Tag: Research

Analysis of The Total Economic Impact™ Of Mixed Reality Using Microsoft HoloLens 2

Analysis of The Total Economic Impact™ Of Mixed Reality Using Microsoft HoloLens 2

(Image: Crowds gathering outside New York Stock Exchange Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crowds_gathering_outside_New_York_Stock_Exchange.jpg)

This report, The Total Economic Impact™ Of Mixed RealityUsing Microsoft HoloLens 2, dated (November 2021) came through my LinkedIn feed in this post:

What most caught my eye was the fourth bullet:

Mixed reality increased
training efficiency by 60%, saving $1,440 per trainee while improving
knowledge acquisition and retention.

I posted my response:

“With
respect, a company that sells a product that then claims the product
increases training efficiency with these kinds of numbers is to be
doubted.

In the case of the 60% increase, my eyes land on the
table on page 21 and the source of the 60% increase in task efficiency
data is “Interview data”, not quantified data. That means the
interviewees that Microsoft picked provided verbal estimates to the
interviewers. While the report takes great pains to describe how the
results were calculated– and I respect that– this is a “commissioned
report” (page 1)– that was paid for by the very company selling the
product.

Long term, results like these do not hold up.”

To which, an Associate Fellow at Lockheed Martin replied:

While the numbers seem outlandish they are very real based on our findings.

We
use mixed reality to build spacecraft and see well over these numbers
(~93% reduction) in touch labor. This was analyzed across 10
manufacturing sites and numerous spacecraft manufacturing programs.

Technicians consistently finish 8 hours worth of traditional work in 45 minutes, and other companies are seeing similar results.

For
training we see an 85% reduction in training time. Mixed reality also
offers greater comprehension than traditional methods.

While the numbers seem incredible, they have been validated with more than four years of shop floor implementation.

If you would like to chat details, just let me know. I would be happy to provide insight to our findings.

I did not reply further at the time to this post because I was not actually arguing time-based measurements. I was arguing improving knowledge acquisition and retention via task efficiency– admittedly their own squirrely wording. Said another way, claims that users learned more.

This blog post is, in part, my response.

(more…)

January 24, 2022
2 out of 4

Twitter post dated November 29, 2021.

“It has been proven that people learn better through an immersive experience. The training tools powered by Virtual/Augmented Reality enable users to retain the material better while cutting costs & eliminating safety risks. Read [link]. #VirtualReality #VR #AR

So there are 4 claims here:

A. people learn better through an immersive experience

B. enable users to retain the material better

C. cutting costs

D. eliminate safety risks.

And here’s my vote on these claims:

A. people learn better through an immersive experience – No. 👎

B. enable users to retain the material better – No, because ‘better’ is flaky. I’ll shoot at “retain” too. 👎

C. cutting costs – Yes. 👍

D. eliminate safety risks.- Yes. 👍

The link provided goes to a business website that is selling developer services to make things in Unity. On the front page, there are NO claims about learning that I can find at all. So the “Read:” doesn’t seem to invite you to read more about facts supporting those claims. They are asking you to read all about how their business is cool.

Overall. that’s a score of 50%. Still, failing.

Remember that I’ve pointed to how dangerous & misleading “hand waive” language is. As soon as this started with “It has been proven that…” my hackles go up.

😦

November 30, 2021
Beware the VR Straw Man
Merriam-Webster’s first definition of straw man is a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted. Said another way, a straw man is a type of logical fallacy where the argument is a false or fake version of the opposing argument that can then be easily broken down. The straw man is meant to imply flimsy or weak. Think of how easy it is to tear apart a form stuffed with straw compared to attacking a real person.

When I was working on articles about poor virtual reality (VR) and learning research, I found 3 instances of myths surrounding VR learning & training:
In each case, the myths were communicated by companies selling something in VR.

That’s an AMAZING coincidence, yo.

Too coincidental.

Yeah, it’s not a coincidence.

This is classic, slick, ‘don’t fall for the snake oil,’ from the snake oil salesman.

Additionally, I’ll add my own opinion here: I’ve never heard these statements circulated about VR. These are three examples below with seven, five, and five VR straw man arguments, respectively.

