This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are we beyond stub or should it be marked? Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 16:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
"Smartglass assumes another device is doing most of the work and it's a remote control. This is not the case." It is expressed at several points in the smartglasses article that such an assumption is less true nowadays. I certainly don't think it defines the category, any more than having a stylus or a physical QWERTY keyboard defined the smartphone. Referring to HoloLens as smartglasses was not incorrect. It was not original research, and the connection is easily referenced. I believe that the description of the device as "self-contained" was sufficient to clarify the matter. Dancter ( talk) 20:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
By the way I'm guessing this isn't a true use of holography, involving the interference of light waves. Thus the name "Hololens" should be noted as a bit deceptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.130.136 ( talk) 18:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This seems like its going to get bloated real fast. Can we make sure to nail down a criteria? Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 21:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I know there isn't much data yet on how this device works, but what data there is should be incorporated somehow. Wired's February cover story goes into a bit of detail about the internal workings of the device. Zell Faze ( talk) 08:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Some editors think we should wait until more information is available. That seems logical. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
requested move/dated|Microsoft HoloLens}}
Windows Holographic → Microsoft HoloLens – The name Hololens appears to be the official title of the device and I have not seen it referred to as Windows Holographic in any reliable source. --Relisted. Number 5 7 17:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Zell Faze ( talk) 09:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I know that we have a section in the article titled Microsoft Hololens, but so far it seems like the article is mostly dominated by that topic, as is most of the news coverage. I think it would be better to relegate the APIs to a section and make the Hololens itself the main topic of the article. I suspect given time the article will be split into two with both topics having their own articles, though that won't likely happen in the immediate future. Zell Faze ( talk) 09:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Windows Holographic will have A.P.I.'s enabled in Windows 10 devices (both P.C.'s and Phones), I wonder if this article could then be considered a component of Windows, ¿or should it be considered differently? as not all components are for consumers and/or end-users, nor are they always visual, but before adding the template and category I wanted to consult with other editors first. Sincerely, -- Namlong618 ( talk) 12:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I just finished merging the two articles together. Just note that they are not perfect and I only merged them. I did little to no fixing. Any fixing that you can do would be greatly appreciated.
Catcha Later, The f18hornet ( talk) 15:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
For reference, the rest of the discussion about this merge proposal was here. Dancter ( talk) 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the articles should be split. Hololens is the device (like Surface) and Windows Holographic is the OS (like Windows 10). Ians18 ( talk) 05:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Thomas.bhatia: I noticed that you added the {{ newsrelease}} cleanup template to this article on July 20. Which specific parts of the article do you want to improve, and which changes would you suggest for this article? Jarble ( talk) 08:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I suggest a split between the software and the hardware content in this article, though these two are intertwined the Windows Holographic set of A.P.I.'s is a part of all Windows 10 and Windows 10 Mobile, and Windows 10 Internet of Things software systems and the Microsoft HoloLens is a specific piece of hardware. And may I point out that there has been written a lot about the Microsoft HoloLens by a plethora of sources, in fact way more than E.G. Microsoft Band 2, Sony Kabushiki Gaisha's Project Morpheus, the Microsoft Surface Pro 4, and the iPad Pro yet all of these subjects have their own articles/pages on Wikipedia, and even if one would look at relevance I'd say that looking the at the number of Microsoft Bing search results would be a great indicator of what is talked more about, compare Windows Holographic with 1,070,000 results Vs. Microsoft HoloLens with 2,780,000 results it's obvious that the Microsoft HoloLens most certainly has the right on its own article.
Sincerely, -- 86.81.201.94 ( talk) 17:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I have added an infobox to the Microsoft HoloLens section, but because some sources contradict each other and for some reason I can't put references in there purely by name (as in that I am re-using a previously used reference) I am letting the editing at the hands of more experienced infobox makers of this type (as I mostly specialise in websites and other types of hardware on Wikipedia), so if anyone would please fix some "uncited" aspects that I added I'd be very grateful. Sincerely, -- 86.81.201.94 ( talk) 21:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why an abbreviated link is used multiple times in this article that redirects directly to another website, just because Microsoft owns the U.R.L. doesn't mean that it's "the official site", I'm not sure if it's particularly encyclopedic to use a wrong link as the official website is clearly Microsoft.com rather than HoloLens.com. Sincerely, -- 86.81.201.94 ( talk) 20:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
It's clear to most of us that the images presented are simulations (artist's renderings) of the technology and operating system. The first image is promotional material as well - which isn't necessarily problematic but the descriptions are potentially misleading. At best, these are 'an artist's vision of a user interacting with the operating system' - but I think the current assumption that the images actually depict users performing the screenshot is unfounded, and unlikely in my opinion.
