Virtual divisions: choices shaping technology

I like to think of virtual worlds as a new and future tool for engagement. Not everyone wants to or needs to make use of them. I don't think it's matter of right choice but personal choice. I think predictions that virtual worlds will replace the Web are about as accurate as those who predicted the Web would replace print. There will always be other channels to use, and people will mix and match according to the occasion. And given that the cornerstone of the virtual experience seems to be primarily social - or function in context of social interaction - then I think there will always be channels for those who just don't like the medium - and more power to them as well.

Virtual worlds just don't work for some people. They're too awkward and surreal I suppose, though I think there must be a better word. I share some of people's doubts regarding the current efficacy and benefits of virtual worlds as voiced by some pundits. Sometimes what seems like a good idea doesn't play out in actual use. I've seen some examples where virtual worlds impose a needless application layer over information exchange better served by other methods. The medium of virtual interaction itself can be very distracting sometimes, getting in the way of conducting business.

That said, I'm a big fan of virtual worlds and see a lot of potential. I think situations like I've described above are normal to the process of exploration. People who love a medium are going to bring their processes to it, maybe because they see novel solutions, but I think often more because they just love the medium and want to find - sometimes force - uses that are not an organic fit. Application of existing processes often don't pan out. But some will. And such failures are important because we collectively start to internalize the nuance of the environment and start realizing ways that it differs and works better than what we have already. I think the best uses of virtual worlds have yet to be discovered, possibly because the infrastructure and mechanisms that will allow for them have yet to be developed, but also because that process of initial discovery is still very new and ongoing. Some people will look at these sorts of failures and I think take the wrong message away (or maybe not. It's all conjecture, isn't it and I am a self-admitted advocate after all). <-- grain of salt time :-) So, why do people "love" a medium and adopt it? Sometimes because it suggests itself as being better - but I think that this is rare and mostly not the case, imho. I think it is mostly because, as a form of expression and communication, it better suits the personality of the adopter. They find that they can present themselves better or more fully or with more satisfaction. And since such come to be a more attractive natural form of communication for themselves, they want to use it and get others to use it as well. People forget we're social animals that feel better when part of a group (wanted to say herd). But not everyone will adopt or "get" the new method. Each new channel of communication adds interesting aspects, new forms of information, new capabilities - but all such leave something behind as well. And users who enjoy or are comfortable more with existing channels don't find the new methods particularly attractive. They find they can communicate better and be understood better, get more information across, or just enjoy the nuance more, of existing methods. There's also a cost factor. New methods require new equipment and processes. Not everyone, even those who might be attracted, can find access right away. However, for an established medium, I think that's not the case. Such tend to be ever present, in easy reach. I think we grow up with them and take them as a matter of course and they become natural internal methods - so much so that people who lack those methods are often left to a degree out of touch to those who do "speak" through those channels. So I think from a business perspective the need to understand and find a way to interact in virtual form is generational: what people are seeing in virtual worlds is not necessarily a better form of communication for themselves, but a way to speak to the next generation of workers and consumers through the methods and processes that today's children, teens and young adults use to speak to each other. I know they're out there, but I haven't met a parent yet whose children are not engaged in some form of virtual interaction, be it MTV Worlds, Habbo Hotel, Club Penguin, or MMO games. For current uses, I would say there are three other aspects that are attractive: perceptual, psychological, and practical. The first two relate to areas new to this form of interaction not utilized in say Web or phone communications. The added information provided by immersed dimension I just see as not being able to be duplicated better for now than what's being done in virtual worlds. For educational purposes, spatial relationship is really key to understanding some concepts. Having taken my one class in Second Life so far (I have a dodgy computer that doesn't like it) - I have to say that I found it very engaging. There's something about the manipulation of objects that even though done virtually, it brings something of the tactile experience of working with my hands - something missing in a lot of current education. I think it helped keep me more engaged and focused and I wonder if others wouldn't have the same reaction. I know MIT has done some chemistry courses in SL, requiring the students to assemble molecules and study their relation in the formation of complex elements. Architects have been able to mock up and showcase both practical and fantastic designs to show off or get more immediate feedback - or just to see how they feel walking through the space as framed by their creation. Of course there are CAD programs but they are expensive, have a high learning curve and lack the immediate access to feedback that SL provides - but offer more detailed renderings. Again, different tools for different uses. Psychologically, there's both a vanity and engagment aspect. We make up a little cartoon-like person that is us as far as the world is concerned. I've talked a lot about this elsewhere so don't want to go over too much again. But there's a lot of attraction to the nuance and freedom of expression when we recreate ourselves in these avatar forms. Its not for everyone but even if someone doesn't understand that attraction, don't discount that it is an attractive pull for someone else. And interestingly enough, seeing this three-dimensional form, I think, helps personify that the force we're dealing with is in fact another human being - more so than any chat text, phone voice or e-mail can manage. Short of meeting the real person, and irrespective of whether the avatar is accurate or not, having the same form and movement of a human body, avatars seem to stimulate that response in a lot of people. There was a news report I'd read some time back discussing some interesting initial psychological observations about virtual worlds that said users of MTV Words - where MTV "encourages" the people in the show to come in and interact in avatar form - were really excited and engaged to have "met" and talked to the celebrities. Of course they didn't. They interacted with a cartoon driven by the celebrity. But that association of interaction was similar to having met the real person - at least for some.

