Hacker News Reader

Comment by ekianjo | Hacker News Reader

if VR is about having virtual monitors then thats not a Very enticing proposition

It's about being able to display information anywhere. Many work tasks consist of using reference material to do something else. This isn't limited to the office.

> thats not a Very enticing proposition

Consider the following use cases:

* A surgical team consulting a 3D CT scan as they remove the tumor threatening to kill you or someone you love

* A firefighter who can overlay a building's plans over thick smoke

* A rescue helicopter pilot who can see LIDAR and IR data as needed

All of these are literally life-saving. However, office uses such as replacing multi-monitor desks are far more pleasant to encounter.

I feel like these examples, and most examples of what AR is good for, are largely based on what looks cool in movies rather than what is actually more effective than looking at a screen or having someone speaking in your ear.

AR definitely has real industrial uses but 90% of the examples people can think of are not better or are worse than current methods.

Monitors anywhere though is useful, the issue is that the technology to it isn't there. The 4K monitor I have sitting about 45cm from my face needs a 16K monitor sitting 5cm from my eyeballs to be adequately emulated.

The problem is "virtual" monitors in VR aren't high enough FOV or resolution to be as useful as real monitors.

TL;DR: I agree and favor the "boring" uses, but chose emotional examples since GP sounded disappointed by those

I intentionally chose heroic examples because GP's viewpoint is understandable. Not everyone is as excited by window management and good UI as I am.

OP's article touched on attention management through UI a little bit, but I think that concern isn't given enough attention. Using the most heroic scenarios possible helps drive the point home without getting grim, but I will now. To be blunt, it's a historical fact that bad UI kills people [1][2].

> AR definitely has real industrial uses but 90% of the examples people can think of are not better or are worse than current methods.

I agree completely. My main concern is pinning manuals or reference sheets next to my work, even if paper fallback is still crucial. That's pretty much the use case for multi-monitor anyway.

The surgical example is the same thing: CT scans are used to tell the surgeons where it's ok to cut. However, there's an extra benefit here: reducing the need for a physical 3D print of the skull reduces infection risk. It's one less thing to moved into and out of the OR.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

2. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/uss-m...

If you could do any of these scenarios in real time, I'd rather trust robots to take any action in this kind of situation than any human whose attention is split between 3 different kind of screens or visuals. they already can't handle the few pieces of information that they have, adding more is asking for more confusion, like pilots in a plane not hearing the stall warning even though it's screaming in their ears.

With the added benefit of neck strain!

We already have neck strain with multi-monitor setups and bad office ergonomics. I know it's not likely in the nearest future, but I'm still hopeful we might be less sore if headsets become both light and common enough.

> We already have neck strain with multi-monitor setups and bad office ergonomics.

And this would make it even worse.

Why? Wouldn't you be able to position virtual displays however you like, and view them from many more body positions than is possible with physical displays?

I think GP's taking the pessimistic view that the VR headset will be forced on the user for cost-cutting reasons. It's a real worry, but I was taking the optimistic view where I can choose where and how I set up my workspace enough to be comfortable.

What's GP?

Grandparent, as in the grandparent post.

But why would you do that? Why would you go through the effort to move around?

The problem with physical displays isn't that you can't move them around, it's that there's no reason to.

It's like a chair, sitting for too long is terrible for your body. Chairs don't literally limit you from getting up, but there's just no immediate reason to get up, do some stretching.

It would be the same except you're adding annoying glass and plastic attached to your face.

> Why would you go through the effort to move around?

If a headset can be light enough, it can be a tool for AR documentation overlays. It's like taping a manual up next to the thing you're working on.

For example, engine components. I've seen airline mechanics consulting laptops as they work on engines. I didn't get a close enough look to be sure, but it seemed like it was a combination of manuals and running diagnostics.

> it's that there's no reason to.

Some monitors come with swivel mounts to support both horizontal and vertical modes. It's common enough that I think it's worth exploring.

> except you're adding annoying glass and plastic attached to your face.

This is absolutely true. Getting headsets down toward the same weight range as regular glasses is probably a major hurdle for use outside industrial or piloting applications and into the office.

Surely if you're walking around a plane and looking at it physically while holding a laptop, you're moving around, not sitting still on a chair for 8 hours, so I don't see how it would benefit that particular case. You were talking about monitors fixed on a desk.

> Why?

because putting weight on your head does that. Your muscles and joints are not going to like it no matter how you try to be comfortable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com