I'm a fan of the technology and I recognize the intrinsic difficulty in depicting a HUD environment to people using a 2d display. It's essentially the same difficulty in trying to advertise a 3d display - where a lot of artistic license is taken in advertising the concept to newcomers. I do like the images - I think they are good abstract representations of the concept, but I don't think the descriptions should imply actual use. The description for the 'minecraft' image in the main hololens article seems to have already done something similar.
I had made an edit to achieve that effect however it was reverted claiming I had introduced original research. Perhaps my wording was the issue - but I think the argument is valid.
I'm proposing that the image descriptions at least be consistent between the two closely related articles. Something that at least makes it clear that these are artistic concepts that try to show what it would be like to use the technology. EspritsPréparés ( talk) 04:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Codename Lisa:, @ EspritsPréparés:, @ Sheldon.andre: I would like to propose that the name of this article is changed from Windows Holographic to Windows Mixed Reality due to an official name change of the operating system.
Source - [4]
Daylen ( talk) 04:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello
It appears our colleague
ViperSnake151 (Hi, Viper!
) is in favor of mentioning both "virtual reality" and "mixed reality" as the genre of the subject of the article, as two mutually exclusive concepts.
He wrote: Mixed reality implies augmentation of a real-world environment (i.e. Hololens). Microsoft is pushing its own nomenclature and per Start screen. We follow the sources, not MS.
I believe this proves that "mixed reality" already covers virtual reality, augmented reality and augmented virtuality.In 1994 Paul Milgram and Fumio Kishino defined a mixed reality as "...anywhere between the extrema of the virtuality continuum" (VC), where the virtuality continuum extends from the completely real through to the completely virtual environment.
P. Milgram and A. F. Kishino (1994). "Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays". IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems. pp. 1321–1329. Retrieved 2013-10-17.
{{ cite conference}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
( help); Unknown parameter|booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) ( help)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
06:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
‘"this article should follow the commonly-accepted standards between "mixed" and "virtual" reality’, then you go ahead diffuse it by saying
‘"TechRadar article even mentions that the recent line of headsets are "a bit of both"’.
"[...] Normal VR does not necessarily provide this". The opposite is not correct though. Normal MR definitely provides it. It is analogous to a sportsman: The augmented muscular body enables whatever physical activity a normal person can do, plus more.
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are we beyond stub or should it be marked? Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 16:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
"Smartglass assumes another device is doing most of the work and it's a remote control. This is not the case." It is expressed at several points in the smartglasses article that such an assumption is less true nowadays. I certainly don't think it defines the category, any more than having a stylus or a physical QWERTY keyboard defined the smartphone. Referring to HoloLens as smartglasses was not incorrect. It was not original research, and the connection is easily referenced. I believe that the description of the device as "self-contained" was sufficient to clarify the matter. Dancter ( talk) 20:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
By the way I'm guessing this isn't a true use of holography, involving the interference of light waves. Thus the name "Hololens" should be noted as a bit deceptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.130.136 ( talk) 18:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This seems like its going to get bloated real fast. Can we make sure to nail down a criteria? Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 21:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I know there isn't much data yet on how this device works, but what data there is should be incorporated somehow. Wired's February cover story goes into a bit of detail about the internal workings of the device. Zell Faze ( talk) 08:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Some editors think we should wait until more information is available. That seems logical. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
requested move/dated|Microsoft HoloLens}}
Windows Holographic → Microsoft HoloLens – The name Hololens appears to be the official title of the device and I have not seen it referred to as Windows Holographic in any reliable source. --Relisted. Number 5 7 17:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Zell Faze ( talk) 09:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I know that we have a section in the article titled Microsoft Hololens, but so far it seems like the article is mostly dominated by that topic, as is most of the news coverage. I think it would be better to relegate the APIs to a section and make the Hololens itself the main topic of the article. I suspect given time the article will be split into two with both topics having their own articles, though that won't likely happen in the immediate future. Zell Faze ( talk) 09:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Windows Holographic will have A.P.I.'s enabled in Windows 10 devices (both P.C.'s and Phones), I wonder if this article could then be considered a component of Windows, ¿or should it be considered differently? as not all components are for consumers and/or end-users, nor are they always visual, but before adding the template and category I wanted to consult with other editors first. Sincerely, -- Namlong618 ( talk) 12:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I just finished merging the two articles together. Just note that they are not perfect and I only merged them. I did little to no fixing. Any fixing that you can do would be greatly appreciated.