AIXR: 7 Myths and Misconceptions About VR Training
1. VR Training Is Expensive, Especially At Scale
2. VR Training Requires A Lot Of Space
3. VR Training is Distracting and Counterproductive
4. VR Training is Unhygienic
5. VR Training Sessions Are Very Long
6. All VR Training Makes Users Sick
7. VR Training Isn’t Here To Stay
Learning Solutions Magazine: Debunking – Top 5 Common Myths of VR In Education

I honestly forgot name of company that put out this infographic, so I can’t give you the link.
1. It requires heavy investment
2. You must have headsets
3. You cannot build VR yourself
4. VR cannot compliment existing learning
5. You cannot track your learners
Learning Solutions Magazine: Debunking 5 Myths: VR-Based Training Effective At Any Age
1. VR-based training appeals only to younger workers.
2. VR is only useful for entertainment, not serious training
3. You need a large space for people to take VR-based training
4. VR training is prohibitively expensive
5. Learners will feel isolated in a VR headset
All of these statements above are VR straw man arguments. They are propped up only for the article to tear them down. However, here is a myth that I do hear all of the time: VR will revolutionize education.

And here’s my response:

Virtual Reality (VR) learning is no different than any other form of learning.

Come at me, bro.

Remember that I’m for VR in education. It’s just that VR is not a panacea. It will be one more tool in our toolbox of media to use for learning. It will EXCEL in areas where it:
- Saves time
- Saves money
- Reduces danger
This is the Way.

#VRMyth #VR #VirtualReality #Debunking #LearningMyths #VRForLearning #VREducation #VRIsNoDifferentThanAnyOtherFormOfLearning

This article originally posted to LinkedIn on August 27, 2021. Updated with images as of February 18, 2026 because I don’t know, Google eats old images maybe.
November 11, 2021
Given equal results, instructional designers recommend the least expensive option. Or do they?

To my regret, I recently deleted this sentence from my soon-to-be published book chapter:

Instructional
designers are ethically bound, that if all learning outcomes are equal,
to recommend the least expensive, most environmentally sensitive, and
most socio-culturally aware method.

I was asked to provide references to back up this claim. Hmm…isn’t this considered a tenet of instructional design?

Actually, isn’t this a basic truth about all designers everywhere? Part of the job of a designer is to

A) know all of the options and

B) know the strengths and weaknesses of those options which naturally leads a designer to

C)
present the options to their client, highlighting the designer’s
judgment of BEST choice, even if that best choice is not what the client
is hoping for.

(more…)

November 11, 2021
State of XR 2020 – My Conclusions
After my participation of the State of XR 2019 2020 project, I
have come to the following three conclusions. The overall results
edited by iLRN will replace what was known as the New Media Consortium
(NMC) Report for 2020, albeit for XR topics (Virtual Reality, Augmented
Reality, Mixed Reality, Virtual Worlds) only. The following are the
schisms present within XR that most fascinate me.

Accessibility versus Immersion

Again
and again, when my fellow researchers and I examined sources, papers,
and examples of XR being used in research and education, we found gaps
in either of these concepts. It is as if you can have one but not the
other.

If a technology is accessible, it is not fully immersive.

If a technology is amazingly immersive, it is not accessible to some population.

This
tension spreads far beyond a physical campus or location as well. If a
university is investing in maker spaces, 3D printing, or immersive
headsets (all items that are by definition limited to a certain space
and time), the tradeoff is that only a few users can partake of an
experience at any given time. This opens up the conundrum of do you
invest heavily in spaces where only a few students benefit? To increase
accessibility, do you design immersive rooms instead of VR headsets?
Then, if you have a room, do you put more than one person in it?

To be clear, I feel that this conundrum can be overcome. We’re just not there yet. I feel that the solution lies in the fact that we (as in humanity) will be able to adapt to not fully immersive experiences and we’ll call that good enough.

The Most Effective XR has the Highest Stakes

Over
and over, as I stack up the pile of research studies that show that XR
is an effective conduit of education, the majority of studies right now
are from the emergency services: medical, military, police, and fire.

Why is that?

Putting this conundrum in another light, we know that immersive experiences heretofore have used fear as their greatest emotional coinage
(2018, Bailenson). For example, put a learner into a training situation
where they have to find and rescue a person from a burning building and
then begin CPR, you will find that XR gives very impressive learning outcomes.

So
why was the high stakes emotion of fear the same effective coinage in
both situations? Was that destined to be XR’s first proven success?

I don’t have a problem with this. Don’t misinterpret me.

But
I wonder what it is about ‘high stakes’ and fear that made this emotion
the first to show it works via the research in XR? Bring humans into an
experience where it feels scary, but make sure they remember that the
situation isn’t real. The result becomes high entertainment value (i.e.
Grand Theft Auto). My point is that there are many other emotions that
we could pick for XR to ellicit/play on.

We could have selected love as our emotion. What about wonder? Awe? Compassion?

I’m not saying that there are not XR applications out there that don’t pull upon the non-fear emotions; there are. But why did fear get to the front of the “effective” line?