Practical to my mind really relates to the ready access of most virtual worlds coupled with their distance negating qualities. True, distance negation is a cornerstone of Web and communication technologies. But coupled with the first two aspects, it really pushes the engagement level up. Distance negating and perceptual environment, distance negating and ego-realization - very different twists on the distance negating aspect that really make it an experience unique to this virtual environment, and not like its Web, phone, or video counterparts.

Bottom line: get it or not, it doesn't matter. People I hope can feel comfortable about "not getting" something and having personal choices that suit them. I can't get The Hills and probably think about that show (and the people in it) the same way some people think about virtual words (and the people in them). My wife loves that show. If she wants to watch it, I can go into the other room and fire up an MMO. I get those. My wife has about the same opinion of them as I do The Hills.

Will Google's be "MyWorld"?

When one looks at the names of the some of the current corporate players who have large stakes or tie-ins to virtual worlds, from the likes of CBS, Cisco, Disney, IBM, Intel, MTV, Sony, Warner Brothers, Wells Fargo, and even Virgin Airlines' Richard Branson, two large Internet giants stand out for not making the list: Microsoft and Google.

Now, Microsoft does have a presence in Second Life and has made successful and active use of that virtual world holding two job fairs there to date. But overall, given the reputation of this company, that use seems rather understated. Hence, the anticipatory buzz concerning a forthcoming Microsoft virtual world seems almost taken for granted in that it will happen; it's just the details about how this might shape up that we are waiting to hear about. Would it be a Virtual Earth extension or would it be a Games For Windows extension, or something altogether different?

But whatever it brings to the table, Microsoft, like any leader whose presence is felt to be both pervasive and at times domineering, will face challenges. And one company that seems to have mastered Microsoft, at least to date, in capturing whatever it sets its eye on is Google. Google Earth, already successful and popular in its own right, has been posed to usher Google into the mainstream of virtual world offerings. Two reports I read this morning from VWN and The Times, suggest that we are likely to see this equally anticipated foray by end of year in a product called MyWorld.

This alleged product, if it is indeed based on Google Earth, already brings with it an active user community and, due to some clever acquisitions on Google's part, it also brings in some nice creation tools. SketchUp, though not as powerful and nuanced a tool as that already found in Second Life, still provides a good baseline which can be extended and, following Google's community contributor approach, has a lot of downloads available. But my guess is that any content creation on this more intimate scale is likely to be something different, leaving SketchUp to the current use of Google Earth, but possibly taking aspects of it forward into new forms while leveraging the extensive and active user community of Google Earth.

I for one am looking forward to all such virtual world offerings, Microsoft's included, and am eager to try MyWorld out. Given how much I use and appreciate the well-crafted user design and elegance of the Google browser and Google Earth, I cannot help but wonder if my next virtual world might not be MyWorld, at least in part.

Intel's 80-core, umm, controversy?

I don't know what amazes me more: that Intel has managed a relatively power-efficient 80-core processor capable of two teraflops, or that some people are said to be in a tizzy about this.

