1. Virtual Environments and the Future of Distance Collaboration Ralph Schroeder Oxford Internet Institute Learning Futures Festival ‘09

2. Overview Why are Virtual Environments Important? Definition of VEs and Two End-states Different Media For Being there Together VEs in Education and Science Some Non-Obvious Conclusions and a Big Question

3. Why are VE’s Important? They are the most ‘extreme’ form(s) of being there together mediated by technology Technologies for Mediated Copresence are proliferating, and will continue to do so There are many preconceptions about ‘being there together’ (not as good as ftf, relations not as rich, realism is needed) VEs can help us to understand a range of mediated states

4. Real World Applications Business Meetings – time and travel, few uses, many to come? Training –if difficult otherwise Design and Visualization –Rarely multi-user Online worlds –For socializing, or commerce?

5. Shared Virtual Environments and two End-states Definition of VE technology as presence, plus interacting, and copresence (Sensory experience of being in a place other than the one you are physically in, and being able to interact with it, and being there with others) Two End-States (video vs. computer- generated, or blue-c vs. Cave) Different capabilities (affordances)

6. The Varieties of ‘Being There Together’ Videoconferencing is proliferating in different forms, has practical constraints, and is merging with other technologies Online spaces support spatial interaction, the development of social norms, and content that engages users Social networking relates to ‘always on’ togetherness, and expresses identity and social ‘availability’ and ‘awareness’ (as with IM, mobile phones and social spaces)

7. Different Media for Being Together Instant Messaging Social Networking Videoconferencing Virtual Worlds on Mobile Phones Other Online self-presentations and forms of Interaction All have –High-Low Spatial Component –Self-presentation component –Large or Small Groups

8. Why SVEs will not happen: videoconferencing has not happened even though it has been available for decades. People don’t feel the need to see each other, and the ‘I’m having a bad hair day’ problem online worlds have proven to have a limited range of things people do together economic activity in online worlds has so far - and can ever mostly be ‘self-referential’ - designing for online worlds it is difficult or impossible to arrange many in-world or in- space activities, such as large and small meetings, complex training, and many forms of co-visualization and co- manipulation there is a limit to how multimodally co-present we want to be Some social cues are absent in meetings and interactions

9. Why SVEs will happen: time and money and environmental reasons dictate less travel co-visualization and co-manipulation of spaces works well and there are great needs for it it’s possible to do lots of things together in online worlds and spaces that can’t be done in the real world the technology for large and cheap 3D displays and interaction will surround us and become more widespread in any event people are sociable and like to see things, and online sociability can better than real world sociability and online spaces more imaginative and interesting than real ones

10. Virtual Worlds in Science and Education Purpose –Science: Public Understanding, Meetings, Exhibitions –Scripting Classes: Various levels of building Setting Communication Offline versus Online Norms Tools

11. Physics Virtual Talk Format: Traditional lecture Setting: Single-presenter, lecture theatre, audience ca. 30 Audio and PowerPoint, text Q and voice A after Advantages: Remote access, appropriate affordances for lecture delivery and Q&A Issues: Audience seems to consist primarily of enthusiasts (SL and science), absence of social cues can alter power of delivery (+ / -) Social norms: dealing with problematic social behaviour is not strictly parallel with RL settings

12. Nature Mixed SL / RL Talk Format: Short talk followed by discussion Setting: –RL main speaker in large hall (ca. 50) –SL participants in a lecture room (ca. 25) –RL operator for ‘translation’ of SL text chat Advantages: remote SL participation, Issues: stream of consciousness discussion in SL, stage managed discussion in RL, enthusiast audience in both settings, different possibilities and constraints in each setting for audience

13. Talk in Real and SL

14. Space Museum: A Science Exhibition Setting: Exhibition park with individual visitors, includes rockets, spaceships, pictures, planets Interactive Museum style to learn about space and spaceflight Interactivity can be enhance ‘being there’ but can be gimmicky Works: objects in their context, environment conducive to engaging with the theme of the exhibition space Doesn’t work: no joint experience, limited content compared to website or some real exhibition spaces Would benefit from immersive display

15. Lessons of Three Types of Second Science Exhibition: Co-visualization is difficult; object display could benefit from immersion or more engaging object interaction Mixed Real-Virtual: interplay between virtual and real still bifurcated, and needs better integration Pure Virtual: Still struggling with the question of “can virtual go beyond traditional chalk and talk lecture format?”

16. Simulate classroom setting They can be conducted using voice or text and different teaching aids Taught by SL users who are familiar with it and keen to share their knowledge Focus on Building: A valuable skill in Second Life => incite interest Features of Scripting classes in SL

17. Participants from varied backgrounds and scripting proficiency Absence of feedback from students => more difficult to address problems Classroom management is more difficult Main Observations from Scripting Classes Cross geographical and Time-zone teaching Prompting teachers to continuously checking back with participants Flexible environment and settings => Engaging and interesting

18. Education Conclusions Scripting Classes –A taste of how lessons can be conducted in Second life Second Science –Sustaining Engagement Trials and Errors –Adapting to Difficulties and Taking Advantage of Benefits

19. Outlook Technological problems are solvable Users will adapt to modality and self- representation A Convergence of modalities will take place with a continuity of high-end and low-end, video and computer-generated, small and large groups – though systems will also be used differently according to context

20. Futures Only Two End-States, with few options –Facial or Spatial –Large population worlds or small groups –Collaborating or socializing –Video or Computer-Generated All other forms co-presence approximate these end-states Mixed or Augmented Reality are subject to attention limits

21. Some Non-Obvious Conclusions, a Big Question Face-to-Face interaction is not the Gold Standard Two (and only two) End-State Options are Foreseeable, with different consequences Are the key issues in design, or in what kind of mediated presence we want in society?