The Role of Justice is Coming to XR

If you followed my exploration of the History of XR series, you know that I was engaging in an exercise of future prediction. As such, I sensed two choices:
1. All possibilities are possible.
2. Patterns predict what will happen.
After
my study, I decided, as a designer, that choice #2 is the better bet.
That is, if I could find a foundation upon which a feature, design, or
product was built and *that* foundation was successful, then I would bet
that the future feature would be successful.

Here is a simple example:

At this point, books
are one of humanity’s greatest design successes. Many users want to
read (there is market desire) and are more successful after reading
(effectiveness is high). Books are predictable; they contain many
patterns that are widely understood: title, table of contents, letters
form words, words form sentences, sentences form paragraphs, paragraphs
are contained arguments, books proceed through an argument from
beginning to an end (in different directions depending on language).

An
example conclusion, therefore, is that future XR technologies *must*
contain some element of text to be successful. Purely icon-based
communication does not feel successful.

But back to XR as an entire picture. Justice was built into the very first concepts of human’s imaginings of alternate realities.
(Hello Plato!) I believe justice is still there, but it is very buried.
I look for justice to show up more prominently in the future. There are
already calls for XR to be a harassment-free or a prejudice free zone.

I’ll be spending 2020 contemplating this and looking for examples of justice in XR applications.

I seek to find justice in:

AR
– I look forward to the day when disciplines described today as ‘for
those who have vision’ to be opened to all. For example, in science we
know it is very hard to envision electron orbitals as
‘statistically-likely places to find electrons.’ AR will be able to add
that sight to anyone studying the Periodic Table. Just the same for
envisioning the flow of electrons in electricity.

VR
– Lucas Rizotto’s recently released Oculus game “Where Thoughts Go”
introduces a much more subtle version of empathy, not a bang you over
the head version.

VW – Some quiet and yet profound results are coming from the social application of virtual platforms. Virtual Ability
has been doing spectacular work for years on all kinds of physical and
mental ability fronts. I look for this to open up as an increasingly
socially acceptable form of support and thus, justice.

It’s almost a new decade! I can’t wait to see what the future does hold. See you there.

#StateOfXR
#Research #Conclusions #AccessibilityInXR #ImmersionInXR #XR #AR #VR
#VW #Fear #HighStakes #Effective #Compassion #Awe #SocialSupport
#Justice #EmergencyServices

This article originally appeared on LinkedIn on December 23, 2019. Updated font and images on February 23, 2026.
November 10, 2021
A History of XR Cross Reality Part 6 of 6
Almost there! Only five years to go and then into the future, she writes and points like Doc Brown.

2014 – Future

2015 Google Cardboard

Source: Wikicommons

Google (again? They were just in Part 5) sends out Google cardboard in the New York Times (and other media),
expanding the new idea– a cheap VR viewer where you use your
smartphone and some special apps. Pluses: mass market availability,
cheap, created buzz. Negatives: absolutely no hands. People want to do
more than look, they want to touch.

2016 Emotiv

Source: Wikicommons

OK
– I will go on record and say I do not like this product. It records
the user’s brain waves when a certain action is requested (like open
email) and then translates future instances of those brain waves as
commands to repeat the learned action. Why don’t I like this? I cannot
find many instances of telekinesis that have worked so far for humanity.
Maybe in a future I can’t see, but for now, nope. Just remember, there
is no spoon.

2016 Mobile World Congress – Facebook gets into the VR action.

It is interesting to note that when very large corporations make steps into a certain technology, all of our heads should be turning.

Facebook’s
virtual world Horizon (once called Spaces) just opened in October 2019.
Horizon so far doesn’t seem to be getting a warm reception. [Update: Horizons was set to shutdown and then quickly backtracked this decision in 2026.]

This
invention represents an inflection point in technology where
we double back on ourselves and create a conundrum. When asked if they
would utilize a virtual world to ‘be’ (embodiment) with their friends, I
see most regular users of Facebook shying away from the concept. These
are the same users that lived totally without Facebook…uh…before
Facebook. As such, they were synchronously and physically with
people before. Being with people should not, by itself, weird out this
population. So why the hesitation near this concept now? Are we
‘friends’ with people and do things within Facebook that we would not do
when in-person with them? #Research needed here.

2019 January – Apple patenting new gesture capture devices?

Maybe?
As I’ve said though, no need for gloves or devices attached to people.
Ditch that idea. New gestures to mean new things though?? [Edit: I’ve deleted and now downplayed Apple here, they did got for a high end “Pro” headset…that didn’t do so well.]

2019 October – AWE conference in Munich #AWE2019

The headset detects hands. At the time, cool.

2019 – Magic Leap

I don’t love this product. Why? See my Future of XR Headsets article. Magic Leap can be redeemed in my opinion though. I will wait this out. [Update: Magic Leap died in 2024 and been resuscitated in 2025.]