Catcha Later, The f18hornet ( talk) 15:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
For reference, the rest of the discussion about this merge proposal was here. Dancter ( talk) 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the articles should be split. Hololens is the device (like Surface) and Windows Holographic is the OS (like Windows 10). Ians18 ( talk) 05:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Thomas.bhatia: I noticed that you added the {{ newsrelease}} cleanup template to this article on July 20. Which specific parts of the article do you want to improve, and which changes would you suggest for this article? Jarble ( talk) 08:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I suggest a split between the software and the hardware content in this article, though these two are intertwined the Windows Holographic set of A.P.I.'s is a part of all Windows 10 and Windows 10 Mobile, and Windows 10 Internet of Things software systems and the Microsoft HoloLens is a specific piece of hardware. And may I point out that there has been written a lot about the Microsoft HoloLens by a plethora of sources, in fact way more than E.G. Microsoft Band 2, Sony Kabushiki Gaisha's Project Morpheus, the Microsoft Surface Pro 4, and the iPad Pro yet all of these subjects have their own articles/pages on Wikipedia, and even if one would look at relevance I'd say that looking the at the number of Microsoft Bing search results would be a great indicator of what is talked more about, compare Windows Holographic with 1,070,000 results Vs. Microsoft HoloLens with 2,780,000 results it's obvious that the Microsoft HoloLens most certainly has the right on its own article.
Sincerely, -- 86.81.201.94 ( talk) 17:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I have added an infobox to the Microsoft HoloLens section, but because some sources contradict each other and for some reason I can't put references in there purely by name (as in that I am re-using a previously used reference) I am letting the editing at the hands of more experienced infobox makers of this type (as I mostly specialise in websites and other types of hardware on Wikipedia), so if anyone would please fix some "uncited" aspects that I added I'd be very grateful. Sincerely, -- 86.81.201.94 ( talk) 21:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why an abbreviated link is used multiple times in this article that redirects directly to another website, just because Microsoft owns the U.R.L. doesn't mean that it's "the official site", I'm not sure if it's particularly encyclopedic to use a wrong link as the official website is clearly Microsoft.com rather than HoloLens.com. Sincerely, -- 86.81.201.94 ( talk) 20:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
It's clear to most of us that the images presented are simulations (artist's renderings) of the technology and operating system. The first image is promotional material as well - which isn't necessarily problematic but the descriptions are potentially misleading. At best, these are 'an artist's vision of a user interacting with the operating system' - but I think the current assumption that the images actually depict users performing the screenshot is unfounded, and unlikely in my opinion.
I'm a fan of the technology and I recognize the intrinsic difficulty in depicting a HUD environment to people using a 2d display. It's essentially the same difficulty in trying to advertise a 3d display - where a lot of artistic license is taken in advertising the concept to newcomers. I do like the images - I think they are good abstract representations of the concept, but I don't think the descriptions should imply actual use. The description for the 'minecraft' image in the main hololens article seems to have already done something similar.
I had made an edit to achieve that effect however it was reverted claiming I had introduced original research. Perhaps my wording was the issue - but I think the argument is valid.
I'm proposing that the image descriptions at least be consistent between the two closely related articles. Something that at least makes it clear that these are artistic concepts that try to show what it would be like to use the technology. EspritsPréparés ( talk) 04:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Codename Lisa:, @ EspritsPréparés:, @ Sheldon.andre: I would like to propose that the name of this article is changed from Windows Holographic to Windows Mixed Reality due to an official name change of the operating system.
Source - [4]
Daylen ( talk) 04:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello
It appears our colleague
ViperSnake151 (Hi, Viper!
) is in favor of mentioning both "virtual reality" and "mixed reality" as the genre of the subject of the article, as two mutually exclusive concepts.
He wrote: Mixed reality implies augmentation of a real-world environment (i.e. Hololens). Microsoft is pushing its own nomenclature and per Start screen. We follow the sources, not MS.
I believe this proves that "mixed reality" already covers virtual reality, augmented reality and augmented virtuality.In 1994 Paul Milgram and Fumio Kishino defined a mixed reality as "...anywhere between the extrema of the virtuality continuum" (VC), where the virtuality continuum extends from the completely real through to the completely virtual environment.
P. Milgram and A. F. Kishino (1994). "Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays". IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems. pp. 1321–1329. Retrieved 2013-10-17.
{{ cite conference}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
( help); Unknown parameter|booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) ( help)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
06:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
‘"this article should follow the commonly-accepted standards between "mixed" and "virtual" reality’, then you go ahead diffuse it by saying
‘"TechRadar article even mentions that the recent line of headsets are "a bit of both"’.
"[...] Normal VR does not necessarily provide this". The opposite is not correct though. Normal MR definitely provides it. It is analogous to a sportsman: The augmented muscular body enables whatever physical activity a normal person can do, plus more.