John, I do like the overall narrative that you have going here. The only complaint I have in this area in particular is how the beginning part of your slidecast jumps back and forth between ideas and years in a couple points, so condensing your ideas along a more defined timeline would help the flow of your presentation. I like that you went as far back to point out art as one of the first versions of VR, but at the same time, it seemed kind of out of place and probably could have been woven into your narrative a little more smoothly. I think that starting with flight simulations would have been just as effective in communicating the evolution of VR, unless you could find more to expand on regarding art. There are many different contexts you cover and several different stages of VR evolution that you explain, I just wish you showed a more streamlined transition because there are very different themes here that can be tied together more effectively. Overall, very interesting and informative.
Good job setting up your slidecast with the introduction slide. I thought it was really interesting how you compared paintings to the most basic form of virtual reality. You did a good job of describing how virtual reality continued to grow around already existent systems. You bring this point home in the last slide where you discuss how the future of virtual reality will be focused on maintaining the current system. I also think you did a good job with explaining how virtual reality can be used for both practical purposes, such as training pilots and doctors, as well as for pleasure purposes, such as virtual tourism. You also did a good job explaining how the values of each era helped form the technology. I think you did a great job with this slidecast. However, I think the discussion of values would have been clearer if you followed a timeline. The slidecast seems to skip around a little bit. Overall though, I enjoyed it and learned a lot!
Overall, great job on the video. I really liked that you used a variety of forms of virtual reality including paintings and video games to explain the history. I thought that starting the discussion with paintings was helpful because it showed the origins of virtual reality. I also really liked that you discussed virtual reality for both entertainment, such as the Sensorama, and for research and medicine. You made clear connections between values, patrons, and the creation of new forms of virtual reality. I also liked that you had a summary slide before going into your discussion of modern virtual reality. My only comment is that the order seemed a little off at some points. For example, because you started your analysis of the history so far back, it seemed like a very quick jump to the flight simulators in the early 1900s. I think it would have been helpful to fill in this gap between paintings and flight simulators. Besides this, I thought it was a very well thought out video that provided good insight.
I really liked both your introduction and conclusion of the topic. Your observations about virtual reality fit really well with the themes of the class, like how virtual reality is not a technology that changes things; it just augments systems that are already in place. Your predictions of future virtual reality made sense given this concept and the history of virtual reality. It was also really good that you emphasized that the biggest patron of virtual reality throughout history was often the military. As for constructive criticism, I thought that the beginning of the slidecast could have been a little more organized chronologically. This is more of a question than a critique, but I was wondering why you made a point about paintings and still images being virtual reality, but didn’t really talk about television. I would have thought that the technology provided the basis for current virtual reality. Overall, I really enjoyed listening to this!
Reflecting, I really got mentally stuck on paintings since I didn’t really want to start the topic with flight in the 1900s. I probably could have phrased that slide better to not make it seem so jagged right off the bat. That’s on me.
I didn’t include TVs because it there’s a lot to talk about with them, but not a whole lot that directly relates to VR (whereas the gaming industry is investing heavily in it). Its a good example of earlier VR, like watching sports or anything else live, but I wanted to keep the context examples as close to lines towards modern VR that I could. Hope that clears it up!
I really liked how you started out this slidecast by speaking about paintings, and I think you made some really good points in this slidecast. However, I do have a few issues. Firstly, you jumped around a lot in your retelling of the history of virtual reality, and the slidecast didn’t really seem to have a cohesive thread through it. The discussion of holidaying and national parks was interesting, but felt out of place and awkward in the way it was introduced, and didn’t seem to fit well into the overall theme of the slidecast with the depth you went into it. I also wish that you can gone a little more into depth on paintings being considered the first type of virtual reality instead of simply mentioning it and then never discussing it again at the beginning. On the whole, the information in this slidecast was interesting, and I did like how you gave a little bit of a guess on where VR technology could go in the future, but it did feel somewhat jumbled and disorganized, and your conclusion felt somewhat rushed.
This is an interesting concept, but your presentation is a little hard to follow. I like how you begin with paintings as a place to start; most might overlook this as the first form of what could be considered VR. However, you then jump from paintings in the 1700s straight to flight in the 1900s, hurdling nearly 200 years. One of the biggest things we talked about in class was technology as an iterative process and this counters that notion; there could be more cohesion here. I also don’t get the jump from the invention of the stereoscope in 1838 to its development into the view master in 1939, another odd discontinuity.
I like the theme of military patronage and you do a great job of pulling in class themes to this area, however it seems as if the military is more of a patron of simulators than VR. This could be intentional; a definition of what VR encompasses might help. Your conclusion felt a bit limited in that I think you could have gained something by discussing the shift in societal values from say 1990 up until the early 2000’s.
Overall it was a good and informative slidecast. It could have had a little more cohesion, particularly chronologically but overall, good work.
