Stephen PrenticeI was speaking at the Learning Technologies 2009 conference in London yesterday on the subject of virtual worlds as a tool for enterprise learning. Being confined to just 20 minutes or so means you really have to boil the ocean down – which is actually quite a good discipline since most analysts can talk for hours! A great deal of my talk (I won’t call it a presentation since I declined to use any slides at all – Powerpoint just gets in the way!) centered around how effective virtual worlds are compared with other, non 3D enabled alternatives.
This is actually an increasingly common discussion I am having, since many organisations are now looking towards virtual meetings and training to avoid the necessity for travel – being green and saving money. And, whilst I remain very positive about the long term future for virtual worlds, there is a growing sense that in some cases, they are not helping. I think there are two things at work here. Firstly, the (oft-times) significant learning curve to become comfortable with moving an avatar around a landscape is fine if you are in exploratory, pilot scheme mode. But if you need to get something done in a hurry, it is easier to postpone the learning experience for now and use more familiar, non 3D, tools like WebEx, video conferencing or whatever you are familiar with. This is not a rejection of avatar-based virtual worlds but a pragmatic response to a pressing requirement.
The second factor is whether having an avatar presence actually helps or not. I am reminded of the early days of video conferencing (many years ago). Everyone was excited by the new technology and there was a lot of waving and visual involvement in the first few calls. But once the “cool factor” had evaporated everyone just got down to business discussing whatever document they were working on. The visual information simply didn’t add value. Now things might have changed since then with the quality of high-definition telepresence systems or the convenience of desktop video, but the principle remains the same.
So, if the purpose of the interaction is based around location, or where the contextual relationship between individuals (represented by their avatars) is germane and significant, then 3D, avatar based solutions make sense and add real value. Examples would be scenario training, location familiarisation, emergency evacuation training, multi-person interactions (perhaps in a retail environment) which are non-deterministic and thus require more than simply watching a video. On the other hand, where the content of the discussion is the primary focus (such as might be the case for a project progress meeting or a presentation of some new program or product) then avatars become less essential and, for the inexperienced user, will actually distract them from concentrating on the real subject for discussion.
Now this doesn’t mean that virtual world and avatars are bad, it is just a recognition that in some cases the added value they bring in terms of immersive experience, fail to outweigh the costs in terms of learning curve, distraction and resources. Over time, as we gain increased familiarity, these drawbacks diminish, but for now it is clear that the simpler, non avatar based solutions, may be a better bet when content rather than context is the primary focus. I will be writing more on this segmentation as more examples and case studies emerge over the coming months.
Comments Off
Category: Virtual Worlds Tags: avatar, content, context, location