Didn't they watch that X-files episode where the evil scientist declares "Because I can!"? Didn't they watch those videos on Intel's blog with 20,000 pigs running amok!? - Cmon, 20k virtual pigs being rendered and tracked simultaneously with collision detection, tell me you're not impressed.

If I ever win the lottery and I tell you that I'm not going to quit my day job because I need something to do with my life, please, tell the lottery officials that they need to take that money back and give it to someone else. I think what we're seeing here is a similar lack of imagination.

Yes, few seem to know how to take advantage of the new capabilities offered by quad-cores, let alone 64 or 80. Yes, there is going to be some learning curve to leverage the power of these new processors. But since when is having potential so bad?

80-core processors ain't going to be out on the market or in my game-box anytime soon. No one is going to be asked to program software for such - yet. It's meant to showcase the potential of something and let others re-imagine their own potential. I would have thought this was obvious and obviously beneficial.

And yes, more powerful processors are going to find a use. Intelligent minds don't like a vacuum; creative curiosity will find applications. And, like the aforementioned articles said, one of my fav topics: virtual worlds - will find welcome use for such. And such will help enable same (I'm sure making a tasty profit for companies ready to step up and service the technology and service requirements of all these new demands.)

Movie notions: Carnival of Souls

Carnival of Souls is a cult classic "B" horror movie that I feel transcends its humble origins. It was the product mainly of an industrial film maker from Lawrence Kansas, Herk Harvey. Harvey was a proven talent for the sort of industrial films of the post-WWII period showcasing agricultural, industry, and business themes, promoting the qualities of Kansas among other topics. Though he worked several years in that capacity and received a number of awards, including an Academy Award nomination, he is largely, somewhat to his chagrin, known for this one venture into mainstream film and horror genre. His choice of making a horror film was a practical consideration since he felt that it would sell well and fund future, more interesting feature film projects.

Such was not to be however. Limited production funding, limited advertising, distribution by a lackluster company that later went out of business, and I would argue, being somewhat ahead of its time, doomed it nearly from the start. Carnival of Souls disappeared and its cast and crew thought that it had simply gone the way of many such failed attempts at movie-making.

It was the process of late night television coupled with word-of-mouth that resurrected Carnival and brought it back from obscurity. This started mostly in big cities like New York City but later spread across the country. It soon became a regular staple of late-night fare and was an often requested favorite for Halloween movie marathons. Reviewers "discovered" the film and praised its surreal qualities and Siskel and Ebert even listed it among the finest movies of its genre.

Carnival I think owes its relative success to a number of factors, many of them fortuitous measures taken by necessity, and just good timing in that it came back into focus when its qualities were able to be more appreciated. Herk Harvey was a proven no-nonsense veteran film maker who could bring a project to completion on time (useful for Carnival since it was shot with many of its principals on vacation from Centron, the company where Harvey worked). And having only a meagre budget, Harvey could make use of Centron equipment. And since he knew and was friends with many Centron employees, they could be approched to work on Carnival. Many locals and businesses in Lawrence also participated or allowed use of their facilities for free.

The acting in Carnival runs from either the credible to quirky, with some very awful wooden performances thrown in. The real star of the movie is the abandoned Saltair amusement park, site of filming for most of the one week that Carnival made use of location shots in and around Salt Lake City. Harvey had seen the Saltair driving through Utah and the image stood with him. It formed the seed of the idea he would pitch to veteran Centron writer, John Clifford. There is something so lonely and pervasive about such a huge abandoned space falling to ruin that was once intensely filled with hundreds of people day in and out. Some of the most haunting scenes of Carnival have Mary, the main character, wandering the empty edifices of the Saltair, strangely drawn to something she doesn't understand. There is no dialogue, only rich black and white cinematography and a wonderfully moody organ score (Mary is an organist, a necessary convenience since Lawrence was home to the organ factory shown in the film). The film makes use of awkward angles and stark yet beautiful images shot around Salt Lake and Lawrence to add to its creepy tone. Some of the most inspired, unusual, and hence most memorable shots were apparently managed and undertanken by Reza Badiyi, an assistant director who appears in an uncredited cameo. You might not know his name but you know his work. Badiyi would later go on to become one of the most prolific television directors in Hollywood and the list of his credits includes most of the successful shows of the past decades. But Badiyi's work for Carnival, some of it done at risk of injury, coupled with cinematographer Maurice Prather's practiced and yet for Carnival, ambitious eye, helps make Carnival stand apart from anything before, except perhaps the films of Cocteau, to which it has been compared.

