For the past three days, I started experimenting with working in Virtual Reality. I'm quite impressed. My guess is that it's not good for most people yet, but that 1 to 10% of people reading this would gain a 2 to 20% increase in computer productivity by using a VR working setup. The upper end is for people who get distracted easily or have a difficult time with SAD.
This feels like the most radical experiment I've made to my setup so far, so I'm quite happy with how it's worked out. I've used to dream of similar setups and it's really cool that the technology is basically there. I've given demos to a few people in my house who haven't been close to VR and their responses varied from fairly impressed to incredibly impressed.
I'm fairly convinced that there's an extremely promising future for work in VR. The VR ecosystem seems to be improving much more quickly than the alternatives. It strikes me as surprisingly possible that within 2 to 5 years, VR work setups will be the generally recommended work setups, at least for "people in the know." This could both lead to direct improvements and lead the way for radical rethinkings of what work setups are possible.
My specific setup is an Oculus Quest 2 ($300), a 2016 Macbook Pro, and the application Immersed VR. Immersed works using WiFi. My router is around 15 feet away from my headset, and my computer is connected directly to the router via Ethernet. In the app I use two "monitors"; I downscale a 4K monitor to 2048x1280 and use a side monitor of 1920x1080. It's suggested to keep resolutions rather low both because the Oculus Quest 2 doesn't itself have a high resolution (1832×1920 per eye), and because higher resolution means higher latency. You can have up to five "virtual" monitors with Immersed, but I prefer one or two big ones.
I think I used this setup for around 5 working hours on Wednesday, 6 on Thursday, and maybe 2 so far today (but it's still early). It didn't seem to get particularly tiring over that time.
I've been getting latency of around 5ms to 15ms, but every minute or so there are some frustrating 1-5 second hiccups. It's possible to watch videos but I have seen large decreases in frame rate from time to time. They have instructions about using WiFi direct to make things smoother. I've ordered the necessary module (it's around $25) and should be getting it shortly.
I'm not sure how long I'm going to continue using it. I find the Quest a bit uncomfortable to wear for long periods and sometimes a bit tiring for my eyes. I'm going to continue tinkering to try to make it better.
I have a roommate now and find visual stimuli distracting. I'm also in a room that's a bit of a mess. I like having a lot of things (a lot of small experiments), and that makes it difficult to have a clean workspace.
VR setups can isolate away everything that's not the monitors. There's an option to see a keyboard, but I don't use it (I recommend spending effort to not need to). There's a handful of decent virtual room options. On Immersed there seems to be a few that prominently feature space and space travel.
Light / SAD
LessWrong now has a full tag on lighting [? · GW], with 6 popular posts on the topic. I've been considering setting up a system myself.
I'm not sure how to best measure the amount of light experienced in VR vs. the sun, but things seem relatively bright to me with the Quest. VR glasses use curved lenses and a dark environment to focus the LCD light on your eyes, unlike regular monitors that are meant to be visible at any angle. So even a relatively VR small screen can produce more eye-lumens than something much larger. I recently purchased a 350nit 4k monitor and found that that hasn't been quite enough for some parts of the day. With the VR headset, I often turn the monitor brightness down.
The only thread I could find on the topic was this one on Reddit, but it doesn't seem that great to me. I found this beginning of a scientific study on "VR for Seasonal Affective Disorder", but no completed version. I'd hypothesize that living mostly in VR would have some significant benefits for some people with significant SAD (if you're in VR, how does it even matter what the season is?), though I could imagine that it has some downsides too.
VR headsets can be a bit heavy, but besides that can be highly ergonomic. In virtual environments you can configure screens to be anywhere you want them. I have a decent monitor arm that I find decently suboptimal. I often have a hard time bringing my monitor just where I want, so move my neck to compensate (a bad idea!). It can also be fairly shaky when my desk is in standing mode. In VR I can easily position and reposition my monitors exactly where I want them in the sizes I want them, it's great.
I've previously thought about trying to work while laying down, when my back was particularly sore. There are some intense $6k++ setups for this, and gerry-rigging solutions can be quite awkward. With a VR headset you still would need some solution to position the keyboard, but the monitor issue is of course dramatically simplified. I tried reading a bit while lying down and it worked fine.