2019 – Microsoft Hololens 2

Excellent
product. Why? Because the person looking at the user can see their
eyes. Besides what I wrote about in my Future of XR Headsets article,
Microsoft has taken a page from their own (MS Office) playbook for this
launch. They are going directly to the business market. As such, there
will be back-pressure into education to prepare learners for the
workplace. This product has many of the characteristics of future
success.

2019 – example of room-based VR

The plus here? Accessibility. Also, you could get more people into
the same experience. So this is VR for more than one person.

2019 – Microsoft demo of a hologram gives a partial keynote speech in Japanese, when the speaker does not speak Japanese at all.

Very much #thefutureistoday.

2019 – Disney’s The Void – example of location-based VR.

Negatives:
Must go to a location to experience this. Experience is not cheap.
Positives: Increase in quality content (Star Wars!) and you can
experience this in group (more than one at a time).
[Update: The Void died in the pandemic due to financial problems.]

So my predictions for the future of XR *based* on studying the past:
- Text will be a continuing necessity. Put it everywhere and in everything you can. Text has over a 2000 year history
  in human interfaces; it is a winner. We need 3D fonts that can work
  “floating” and over the top of a variety of light and dark backgrounds
  and we need them yesterday. #3DFonts
- User-customized ways of interacting with large amounts of information.
- Tech not touching you that still works.
- No need for gloves.
- First forms of what works will likely be two technologies squished together.
- Seeing your user as a human will be more important than the tech itself.
Interesting
that phone and sound are almost non-existent in my XR research. I
didn’t avoid it, but it also didn’t really show up as a necessary future
player. I’ll keep cogitating on that.

Keep an eye on science fiction. If you noticed, my sci fi sources dried up about 5 years ago and everything I shared was
a technological innovation. What Sci Fi sources are predicting the near
and far future? Battlestar Galactica? Handmaid’s Tale? The Marvel
Universe? [Update: it was much more Handmaid’s Tale that I care to think about.]

Amara’s Law: We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.

Going
forward, I am very interested to trace the justice concept (remember
Plato?) through this technology. It is significant that we can
criticize much of the current XR environment as being made by young,
white males in silicon valley. We need diversity and inclusion inside
the workforce making XR.

What comes next? I can’t wait to find out.

Miss any of the prior history of XR and you are curious? Have at it!

Part 1 380 B.C. to 1880

Part 2 1881 to 1909

Part 3 1910 to 1965

Part 4 1966 – 1998

Part 5 1999 – 2013

Part 6 2014 – Future

Have any time points that you think I should include? Tell us as a comment!

#Reality
#CrossReality #MixedReality #VirtualReality #AugmentedReality
#VirtualWorlds #Design #Transmedia #XR #VR #AR #ARVRinEdu #EdTech
#Innovation #GoogleCardboard #Emotiv #FacebookVR #FacebookVW
#FacebookHorizon #AppleGestures #iLRN #AWE #MagicLeap #MicrosoftHolens2
#MicrosoftHologram #OmegaOphthalmics #DisneyTheVoid #Samsung2020
#GooglePixel4 #AppleAR #Spectacles #SmellOVision #FutureTrends #3DText
#YourUserIsHuman

This article originally appeared on LinkedIn on December 2, 2019. Updated on March 31, 2026 with replaced images and I deleted some (now embarrassing) future predictions.
November 10, 2021
A History of XR Cross Reality Part 5 of 6

As a reminder, we are using science fiction as our time
machine vehicle to examine how good we are at predicting the future and
our intention is to predict the future of cross realities (XR).

1999 – 2013

1999 Tom Clancy’s Net Force

I
think I am probably one of the only writers that would put this in an
XR history timeline. The namesake is a police force of a future internet
where world citizens can relinquish country-based citizenship and
become a citizen of the internet. But the prediction I liked was the
description of how the internet could become an interface where the user
could customize their interaction with it. It is hard to describe (read
the book!). I find that prediction really tantalizing. The
closest reality we have right now is the fact that everyone’s home
screen on their smart phones is different, but this interaction with
large data sets is still in front of us. More on this topic in 2007.

1999 The Matrix – considered the first truly dark interpretation of the power of the internet.

Source: IMDB

In this story, the internet is a place to escape from. Take
one more look at that date: 1999. We’re really only about four years
after the big 1995 America Online expansion of subscribers. Only four
years and we’re already starting to suspect that this internet thing is
something to be wary of.