The story has elements similar to other contemporary stories in shows like Twilight Zone. But if it is derivitive, it is also inspiring and Carnival has been linked to the ideas of later directors and writers like George Romero and John Carpenter. The story draws on feelings of not belonging and being out of tune with everything. Being disconnected with the world or things or people around us is something I think many of us have felt, but here it leads to an awful truth. And because the lead actress, Candace Hilligoss, insisted on applying her method acting process to her character, clashing at times with Harvey's insistence on a more distant portrayal, we are drawn in and can feel Mary's desperate desire to not be removed and her fear of the inevitable process pulling her unwillingly toward's the film's end.

There are many substandard versions of the film outstanding and it can be rented or even purchased as part of B-movie compilations. And though it was not an overlong film, it was cut drastically in several, if not most, of these. If you've never seen Carnival of Souls and would like to see the best example, do yourself a favor and hold out to rent or find the Criterion version, whose restored print stands as the best to date. This version also includes a lot of interesting background material for fans of the film, including a reunion celebration and documentary, touching in that all these people who worked so hard on a labour of love could receive some validation, years overdue, for what they had managed to achieve.

And, like all movie recommendations, take this one with a "grain-of-salt." It's not for everyone, so don't go out and buy it for your first view. If you watch it and go "Huh?" - then you're at least only out the rental fee. :-)

Bellwether bears

A bit of depressing news concerning polar bears came in on the news feed when I logged in last night. I had heard that there had been a marked rise of polar bear drownings; that nearly every documentary filmmaker visiting the arctic had been witness personally to such. But I don't think I had been expecting such sad news, certainly so soon and to such a scale. I think somewhere in the back of my mind it had always been a possibility, but I never really thought I would see the day of such a prediction.

Polar bears are one of those favored zoo staples growing up, right up there with elephants, alligators, and monkeys. To understand there is now a potential that those zoos might be the only place to find such creatures one day, and because of the effect I, you, all of us, had on our planet, breaks my heart. We're not exactly certain to what extent the changes global warming will manifest one or two generations from now. Opinions run the gamut, from the dismissive to the apocalyptic. But deny it or not, change is coming.

They are now talking about the fabled Northwest Passage above Canada becoming reality, open to shipping; soon the same for the Siberian and European arctic zones. The positive benefits of this warming seem very shortsighted and miss the point. To open up access to even more fossil fuels just to compound the warming problem is the same sort of short-sighted self-aggrandizing thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. To open up access to methane hydrate as a fuel source is very tricky and if done carelessly, could be disastrous. Shifting much of the World's shipping to the far North will have economic repercussions on the service centers that support existing trade routes that will see declining traffic; while at the same time, opening up new jobs and permanent spaces in the North will bring more ecological impact to areas that have been isolated before. Indeed, the potential to access and exploit virgin and heretofore inaccessible areas of Siberia could see new population centers spring up along with deforestation of one of the most important oxygen producers on the planet, and perhaps more significantly, simultaneously, one of the greatest removal systems of carbon dioxide.

And given that the poles are the dynamic engines that power our weather systems, how our planet will fare with one of those engines "turned off" part of the year when the North Pole is totally free of ice in Summer, let's just say, it's going to be a very "interesting" place to live in the upcoming years.

It doesn't take a genius to see the effects of global warming. It seems everywhere in my country, people are talking about how the weather is just "off," and has been getting more "off" with each succeeding year. In one area it's near drought; in others flooding. You are probably able to point to examples you've seen. Where my in-laws live, large animals are coming down from the mountains because of lack of water, so desperate they're willing to come into populated areas in the valleys to drink out of swimming pools. Spring is coming earlier and staying later, bringing more pollen, longer fire seasons, and a lack of sustained cold that kills off parasites. Where I live, we've had record numbers of oak and apple moths. Such usually only breed in two cycles in a good year (for them). Because of the earlier Spring, they've had three. Liking to fish, I used to sometimes check the chum buckets and talk to fisherman to get an idea of the catch, and see if it was worth going out the next day. One day I marveled to see all these strange and exotic fish, brilliant with colours I'd never seen before This phenomena of warm waters appearing off our coast was said to happen once every 30-50 years. It has happened several times since, that I can recall. And it seems that the frequency is increasing so that it's not such a rarity anymore to catch albacore or other fish more appropriate to Southern California and Mexico.

