Re: [vwrap] [wvrap] Simulation consistency

[Fleep Tuque <[e-mail]>]

On a purely academic side note, the theory of "learning styles" has been
disputed and some would even say debunked.  Current research shows that
depending upon the context and activity we're involved with and our specific
physical abilities, people generally all learn in visual, auditory,
kinesthetic, etc. ways.  Unfortunately the website for the primary journal
article I wanted to reference appears to be down at the moment, but see
http://chronicle.com/article/Matching-Teaching-Style-to-/49497/ for a pretty
good explanation.

I admit that I don't know enough VWRAP history to fully understand the crux
of this debate, but I'm having a hard time drawing the connection between
criticism of how a term term like "Agent Domain" has been/is being used and
how that relates to accessibility issues.  I hope moving forward we're all
careful about being critical of ideas versus criticizing a person's
abilities and perhaps we can dial back the rhetoric a bit to keep the
discussion focused and positive.


Sincerely,

- Chris/Fleep


Chris M. Collins (SL: Fleep Tuque)
Project Manager, UC Second Life
Second Life Ambassador, Ohio Learning Network
UCit Instructional & Research Computing
University of Cincinnati
406E Zimmer Hall
PO Box 210088
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0088
[phone]
[e-mail]

UC Second Life:   http://homepages.uc.edu/secondlife
OLN Second Life: http://www.oln.org/emerging_technologies/emtech.php





On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]> wrote:

> As stated, "it didn't happen." The concepts and ideas are still iconic
> natured and useful as such. It's iconic usefulness as like that of infinite
> tense that all English teachers want their students to write in & with
> figure-of-speech, its the wrong way. That is the nature of English infinite
> tense. All other tenses are correct, and teachers expect you to "correct"
> infinite tense, yet they don't teach that. That's the basis of sentience.
> Infinite tense is logically always in error.
>
> Now with that in mind, "we" did not misunderstand the issues. Don't blame
> others until you look in the mirror more. What makes sense to you doesn't
> guarantee it makes sense to everybody else. The "graphic form" does not
> denote sense to visual people! Don't assume this! Like I said, visual people
> need complete ideas. Visual people don't remember dictionary definitions as
> much as auditory people don't remember graphic notations. It's because 60%
> of the people are auditory (they remember active speech) they are at
> constant battle with themselves in attempts to help the other 40% everywhere
> they don't need help -- is why there is ANY miscomprehension.
>
> Visual people find it completely dumb idea to have dictionaries full words
> that have any prefixes or suffixes, as that is wasted resources. Only the
> root words with possible prefixes and suffixes are of need. The reason why
> they don't exist this way is because of "figure-of-speech" and proof of that
> 60%. Unless you are somehow smarter than the best and the brightest, I doubt
> you can solely point out bad ideas such as dictionaries that list every
> combination of root words with every possible suffix and prefix individually
> such that basically kills us off slowly with lack of symbiotic flow due to
> trees used for the numerous pages published as scholarly works. It's a
> killing.
>
>
>
> Morgaine wrote:
>
>> I'm afraid you misunderstand the issue, Dzonatas.  I'll add a bit of
>> background.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with visual versus graphical presentation.  I'm a
>> big fan of both, and like yourself I think spatially most of the time about
>> architectures, which is a graphic form.  Likewise, it has nothing to do with
>> accessibility whatsoever, of which I've been a very enthusiastic proponent
>> in Second Life for many years.
>>
>> The only thing with which the "domain" argument is concerned is whether
>> the concept reflects something useful in VWRAP that we can observe, query,
>> interact with, or design a protocol around.  The answer is "No" on all these
>> counts for "Agent Domain" in VWRAP, because it refers to a concept in OGP
>> that denied interop, and it does not apply to us.
>>
>> As a result, far from helping anyone to understand the VWRAP architecture,
>> all it does is increase the amount of confusion surrounding VWRAP, because
>> it does not reflect anything useful about what we are trying to implement.
>>
>> The nearest we get in VWRAP to something that might have been conceived
>> originally as the "Agent Domain" in OGP is roughly "The set of places and
>> items and resources that this world will permit an agent to visit or
>> interact with ", which is approximately the same thing as saying "the closed
>> walled garden".  It is a singularly counter-productive concept for a group
>> that has the important goal of achieving interop between worlds.
>>
>> So no, it's not helpful, either visually or otherwise.  The term is just
>> another obstacle on the road to VW interop.  That OGP whiteboard never had
>> other fluffy clouds on it labeled "Virtual world B", "Virtual world C", and
>> so on.  The concept of interop between worlds was denied, because Agent
>> Domain controlled access to Region Domains, and so nothing outside AD+RD
>> existed in OGP.
>>
>> But we are not designing OGP, we are designing VWRAP, a set of protocols
>> that embraces interoperation between worlds as well.  That is why the Agent
>> Domain does not exist as a useful concept in this work.  It elevates world
>> closure, negates interoperation, and does not even admit other worlds into
>> the picture, because Agent Domain is defined to exclude them.
>>
>> It's a very bad idea, both in text and as fluffy clouds.
>>
>>
>> Morgaine.
>>
>
> --
> --- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
> Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>