2002 Minority Report – Gloves used to manipulate screens and displays.

Source: IMDB

I
agree with the futurists that say that this vision of screens and
displays will be accurate (floating in the air, perhaps only visible to
the direct user). However, I predict: ditch the gloves.
You won’t need them in the future. Radar will be able to detect your
finger location in real time, so you don’t have to wear a device on or
in your body for this functionality.

2003 – Birth of Second Life – an immersive persistent world.

It’s still around. But multiple iterations of virtual worlds now exist.

2007 – The Croquet Project.
This is a now defunct project that basically embodied Tom Clancy’s
customizable browser. I love the idea. I still think that versions of
this idea will arrive in the future. (Sorry the picture below does not
come close to showing what it was. It’s hard to use images to describe
this.)

Source: Wikicommons

2007
– The first iPhone. Hard to believe we’ve been through all this history
and only just now did we arrive at the first smartphone.

Source: Wikicommons

2010 – The first tablet, the iPad.

Source: Wikicommons

I
didn’t originally plan to take us directly from Apple launch of iPhone
to launch of iPad, but I would like to show the likely user experience
pathway between these two items. Let’s pretend we are in an Apple
meeting room in 2008. We’re asked “What are our users experiencing?” The
report is “Well, they like pulling up the internet and messaging from
wherever, but still when they get on a (frequent) business flight, they
lug along their full laptop (for work files), a book (for reading when
they have a few hours ahead), some magazines (for light reading during
short delays) and something that might play a few very small videos.” So
Apple sees 3 different devices:

A phone – that does what phones do, and a little more

A laptop – that carries huge files and has a keyboard, but is otherwise clunky to carry

Print media & some stored music – stored on a device that does ONLY that function

So the iPad is the combination of those three needs. You might remember that the iPad was not launched as a phone replacement though.
Need a phone for communication? Actually, not so much. We now know that
smartphones are used for phone communication 5% of the time. That’s 95%
of the time they are not used as phones. The iPad allowed all of those
other needs to be met. Remember that Disney robot vacuuming, but the
true future was the combination robot vacuum. The combination – put
technologies together- wins again!

2013 Microsoft Kinect – Defunct but considered a commercial success at 35 million units sold.

Source: Wikicommons

Personally,
I love this device for the accessibility. Nothing touches the body! You
could be in a wheelchair and use this. You could not have hands and use
this. Love this idea! I pin this as a VERY future workable idea: devices that do not need to touch you.

2013 “Modern” smartwatches born.

2013 Google Glass – another defunct innovation

Source: Wikicommons

Interesting
to note the privacy backlash that happened in 2013. Everyone was
concerned that the camera on the Glass (wore by the user) would be
watching & recording them (not the user). Fast forward to
2019 and people whip out their phone, camera, & filter in a second!
My, how times change!

[Update from 2026: The backlash against Meta’s AR glasses grows.]

In case you missed the other articles in this timeline, here they are:

Part 1 380 B.C. to 1880

Part 2 1881 to 1909

Part 3 1910 to 1965

Part 4 1966 – 1998

Part 5 1999 – 2013

Part 6 2014 – Future

#Reality
#CrossReality #MixedReality #VirtualReality #AugmentedReality
#VirtualWorlds #Design #Transmedia #XR #VR #AR #ARVRinEdu #EdTech
#Innovation #TomClancy #NetForce #Matrix #MinorityReport #ARGloves
#SecondLife #CroquetProject #iPhone #iPad #MicrosoftKinect #GoogleGlass

This article originally posted to LinkedIn on December 1, 2019. Updated font on March 31, 2026 with replaced images.

November 10, 2021
A History of XR Cross Reality Part 4 of 6

If you persevered through Parts 1, 2, and 3,
well done! For me, the fun starts now as the timeline now includes my
lifetime which means I can remember and attest to the impact that
science fiction has had on our cross reality creations. We have color TV
so let’s almost finish up the 20th century!

1966 – 1998

1966
Star Trek and the communicator – a hand held device that could do
several functions, all without cords, wires, or being at a
panel/payphone.

1968 Heads-Up Display suggested for civilian, private use.

1969
Another paleo futuristic image, this one from Japan. This shows
adaptive technology used for learning, no teacher in the room, and robot
that doles out punishment.

Source: Shōnen Sunday, a Japanese Manga magazine, 1969.

1972
The first smartwatch, the Pulsar. I tried to find what definition
‘first smartwatch’ meant and I learned that it meant ‘you have to press a
button in order for it to display the time’.

The Pulsar, the first smart watch. Source: watchdepot.com.au

1974 This
video, One day, a computer will fit on a desk (1974) is excellent to watch. The world is predicted for
2001.

That’s
Arthur C. Clarke. What is it about science fiction writers that have
the ability to accurately predict the future? I think it’s first the
broad spectrum of options that science fiction provides. Second, I think
that they can also pick out design patterns that are viable.

