Great questions. Why don't you propose some scenarios for the issues 
you think are most important.

Cheers,

Alan

-------

At 5:17 PM -0800 2/11/03, Darius wrote:
>Croqueteers,
>
>My original terse question was too vague. Here is the reasoning behind my
>question:
>
>Since "Croquet is a computer software architecture built from the ground up
>with a focus on deep collaboration between teams of users." I had imagined
>virtual auditorium type demonstrations & collaborations (for time/presence
>sensitive events) in addition to the common virtual small group/classroom
>interactions. It seems to me appropriate to consider both in the design phase.
>
>In auditorium settings you do not want your view blocked, nor to be located so
>far away from the activity so that it cannot be seen, nor do you want
>positioning or sound interference. Should we provide presence and viewing w/o
>avatar representation for packing everyone in together? Do we need a mechanism
>of identifying instances of such a presence for targeting chat dialog? Should
>we always split up time/presence sensitive events into multiple worlds? Should
>we assign and time sequence interactions in the same manner that the US
>Congress or other parliaments do?
>
>I don’t have any easy answers, but I suspect future Croqueteers will ask these
>same questions.
>
>>  At some point capacity gets exceeded

>That’s a hardware, OS issue ;)
>
>>  The first practical limit in Croquet is in the number of polygons
>Since Croquet is 3D hardware accelerated, I suspect in a crowed 
>auditorium most
>polygons would be clipped already by the 3D models crowing closest to you.
>
>>  This email list is for parents, teachers and children who are
>>  concerned with the "etoys" part of Squeak. Croquet stuff can and
>>  should be discussed both on its own list and on the squeak.org list.
>
>I sincerely apologize. I knew that but forgot at the time I sent my 
>message. (I
>just mentally connect both "Croquet" & "Squeakland" with Viewpoints Research
>Institute.)
>
>Cheers,
>Darius


--