One of the worst things about monitors is that they are a pain to transport. They're quite large and heavy, and I've had a sequence of bad luck moving them without causing at least some considerable damage. The way things are going, with a VR headset, you could have a stellar setup anywhere at all, which is unheard of. Maybe outdoor setups on warm days would be possible, though of course, you'd have to replace the visuals with some similar or superior theme on your device (You'd still get the sounds, sent, and breeze.) Perhaps at some point laptops will forgo the screens, or maybe all the hardware will be in the headset and you'd carry a separate mouse keyboard combo.
I haven't tried this yet, but apparently, you can cowork with Immersed. I believe you get the benefit(?) of being able to see the screens of other coworkers. The options are quite configurable depending on the program.
Coworking in VR has the obvious benefit of allowing people to live anywhere, but also the obvious cost of not being able to see people's faces. In Immersed there is one feature where you can have a "digital webcam" that uses an avatar of you in a format that's accessible for online video chats in Google Meet and similar. It's neat but faily basic.
As mentioned, the resolution is rather poor compared to modern monitors. The latency is significantly worse, though Wifi direct should help, and Windows setups with direct connections should be fine. This seems quite bad for high-bandwidth tasks like video editing or video games, but useable for typing and a lot of coding.
VR headsets are still a bit uncomfortable to wear for long periods. I imagine this will improve a lot over time. I think that future prototypes look a lot like sunglasses. Apple apparently is getting into the space, so I imagine their take will be particularly lightweight.
Facebook (Quest only)
The Quest 2 requires Facebook login and the operating system is heavily integrated with Facebook. To share a screenshot of my in-game setup I actually had to post it to my Facebook wall, then copy and paste that image. In general the on-system OS is useable but quite basic.
There are a few neat videos of people showing off their VR office setups:
This one is a nice overview of Immersed, though it's about a year old.
This one shows off Virtual Desktop with a wired connection.
Facebook is working on "Infinite Office" which seems interesting but isn't yet available. It at least demonstrates their optimism and dedication to the area. It's pretty easy for me to imagine it being better than Immersed after it launches.
Here's a discussion of someone who didn't find working in VR particularly usable, in part because they needed to see the keyboard and apparently had a lot of in-person distractions.
The Immersed Blog is interesting, though short and biased. They claim that their team works for 8+ hours a day in VR, and point out that apparently, some users reported using VR to effectively live in different time zones.
There's an Immersed Discord and it has most of the discussion I've seen from actual users. The setup is highly biased to favor positive messages, but there is a long list of very enthusiastic users. Generally, people are most positive about the focus benefits and the use of extra monitors. There seems to be almost no discussion from users who have used it for collaboration; most have used it solo.
Working in VR is clearly in its "early days", but it's definitely happening. There seem to be at least dozens of people working full-time in VR at this point, most have started in the last ~2 years. The technology is already quite inexpensive and useable. The advantages going forward are numerous and significant.
I'd expect the VR headsets coming out this next year to continue to get better, so waiting a while is a safe option. But I suggest keeping an eye out and planning accordingly. If you've been thinking about buying a fancy monitor setup or SAD light setup, you might want to reevaluate.
 By this, I mean what I and many smart startups would recommend. Often very good ideas take a long time to become popular. Popularity seems harder to predict than quality.
I've been meaning to do a post about the near future of VR because I feel like a lot of people don't believe how good it will be, and how soon. But I guess maybe it doesn't need a post of its own. It can be boiled down to:
Reaching maximum levels of visual acuity is very achievable via foveated rendering: the optimization of only rendering the patch of the scene that the user is actually looking at in full detail.
No mouse will be needed. That prospect, foveated rendering, incents providing eye tracking. External peripherals that aren't right next to your eye can already provide a faster kind of hands-free mouse, accurate enough for most legitimate demands. For others tasks, perhaps some form of hand tracking could make up the difference.
Field of view (Angle. Amount of peripheral vision) has already been maxed out by pimax.
Further ahead, there just wont be much of a difference in the optical properties of VR and reality if the focal length of the screen can be made dynamically adjustable to resolve vergence conflict.
I expect it humorlessly. In a lot of ways, computer screens can't be improved upon that much:
The third dimension is unlikely to turn out to be useful when most of the work we do is already neglecting to use the color dimensions. Hopefully it'll be useful to people who work with 3d objects (3d modellers) though.