1979 Star Wars – communication via recorded hologram.

Star Wars, A New Hope, Leia as hologram scene.

1982
EPCOT opens. This is the now-closed Horizons pavilion which focused
entirely on the future. I wanted to show this image because of the
robots in the home. One robot in the kitchen is cooking and
simultaneously cleaning.

Let’s zoom in on the “Butler” robot who is vacuuming.

The butler from the now-gone Horizons Epcot pavilion

Notice
how Disney has the Butler robot — who is capable of other
duties–literally using a vacuum cleaner that would have been present in
1960 or even 1982. So futurists often start by putting objects together to increase the functions. Need your floor vacuumed? No problem. Your robot will grab the vacuum and do it for you. One device will use another device.

But
today, we have Roomba vacuums. Disney was wrong. What happened? In the
future that came to pass, the robot and the vacuum cleaner were put
together into one device (and the butler’s duties are done by other
robots in our homes, I’m looking at you Alexa). Take note of that
pattern; what started as two devices actually became one.

This is a fun image from 1982.

Credit: Alan Kay

This
was drawn by Alan Kay who was drafted to draw a vision of how Atari
could be incorporated into the classroom. Bold moves for a game
company– then.

Note: “Here we see some of the earliest visions
from Silicon Valley of the personal computer in the classroom. The
future of education here is technological. It is branded. It is
game-based. There are still desks in rows and clusters. And students
still rebel.” (Watters, 2015)

1992 Snow Crash novel by Neal Stephenson.

Cover art for the Snow Crash novel by Neal Stephenson

Stephenson
writes of a virtual world, the impact of headsets, and a basic Sumerian
language programming plot. Philip Rosedale credits his wife as handing
him this novel to read that became the starting point for Linden Lab’s
Second Life virtual world.

1995’s The Net with Sandra Bullock is a techno thriller of an isolated remote worker.

Source: imdb.com

Problems
ensue when she discovers a tech problem and a large corporation goes
after her via the only conduit in her life: everything digital. Without
giving away the plot because I’ve heard some have never seen this movie (what?), there is a very interesting intersection with privacy, security, and medical records. Let’s just say that I’m very glad that this prediction of the future has not come true…yet.

Part 1 380 B.C. to 1880

Part 2 1881 to 1909

Part 3 1910 to 1965

Part 4 1966 – 1998

Part 5 1999 – 2013

Part 6 2014 – Future

#Reality
#CrossReality #MixedReality #VirtualReality #AugmentedReality
#VirtualWorlds #Design #Transmedia #XR #VR #AR #ARVRinEdu #EdTech
#Innovation #StarTrek #Communicator #PaleoFuture #Pulsar #StarWars
#Hologram #EPCOT #Horizons #Disney #Roomba #Atari #SnowCrash
#NealStephenson #SecondLife #PhilipRosedale #LindenLab #TheNet
#SandraBullock

This article originally posted to LinkedIn on November 30, 2019. Updated on February 24, 2026 with better font and re-added images.

November 10, 2021
A History of XR Cross Reality Part 3 of 6

France_in_XXI_Century._School.jpg: Jean Marc Cote (if 1901) or Villemard (if 1910)derivative work: TVJunkie, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

1910 – 1965

In 1910, the artist Jean
Marc Cote, is commissioned to create artwork for cigar boxes showing
humanity in the year 2000. Some of these predictions hit remarkably
close the mark.

Flying firefighters. No? You do know that departments are incorporating drones, right?

Villemard, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Schools transformed by just listening-learning (blog banner image).

Now educators and I can have a field day with just this image. I
would ask a group of teachers-to-be to analyze what was correct in this
prediction and what was incorrect. We could go on and on. The main idea
here to get is that learning was going to transformed to occur only by listening. How ridiculous, right? And yet, three years later in real life…

Thomas Edison examining some film. NPGallery, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

“Thomas
Edison famously predicted in 1913 that “Books will soon be obsolete in
schools” – but not because books were to be ground up by a knowledge
mill. Rather, Edison believed that one of the technological inventions
he was involved with and invested in – the motion picture – would
displace both textbooks and teachers alike.

“I believe that the
motion picture is destined to revolutionize our educational system and
that in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use
of textbooks,” Edison asserted in 1922. “I should say that on the
average we get about two percent efficiency out of schoolbooks as they
are written today. The education of the future, as I see it, will be
conducted through the medium of the motion picture… where it should be
possible to obtain one hundred percent efficiency.” (Watters, 2015)

From
1913 to 1931, we have the age of radio. By 1931, television was
demonstrated at the Iowa State Fair. Just two years after (so quick if
you think about it) that the University of Iowa started to experiment
with this medium. The first broadcasts were only video, no audio.
Because televisions were scarcely available commercially and the signal
was weak, users who could receive the signal tended to be with five
miles of the campus and had built their own TVs from parts. If you
wanted to hear sound along with the video, you had to tune in your radio
at the same time. Descriptions of the image produced in these
rudimentary TVs are actually scary (colors, shapes, very fuzzy). But it
is a start!