Oh yes, we can and should apply ourselves to living green and make those process and cultural choice changes part of our functional lifestyle. But the current requirements to just freeze the growth in greenhouse gases, not lower that growth, not turn it back, just to keep it at the same pace, are so prodigious that I sense there is not enough will or desire in this current generation that will ever bring this about, let alone to undertake the methods to reverse it. But please, do everything you can to prove me wrong. Otherwise, our generation is destined to have failed to be the shepherds of the planet that we should have been. It will fall to the next and the next after that, who will have no choice but deal with the effects that ours and preceding generations have brought about. I hope that they will be able to succeed where we have not. I don't think it will be a case of finding the will or denying that change is coming. By their day, such arguments will be mute and the necessity to deal with the ramifications ever present.

I just hope that when they have managed to bring their world back to a form of equilibrium, that whatever that world is in future, she still has a place for wild polar bears.

Take Action!

Top 50 Things. . .

MetaCard: should avatar debt be considered progress?

I saw an interesting bit coming across the news feed yesterday regarding something billed as the First Virtual World Credit Card. The credit rate is horrendous (but aren't they all) and the limit is so low as to only be practical for the superfluous purchases of avatar tinkering. But this credit card does mark an interesting point in the evolution of Second Life, which, for all its faults, provides a testing ground for issues that would be tasked against a possible future Virtual Web. In this case, we see an example of identification (if choosing the gold option) and payment subcutaneous to an anonymous avatar overlayer. Closed systems do not have to deal with this. They function either not needing such methods of validation or one is already validated, in a sense, by the process of subscription to access the space and create an account.

A more distributed system, ala a Virtual Web, I suspect would not have an embedded validation method in place, courtesy of a single vendor. How then to manage validation, secure payment, and transfer of pertinent details, such as real name and contact information?

I've put forth that we need to evolve our need for identification to be on a verified but hidden level only, allowing for personal choice regarding anonymity and appearance. Avatar appearances, at least in the successful virtual worlds, have no guaranteed match to the actual persons anyways. Dress standards are all right when functioning in a business sense. But trying to enforce some sort of visual conformity on the general populace because we can't think past the surface is asking to be unpopular and abandoned, imho.

IF one accepts this requirement for anonymity, how can I ever really be sure that the person I'm buying from really is who they say they are? How can they be sure I am who I say I am?

Are we always going to have to access intermediaries like PayPal or eBay as the price for anonymity with some level of validation? Or are we going to be able to do person-to-person interactions with verified means when necessary?

Related to the topic of identification, I see that Linden Lab is now going to require identification to enter certain naughty zones. I'm not sure of the exact mechanism, but as I understand it, one has to be essentially "carded" when going in, providing a drivers license or passport number. Naughty zones are not a concern for me but the mechanisms for access are. Not just based on age, but security, paid-access, child-protection are all going to require some sort of access control. I think that the method Linden Lab is apparently applying in this test-case is too cumbersome. I suppose it is a stop-gap for now, but if I read that right, it seems both inaccurate (what if my parent was passed out from a binge and I "borrowed" theirs?) and insecure (like I trust Linden Lab with that info? They can't even get their application to run on Vista).

There is talk about having to sacrifice rights in order to preserve them (which I think irl is a crock, imo) but there is some truth to this when considering virtual worlds. A child in the real world wouldn't even consider entering into such a "red light" district but could consider going in as a poser because virtually he's indistinguisible from an adult if he so chooses. If a little kid asked me IRL about buying my used car, assuming she wasn't packing a really prodigious wad of cash (in which case, I can't say the thought of throwing in wood blocks so her feet could reach the pedals might not cross my mind), I'd chuckle and not bother getting involved in a pointless interaction. But in a virtual world, how do I size up a valid prospective buyer from someone who's a waste of my time?