I'd predict operating systems that at least start presenting larger computer screens, but even that has practical limits. Once it's wide enough, it would require you to physically turn your head to be able to see things. Right now you can just hit a switch workspace or show overview keybinding for that kind of thing, which is faster. Working while looking to the side is not ergonomic, and it would be hard to get the OS to consistently put stuff at the sides that's occasionally worth looking at but not ever worth looking at for long enough to get uncomfortable. Caveat: Turning your body to look around at different stuff would probably be healthy, and intuitive, so we might hope for some hip new VR-optimized standing desks with keyboards that can be yawed around to different angles. Optimally, keyboards would be mounted on a fairly long robot arm that lets you just move and position it in 3d space anywhere in a room. Still seems kinda gimicky on net but who knows, might be nice.
One thing I noticed is that HTML could really be optimized for 3d viewing. Right now computer screens are totally flat, but with VR, you could take advantage of the extra dimension. In general I'd be quite curious about 3D web pages, it seems like there's a lot of innovation to be done. My quick hunch is that it won't radically change UX (things would have to be accessible to people with one eye, for instance, and it's very user-convenient to not need to adjust the third dimension, like having a 3-d mouse), but I imagine it could still lead to a bunch of UI changes.
Big Screen allows you to watch 3D movies, which is pretty cool (though they charge a fair bit for them).
I'd be interested too. My impression is that Immersed is the only option that allows for computer screen input on Mac and Linux machines. Windows has more options.
Hopefully with the increasing popularity of VR devices there will be more competition coming in.
That said, I would note that Immersed was mostly fine for me. The main frustrations were the lack of resolution and the fact that it seemed to tire my eyes a bit. I'm not sure how much better Immersed could (realistically) be in ways that would get me to use it more now, as a solo user, at this point.
I have used Immersed for screensharing movies in VR. (We're both mac users, so nothing other than Immersed is possible currently.) It's a bit finicky but you can definitely make it work. I had to lower the resolution of the shared screen until the streaming framerate rose to acceptable levels, but then it was generally great.
The main advantage of this over the more typical approach with a video call is that you can get more of a sense of 'presence' -- you can't see the other person's face, but an avatar can in some ways feel more expressive (you can see their head movements and hand movements.)
However, at least when we tried this, the Immersed screensharing worked much better than the Immersed multiplayer avatars, so we ended up going back to video chat. I expect it's improved since then, though. (The BigScreen avatars are super cool, an incredibly strong sense of presence, but we can't screenshare on BigScreen because that feature is Windows-only. Very frustrating.)
(Disclosure: I made a small investment in Immersed, because I think it's super cool.)
Me too. Long-term impacts in general can be tricky to study.
I imagine that there are a whole bunch of parameters to play with in VR. There are different technologies for the headsets, and within it, you have options regarding brightness and similar. My guess is that theoretically it could be good or better than many regular monitor setups, but I'm not sure how long it will take to find that.
As long as most of what you're looking at is at the VR's natural focal point (resolving vergence conflict) and the pixel density is high enough.. maybe it will be fine.
It's possible that something bad happens if you don't refocus your lenses very often, and it seems likely to me that it may be a long long time before VR that can present multiple focal lengths starts getting cheap. There might not be a lot of enthusiastic demand for it. Maybe there will be though. Gamers will demand every achievable kind of realism, even this weird silly stuff like realistic depth of field simulation. Once that happens I can't imagine what differences to reality would be left for the eye to complain about.
I tried out Immersed on the Quest 1 and found it suprisingly close, but not quite good enough. I plan to try it out on the Quest 2 someday soon.
I think VR Headsets are a bit heavy/uncomfortable to wear for extended periods of time so I don't know that I could actually really work in it extensively, but in general I've been surprised at how good it was.
I'm also quite interested to see people specifically look into VR and SAD.
There are a few options with the $15/month package with Immersed. No forest, but there is one above the clouds, and one in a cave (no treasure though). With the free package you just get a few 360 photos to choose from (no depth)
Other apps have more options, but they only support Windows generally.
Cool experiment! I'm definitely not attracted by working in VR, but from your post it seems lik ti could help some people to focus more. Even if I don't plan to use VR, I'm curious about having a setting when you can write longhand (which is a lot of what I do when working on research).
It's concerning how accurate facebook's face tracking seems to be vs how unrealistic it feels. They're doing the best they can. They're doing a really good job. I can't explicitly point out any flaws. It still doesn't feel right at all :(((
Still probably a big step up from not being able to see people at all though.
I guess to me it didn't seem too bad. I've found that talking to people with simple avatars in VR and similar seems surprisingly fine, I'd imagine that in practice you'd get used to this. That said, I also imagine the technology will continue to improve. Deepfakes are getting quite realistic.