General Electric early television set. DogsRNice, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Professors
quickly figured out that they could broadcast radio from home and then
did so. Students still had to travel to campus and sit in seats to
listen. The next innovation was two way radio so students could ask
questions of the professor.

Haaren High School, New York, accounting class, by radio. Source: https://onetuberadio.com/2023/07/10/1923-distance-learning/

1957
The Sensorama by Morton Heilig is considered the first cross reality
machine. It provided visuals, sounds, vibrations, and smells.

Sensorama patent filing diagram, side view.

1958
I cannot resist including this image of an electric typewriter because
use of text is a common theme that carries through our history of XR and
I do believe it will continue into the future. What is interesting is
the boast that her grades will improve by 38% if you buy her an electric
typewriter. Her grades will improve in what…typing class?

1960 No history mentioning futurism would be complete without mentioning Walt Disney.

Source: expolounge.blogspot.com

In
addition to his many other achievements, Walt Disney was a visionary
futurist and he did not stop with just dreaming; he set in place plans
to create the future. This particular image is associated with his plans
for EPCOT, his Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow. I’d like
to point out that this image is from 1960 when Walt Disney was also
planning his displays for the 1964 World’s Fair (what would become It’s A
Small World and The Carousel of Progress). Walt never lived to see
EPCOT open but his flair for looking into the future appeared in the
rides as I will show in a future article. At this point, we note that he
looked at the future with ideas about community, centralization of
services, and the importance of neighborhoods.

Also in 1960, the first videoconferencing was conducted. This gives us the sharing of live video and audio.

1965 This paleo futuristic cartoon seems to predict a dire future of robots giving instruction.

“Robot teacher from the December 5, 1965 edition of the Sunday comic strip Our New Age” Source: Novak Archive.

But
look closely at the prediction: “Compressed speech will help
communications. From talking with pilots, to teaching reading. Future
school children may hear their lessons at twice the rate and understand
them better!”

Did they get that wrong? Ever noticed this choice at YouTube? [I’m not implying that learners can learn at a higher speed, I’m pointing to the availability of speeding up videos– a different thing altogether.]

YouTube playback speed choices

1966 Have another cartoon prediction.

Source: http://publicdomainreview.org/collections/france-in-the-year-2000-1899-1910/

“By
2016, man’s intelligence and intellect will be able to be increased by
drugs and by linking human brains directly to computers.”

Well, my intellect is increased by coffee. I won’t speak for you.

Part 1 380 B.C. to 1880

Part 2 1881 to 1909

Part 3 1910 to 1965

Part 4 1966 – 1998

Part 5 1999 – 2013

Part 6 2014 – Future

#Reality
#CrossReality #MixedReality #VirtualReality #AugmentedReality
#VirtualWorlds #Design #Transmedia #XR #VR #AR #ARVRinEdu #EdTech
#Innovation #Change #WaltDisney #Epcot #ProgressCity #JeanMarcCote
#CigarBox #Year2000 #PaleoFuture #Sensorama #ThomasEdison

This article originally posted on LinkedIn on November 29, 2021. Updated February 24, 2026 with a better font and re-added images.

November 10, 2021
A History of XR Cross Reality Part 2 of 6

Jules Chéret, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

As a reminder, we are using science fiction as our time
machine vehicle to examine how good we are at predicting the future and
our intention is to predict the future of cross realities (XR).

1881 – 1909

1881
– The invention of the theater phone (theatrophone) allowed users to
listen to the live opera from a location up to 1 mile away from the
theater. So you do not have to be there to be there.

Münzbetriebenes Empfangsgerät des de:Theatrophons. Circa 1892. Work is considered to be in the public domain in the US.

1882 Paleo futuristic image showing opera attendees in the future year 2000.
In case you are checking your watch, that’s 2 decades ago as of this
writing. Did I miss fish cars? Lizard cars? Actually, never mind. I
don’t think you’d find me going to the opera regardless of the kind of
car.

Villemard, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

1895
H.G. Wells published The Time Machine as a dystopian future view. Wells
was living in rural England and was seeing the industrial revolution
expand. He saw large factory cities swallow up young workers for long
hours in dark conditions and producing to satisfy an seemingly
insatiable consumer. He looked forward and saw a future where humanity
would become split into two groups that would almost would never interact.