How do we access information that would be ours by right visually in real life, and yet preserve the virtual bill of rights, including article 17: "A man is a man, unless he wants to be a woman, or wear bunny PJs."?

Again, I think a unified model is going to have to wrestle with this conflicting duality of needs. I think that user accounts would need to have some sort of sublayer linked to real identification and payment methods. Such should also be seamlessly accessed by the browser, say upon trying to walk through a virtual door, age screening is done automatically. None of this carding stuff. Children could register in schools; teachers would be equipped with processes to get their charges safely into virtual worlds, knowing that the alarm bells and virtual iron gates would close if said precocious young'uns try to get into places they shouldn't. And if little miss tried to yank my chain a bit for fun by pretending to buy a car with her virtual adult self, maybe I couldn't get her real age, maybe I couldn't access anything real about her except to verify that "she" was "old enough" to buy a car.

And when Dateline and Chris Hansen's avatar next decides to undertake another episode of To Catch a Virtual Predator, parents can know that those bad and troubled avatars got away but the people behind them did some very real jail time.

By giving up some "rights" as to anonymity to allow for basic functions of commerce and verification in a hidden but accessible based-on-need manner, I think the issues around preserving surface anonymity would go away. I would argue that it would encourage more use since people, as long as they felt they could trust the integrity of the verification process, would be more inclined to use the Web, virtual or otherwise. But trust, now as Shakespeare would have it, "ay, there's the rub."

Such a system would have to be absolutely transparent in its application, with no potential for misuse. As to who maintains, and even more important, who has access to, the information behind the avatars is the key issue.

You know, eBay and PayPal aren't looking so bad after all. Maybe that's what it would take: bonded intermediaries who can vouch for you and who provide these go-betweens. Given the varying laws about what age constitutes legal access, local companies who are vetted by some standards organization can carry on that function. Though we would still have to give up some information if we wanted to function beyond the purely social, there would at least be some choice about which vetting agency, and some accountability if any such should fail in their duties to keep my information secure.

Virtual druthers: social union of games and Web

This is the second part of a three-part post that examines potential aspects of a future Virtual Web experience. Part 2: Virtual druthers: social union of games and Web discusses asset management, sourcing and standards, and offers a list of 15 salient aspects and why I feel each is something to be considered for a successful offering. Part 1: Reshaping the ego for the Virtual Web makes the case for the essentials of self and a review of the current phenomena of the Social Web to conjecture what might take shape and work well in any virtual successor. Part 3: Virtual contenders is a list of some of the major virtual words, current and future, and how I feel they stack up against the former arguments.

Notions for a Virtual Web

What makes for an ideal virtual web? I think whether there will even be a sole Virtual Web near future or ever is debatable. Certainly virtual worlds have really captured the imagination and press recently. But if product history for web clients hold true, it is more likely at this state that a number of virtual worlds will come to market and co-exist, carving out various niches in their activity zones with committed clientele. But I couldn't help thinking about what aspects might take shape in such a phenomena as would constitute the Virtual Web. We are standing at a very exciting time, near to the big bang of explosive virtual growth. Even if several worlds ultimately evolve to co-exist, I think there will always be a push to bring them together into a comprehensive or mutually intelligible format. For that reason, I think that a lot of people are thinking about the potential Virtual Web, seeing in the manifest crop of current simulations the promise of the most significant change to potentially impact social networking since the onset of the Web itself.

It is not hard to begin a feature list of something that is itself an extension, abstraction and recreation of an existing highly successful system. The current Web offers us proven qualities that recommend themselves by default: open distribution, platform independence, open source structure and maintenance, extendibility, indexing, interaction, anonymity, customization, security (relative), persistence, lack of censorship (relative), and free access.

I would argue that each of these aspects has led to the success of the Web and has made the Web as much a mainstay of social interaction and commerce as has the telephone for some, a growth pattern that will only continue. Yet, as we shall see in Part 3, most, if not all, of the offerings examined will be seen to have departed in one or more significant points from the model offered by the existing Web. Even if one does not accept the points model as I've presented it as being the most accurate rendition, there is still clearly a strong deviation in those simulations that preclude them from being a satisfactory extension of the Web experience in virtual form. If one accepts that these aforementioned qualities are proven, why would anyone consider deviating from them as a baseline moving forward to a new form? - Well, I have come to believe that such is the wrong question to ask.

