring researcher/s to assist in the understanding of their comments.
Anonymity removes all the cultural and societal context of the comments, while knowledge of the participant provides that context, so poor use of slang or misuse of some grammatical rules can be overlooked if it is known that the participant is an ESL or very young.
Contrary to that, anonymity does prevent known problems, personal dislikes or even feuds from carrying over into the research.
In my opinion, it depends both on the research area and the participants, If the area is small (relatively) and all major players are already known to each other, anonymity is not an issue. If the area is large and fractured, with known areas of major disagreement and political factions, then anonymity is a must. While most do not fall into either extreme, they posit a guide for the research methodology, providing a gradient of possibilities to assist in the decision of how to proceed.
Include a reference and link to supporting content in your post.
Linstone, H. A. And Turoff, M. (2002) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, Chapter 1. Retrieved on 5/4/11/ from http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ch1.html
Yousuf, M. I. (2006) The Delphi Technique. Retrieved 5/4/11 from http://www.articlealley.com/article_112396_22.html
No comments:
Post a Comment