[WEB4LIB] Re: 3D (VRML) Interface to IRCAM's Multimedia Library

[Jerry Kuntz]

Back to Roy's initial reaction (and my own, though I was coy about it): what
advantages does VRML  add to a library navigation interface? Is it helping
people get to resources? Is it helping to physically locate those resources?
Would it be better structured if users had a VRML movie appear AFTER
searching a "normal" interface for a resource, with the purpose being to
physically lead them to the appropriate area? Would this be any more helpful
than a more simply rendered floor plan?
But as a primary interface, what's the point of recreating the sensation of
being in a library and  stumbling around to find things?
Jerry Kuntz
Ramapo Catskill Library System
jkuntz at rcls.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau at emory.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <web4lib at webjunction.org>
Date: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 7:39 AM
Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: 3D (VRML) Interface to IRCAM's Multimedia Library


>Roy,
>
>
>> I appreciate the need to lighten up and play now and then. But when there
>> simply are not enough hours in the day to get the books back on the shelf
>> here in boring reality, it doesn't always seem like a good use of time.
>>
>
>Any community learning to use a new technology like VRML faces a drain from
>current resources. The question is whether it will develop into something
that
>will be useful to the community. I am sure the early attempts to develop
one of
>the distance collaboration white-boards with Mathematica (a sophisticated
>mathematics software package) among physicists probably took more resources
than
>would be required to fly them all to a central location to collaborate in
person.
>But once that technology is in place and easier to use, the benefit for
distant
>collaborators is quite large.
>
>One good way to develop a base of people, in this case librarians, who have
the
>technical skills to use the latest technology is to allow them to
experiment or
>"play" with it. It is difficult to judge which technologies will emerge as
>standards but funding issues will only become more difficult if libraries
are
>defended on the basis of traditional tasks. (On a personal note I do not
see
>technology as a threat to librarians or libraries. The more complex our
>information systems become the greater the need for librarians and
libraries to
>extract useful information from them. Legislators who see the Internet or
>technology as reducing the need for either are probably unable to fully
utilize
>the index to a book much less a library.)
>
>
>>
>> I can remember when a colleague at CNIDR was really into MOOs and MUDs
for
>> interacting with users. "Patrons" could wander in, take on an avatar
>> existence of one thing or another, and ply the virtual librarian with
>> whatever questions or comments or lewd suggestions happened to pop into
>> their brain. I thought it was idiotic and a waste of time. That was back
>> in the early 90s. It's *still* idiotic and a waste of time.
>>
>
>I disagree that MOOs and MUDs are or were "idiotic and a waste of time." It
is
>from the experience with such technologies that many of the collaboration
tools
>that are just now coming online were developed. Not as direct descendants
but in
>terms of what will or won't work in such an environment. I am not sure I
would
>recommend such an interface for a public library but I could see the
successor to
>such systems working for a research library quite well.
>
>I always vote for taxes for libraries and write angry missives to the
newspaper
>when people try to censor the local library. I see support for technology,
since
>it is well on the way to becoming ubiquitous in society, as a visible sign
that
>libraries are relevant and useful to the community. Yes, I already know
that to
>be a fact but it is a fact that must be "sold" to the public if one hopes
to get
>larger budgets.
>
>Patrick
>
>--
>Patrick Durusau
>Information Technology Services
>Scholars Press
>pdurusau at emory.edu
>Interim Manager, ITS
>
>
>