Though there are some few virtual world products that have either aspirations or at least some small hope of their virtual world being the basis of the next Web, for the most, there seems to be no attempt to recreate or to capture the Web experience. What we are seeing in this rush to market is not the competition to recreate the success of the Web, but to stake out a market share in the virtual world collective medium. If such virtual colonies are successful, I believe that the thinking is probably that expansion can come thereafter. But for the time being, it is such a new medium, that exploration, exploitation, and engagement are the most important factors.

So the question, imho, should be not which virtual world could be the basis of a future Virtual Web, but how might a Virtual Web evolve from such competing closed systems? And then how might successful aspects of these spaces fold over into a more communal offering, preparing and raising expectations in terms of behaviors, access, persistence, and use?

I have posed that the existing Social Web can provide a clear roadmap to successful interaction on some levels and should factor in the overall goals for any standards body or intelligent vendor. But there are those aspects of the virtual experience that not only recommend themselves, they are germane to why virtualization is so much more engaging for some than the existing Web. If a Virtual Web is to come about, these newer features, some possibly that have yet to be discovered or displayed, will likely suggest themselves from the most successful of the virtual worlds that will thrive and prosper over their counterparts. To try and predict, plan and be prepared, to react to such a manifestation, I suggest it is best to start thinking outside of the box that is the web browser. Consider that a common yet mistaken assumption that all such virtual worlds are "games" still realizes a fundamental truth: that the other parent model to study is that of social gaming.

Collectively, social games are the most popular form of virtual world currently in existence. The most successful of these, in terms of revenue and active use, are fully realized three-dimensional spaces known as MMOs (MMO comes from Massive Multiplayer Online). In MMOs the game activity is paramount, but most offer varying levels of social activity as a by-product, often unplanned. These games offer us another model that deals with visual and aural manifestation: three-dimensional space, avatars, interactive physics (between avatars and the avatars and environment), inventory (items carried by and used by the avatar), group association and organization, avatar and group communication, persistence of space, both ambient and reactive sound and music, game engines and graphics rendering, and, for some, personal space and/or the customization of space and avatar.

Clearly, in trying to reimagine the Web into a visual format, we have clear working examples. Though such games might be proprietary, they still offer excellent proofs-of-concept. And since we have a large number of working examples, a list that compounds each quarter, a qualitative assessment can be done to decide on what features of each work best, which don't, and which ultimately might suggest themselves to a comprehensive solution that seeks to bridge the visual and interactive environment of social games to the broader use of the Social Web.

Mixing the models

The Web is mostly open, interlinked. It has evolved to include mechanisms and standards so that it can be managed, adapted, and transformed by the uses put to it. Growth is organic and ongoing. The Web is accessible on most levels by nearly all computers. MMOs are exclusive, closed systems. They are software applications where change must be managed, and with more limited resources, requirements assessed against many demands: user satisfaction, technology changes, time to market, and competing products' features. Growth is therefore more structured and scheduled. Because of their technology requirements, MMOs cater to select target markets, some more exclusive than others. Not everyone has satisfactory access.

So if we wish combine the extendibility, user control, and open standards of the Web with the sensory richness and sophistication of the MMOs, how might such an experience come to be, given the different requirements of each?

Probably the biggest hurdle in visualizing such a system are the requirements put forth by graphics rendering and scripted interaction. As we shall see in Part 3, most vendors choose to accommodate these by controlling the number of choices, essentially using MMOs' concepts of fixed asset libraries and animation rethought of in non-game terms, or supra-game terms when considering hybrid models. These work because these are closed systems, with all that such entails. Second Life is currently the only virtual world to offer the ability for users to interject their own creations into the environment (HiPiHi has stated its intention to offer same). There is only a limited fixed library. But though these user-created objects are not the sole cause of performance problems, they are a contributing factor and Second Life suffers for it. Second Life has much poorer performance and currently no ability to scale well for users in any numbers in a given area. Though an outdated graphics engine is partly to blame, one can see where bloated scripts and excessively complex object models can slow rendering to a crawl or even crash the server, harking back to when bloated nested tables and excessive JavaScript could slow the rendering of web pages in the early Web.

