| 73 | | More discussion of measurables for VR vs. desktop study. Kristen: what is the added value? Enhanced discovery, engagement, ... Scooter: some aspects are qualitative rather than quantitative. Tom G: somewhat skeptical of this study, most benefits are to experts looking at their own data, rather than better learning by naive users. Scooter: who are the test subjects? Naive users or experts? Elaine: doesn't "pedagogical" imply students? Scooter: we may have moved beyond that initial wording, could decide that the audience is experts instead. Phil: same kind of idea as surgeons changing their surgery plans after VR visualization. But where I've seen VR be especially useful is for scientist researchers who are experts in a particular protein system but not in structural biology. Maybe biochemists or cell biologists. Scooter: figure out audience first, then the questions/problems. Kristen: what is the motivation? Scooter (trying to channel Darrell): NIAID has invested in this great BioViz lab with VR capabilities; what value does that bring to its researchers, does it further the mission of NIAID. Kristen: don't want to make the study group extremely narrow just to get the results you want. Do 2 or 3 groups: postdocs, experts, etc. Elaine: is it hard to get enough subjects to power such a study? Scooter: we rely on Andy to figure that out, but we can learn even from fairly small groups. |
| | 73 | More discussion of measurables for VR vs. desktop study. Kristen: what is the added value? Enhanced discovery, engagement, ... Scooter: some aspects are qualitative rather than quantitative. Tom G: somewhat skeptical of this study, most benefits are to experts looking at their own data, rather than better learning by naive users. Scooter: who are the test subjects? Naive users or experts? Elaine: doesn't "pedagogical" imply students? Scooter: we may have moved beyond that initial wording, could decide that the audience is experts instead. Phil: same kind of idea as surgeons changing their surgery plans after VR visualization. But where I've seen VR be especially useful is for scientist researchers who are experts in a particular protein system but not in structural biology. Maybe biochemists or cell biologists. Scooter: figure out audience first, then the questions/problems. Kristen: what is the motivation? Scooter (trying to channel Darrell): NIAID has invested in this great BioViz lab with VR capabilities; what value does that bring to its researchers, does it further the mission of NIAID. Kristen: don't want to make the study group extremely narrow just to get the results you want. Do 2 or 3 groups: postdocs, experts, etc. Elaine: is it hard to get enough subjects to power such a study? Scooter: we rely on Andy to figure that out, but we can learn even from fairly small groups. Kristen: maybe could use both ChimeraX and a simpler application. Phil: we want to stick to molecular visualization rather than a custom simple mesh object. Discussion of how to separate the specific application with VR vs. desktop. |
| | 74 | |
| | 75 | Meghan: maybe can we put VR-value anecdotes in a shared Google doc. Elaine: isn't that the same as the SOW item to list situations where VR provides added value? Scooter: the SOW item is to find shared characteristics of those anecdotal situations, rather than listing the specific anecdotes. |
| | 76 | |
| | 77 | Meghan: Tom G, do you have time to interact with us after this meeting? Tom: I may need to look at code, but we can confer further now as needed. |
| | 78 | |
| | 79 | Meghan: next steps introduce Andy to ChimeraX, have the 3-way meeting, etc. Scooter: and get the SOW done in time. |
| | 80 | |
| | 81 | Next meeting? 2 weeks from now is their retreat. Can we arrange something Friday Feb 24? Kristen, Greg, Scooter would miss it. Meghan: OK let's plan for the regular Thurs time March 2. |
![[ChimeraX Issue Tracking System]](/trac/ChimeraX/chrome/site/ChimeraX-icon.svg){kind=icon}