Author Herbert George WellsPublisher William Heinemann, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

On
the surface was a Greek god-like existence of Eloi. They all looked
alike. (Shivers.) This group would be the consumers. They would benefit
from this world order but simultaneously be oblivious to the price for
their existence. They would be a small group, the 1%.

The
underground dwellers, the Morlocks, would run all of the machinery. They
would be the producers, and the generations of being underground would
allow for adaptations of evolution including large eyes, intolerance of
sunlight, and flesh-eating.

E.M. Forster read The Time Machine and rejected this future that H.G. Well foresaw.

However,
before we get to Forster’s publication, we visit one other futurist. In
1901, Frank Baum (of The Wizard of Oz) published The Master Key which
contains the first known reference in writing to what we would recognize
today as augmented reality:

William Wallace Denslow, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

“On
the other hand,” continued the Demon, “some people with fierce
countenances are kindly by nature, and many who appear to be evil are in
reality honorable and trustworthy. Therefore, that you may judge all
your fellow-creatures truly, and know upon whom to depend, I give you
the Character Marker. It consists of this pair of spectacles. While you
wear them every one you meet will be marked upon the forehead with a
letter indicating his or her character. The good will bear the letter
‘G,’ the evil the letter ‘E.’ The wise will be marked with a ‘W’ and the
foolish with an ‘F.’ The kind will show a ‘K’ upon their foreheads and
the cruel a letter ‘C.’ Thus you may determine by a single look the true
natures of all those you encounter.”

“And are these,
also, electrical in their construction?” asked the boy, as he took the
spectacles… All character sends out certain electrical vibrations, which
these spectacles concentrate in their lenses and exhibit to the gaze of
their wearer, as I have explained.”

“It’s a fine idea,” said the boy; “who discovered it?”

“It is a fact that has always existed, but is now utilized for the first time.” [A wonderful Wizard of Oz-like sense of humor. Making fun of the fantastical, but obvious.]

In December 1909, E.M. Forster publishes The Machine Stops. If
you have a chance to read it, I encourage that. It is a remarkable
story. If you substitute “the Internet” for “the Machine,” the story is
eerily accurate in some predictions of humanity. There is also very
interesting economy where humanity values the exchange of ideas above all other concepts (cough, Instagram, Twitter/X, Mastadon, Bluesky, etc.).

Short summary:

In
the future, everyone lives underground in these large columns of cells
because the surface is inhabitable. Each person lives in a cell that is
of a small defined space, one person per cell. The collections of people
are like bee hives. Everything a person needs to live is brought to
them in their cell by the Machine. Food, air, water, and once a day the
cell (and the person) are washed clean. The humans never meet or touch
in any way. They listen to concerts, speeches, and read books.

The
plot of the story unfolds with a son that yearns to escape to the
surface world; he believes it might be inhabitable and as such, holds
new promise for humanity. At first, he tells his mother about his desire
to leave via the Machine (a progenitor to Skype?) but the Machine,
intercepting the message, always fuzzes out when people express
unhappiness with the current order of things (cough, Facebook experiment).
Thus, the mother does not understand her son’s intent. She tries to
dismiss her worries. The son becomes insistent and travels to visit his
mother in person. When they meet, the mother is bothered by human touch.
He insists that he’s been on an exploratory climb and that he knows
other youth that are going to leave too. She will not leave the hive,
she cannot understand why anyone would leave the Machine. He leaves and
finds a livable world on the surface. The Machine, without humans to
service it, eventually breaks down and everyone remaining underground
dies; not because they are unable to leave, but because they lack the fortitude to do so.

Forster’s future vision does not have cannibalism but it highlights an amazing weakness; that the more humans depend on machines, the less human we will essentially become. Forster seems to argue that the human connection to the natural world is our salvation; a lesson not lost in 2019.

You’ve
finished a great deal of time travel but this was the slowest feeling
part of our journey. We’ll start speeding up in Part 3 which will
publish on November 29, 2019.

Part 1 380 B.C. to 1880

Part 2 1881 to 1909

Part 3 1910 to 1965

Part 4 1966 – 1998

Part 5 1999 – 2013

Part 6 2014 – Future

#Reality
#CrossReality #MixedReality #VirtualReality #AugmentedReality
#VirtualWorlds #Design #Transmedia #XR #VR #AR #ARVRinEdu #EdTech
#Innovation #Change #HGWells #EMForster #TheMachineStops #TheTimeMachine
#TheMasterKey #FrankBaum #TheaterPhone

Originally posted in November 2019. Updated on February 24, 2026 with changed font and re-added images.

November 10, 2021