John, I do like the overall narrative that you have going here. The only complaint I have in this area in particular is how the beginning part of your slidecast jumps back and forth between ideas and years in a couple points, so condensing your ideas along a more defined timeline would help the flow of your presentation. I like that you went as far back to point out art as one of the first versions of VR, but at the same time, it seemed kind of out of place and probably could have been woven into your narrative a little more smoothly. I think that starting with flight simulations would have been just as effective in communicating the evolution of VR, unless you could find more to expand on regarding art. There are many different contexts you cover and several different stages of VR evolution that you explain, I just wish you showed a more streamlined transition because there are very different themes here that can be tied together more effectively. Overall, very interesting and informative.
Good job setting up your slidecast with the introduction slide. I thought it was really interesting how you compared paintings to the most basic form of virtual reality. You did a good job of describing how virtual reality continued to grow around already existent systems. You bring this point home in the last slide where you discuss how the future of virtual reality will be focused on maintaining the current system. I also think you did a good job with explaining how virtual reality can be used for both practical purposes, such as training pilots and doctors, as well as for pleasure purposes, such as virtual tourism. You also did a good job explaining how the values of each era helped form the technology. I think you did a great job with this slidecast. However, I think the discussion of values would have been clearer if you followed a timeline. The slidecast seems to skip around a little bit. Overall though, I enjoyed it and learned a lot!
Overall, great job on the video. I really liked that you used a variety of forms of virtual reality including paintings and video games to explain the history. I thought that starting the discussion with paintings was helpful because it showed the origins of virtual reality. I also really liked that you discussed virtual reality for both entertainment, such as the Sensorama, and for research and medicine. You made clear connections between values, patrons, and the creation of new forms of virtual reality. I also liked that you had a summary slide before going into your discussion of modern virtual reality. My only comment is that the order seemed a little off at some points. For example, because you started your analysis of the history so far back, it seemed like a very quick jump to the flight simulators in the early 1900s. I think it would have been helpful to fill in this gap between paintings and flight simulators. Besides this, I thought it was a very well thought out video that provided good insight.
John,
I really liked both your introduction and conclusion of the topic. Your observations about virtual reality fit really well with the themes of the class, like how virtual reality is not a technology that changes things; it just augments systems that are already in place. Your predictions of future virtual reality made sense given this concept and the history of virtual reality. It was also really good that you emphasized that the biggest patron of virtual reality throughout history was often the military. As for constructive criticism, I thought that the beginning of the slidecast could have been a little more organized chronologically. This is more of a question than a critique, but I was wondering why you made a point about paintings and still images being virtual reality, but didn’t really talk about television. I would have thought that the technology provided the basis for current virtual reality. Overall, I really enjoyed listening to this!
Reflecting, I really got mentally stuck on paintings since I didn’t really want to start the topic with flight in the 1900s. I probably could have phrased that slide better to not make it seem so jagged right off the bat. That’s on me.
I didn’t include TVs because it there’s a lot to talk about with them, but not a whole lot that directly relates to VR (whereas the gaming industry is investing heavily in it). Its a good example of earlier VR, like watching sports or anything else live, but I wanted to keep the context examples as close to lines towards modern VR that I could. Hope that clears it up!
I really liked how you started out this slidecast by speaking about paintings, and I think you made some really good points in this slidecast. However, I do have a few issues. Firstly, you jumped around a lot in your retelling of the history of virtual reality, and the slidecast didn’t really seem to have a cohesive thread through it. The discussion of holidaying and national parks was interesting, but felt out of place and awkward in the way it was introduced, and didn’t seem to fit well into the overall theme of the slidecast with the depth you went into it. I also wish that you can gone a little more into depth on paintings being considered the first type of virtual reality instead of simply mentioning it and then never discussing it again at the beginning. On the whole, the information in this slidecast was interesting, and I did like how you gave a little bit of a guess on where VR technology could go in the future, but it did feel somewhat jumbled and disorganized, and your conclusion felt somewhat rushed.
John,
This is an interesting concept, but your presentation is a little hard to follow. I like how you begin with paintings as a place to start; most might overlook this as the first form of what could be considered VR. However, you then jump from paintings in the 1700s straight to flight in the 1900s, hurdling nearly 200 years. One of the biggest things we talked about in class was technology as an iterative process and this counters that notion; there could be more cohesion here. I also don’t get the jump from the invention of the stereoscope in 1838 to its development into the view master in 1939, another odd discontinuity.
I like the theme of military patronage and you do a great job of pulling in class themes to this area, however it seems as if the military is more of a patron of simulators than VR. This could be intentional; a definition of what VR encompasses might help. Your conclusion felt a bit limited in that I think you could have gained something by discussing the shift in societal values from say 1990 up until the early 2000’s.
Overall it was a good and informative slidecast. It could have had a little more cohesion, particularly chronologically but overall, good work.
#petty