Any solution for a Virtual Web that presupposes both state of the art graphics and extensibility, if both parent models are valid conceptual ancestors, must need have the ability to at least offer the option for a rich immersive experience, and yet have the ability to allow for user-created objects and spaces as part of its makeup - and both with an acceptable level of performance. The solution I propose is to to apply an adaptive model that borrows from each parent. It is not necessarily the most likely model. I see several ways this might come about. It is simply a hypothesis that I find attractive.

First need is that a common baseline set of standards, which would govern not only behaviors, but script, visuals, rendering engines requirements, and a visual reference language, would need to be monitored and maintained by an open standards body, much as HTML/XML are by the W3C and JavaScript is by the ECMA. Such a body would provide a neutral platform for change and it is a proven concept already in use. A Virtual Web browser would need to include a graphics engine, like games do. The graphics engine might change over time, or different vendors might prefer different versions of it in their own products, but as long as the requirements are set for in open standards, everyone knows the minimum requirements that will be tasked to any such engine.

To achieve efficient quality, I suggest the solution also needs to follow one of two tracks: the markup model or the library model.

The markup model is an exception to my argument as it excludes the game ancestor and reimagines virtuality based on a markup language, something akin to VRML (virtual reality markup language), X3D, or a scripting language, like ActionScript. This would be rendered in a web browser using a plug-in and would be akin to a more robust version of the Shockwave/Flash player. There is much that is very attractive about this. One of the biggest virtual worlds existing is based on Shockwave technology. It is a closed system but it is not hard to imagine a similar product that is open to user generated content based on a rendered language. The overhead of such would be a lot less than managing user created objects amalgamated through scripts and graphic textures of various file sizes. And objects could be linked rather than uploaded. Though existing Shockwave virtual worlds have a rather cartoony look one often sees in vectored animation, that is more typical of their market (mostly teens and children) than an indication of the limits of the technology. Even if Shockwave is not the channel for this sort of effort, one can imagine something similar coming to market. And though I see much promise in this avenue of approach, the current crop seems more focused on game-like offerings which use or seem to use embedded library objects.

The library model would borrow from the methods used by games. Games achieve much of their performance by maintaining almost all of the objects, textures, and sound that comprise the visual elements on the host system, either directly on a drive or kept on a CD or DVD, to be accessed as needed. For MMO games, the game engine needs to then rerender the scene based not only on the actions of the local player, but on the actions of those around the player as well as the game AI, all transmitted via network connections. But having the bulkiest files kept locally in asset libraries means that the amount of information that need be passed through the network pipeline would be much smaller, and the time to render much faster, than it would be had everything needed to be downloaded.

Static local libraries vs dynamic linked rendering

For the library model to achieve customizable quality, we need to find a correlation that equates media elements to both HTML and XML, and that makes use of the built-in understanding of the former, along with the extensible open-ended application of the latter. HTML is preconfigured to render in such a way because it is governed by a standards body. Anyone seeking to build a browser, be it Explorer, Firefox, Opera or Safari, knows how to build their application to render the markup correctly because these standards are open and available. Hence the "understanding" for HTML is built into browsers, and even though they include references to conforming DTDs, such are not utilized for the sake of performance and speed. There's no need to when expectations have already been set.

If builders of virtual worlds know which visual and media elements have been downloaded to any user's computer via the browser, they can use such knowledge to craft their worlds. Virtual world builders would have a hopefully large and updated library of assets they know they could call upon, at minimal impact to bandwidth. So, for the sake of virtual argument, if one takes the preconfigured asset library of a game as potentially being the same as a virtual HTML, assets hosted not on the collective Web to be downloaded and rendered dynamically, but on the host systems as part of the "browser" installation, then one understands the correlation between the two models. This creates for a very rich experience, providing visual, aural, and scripted building blocks which are then reconfigured according to instructions coming in via the Web. Everyone experiences them the same because they are the same on everyone's system.

Therefore, the default or baseline Virtual Web, like a closed game system, will have a finite number of choices available. And like a closed system that seeks to keep its users engaged, textures, objects, scripts might be corrected, modified, replaced over time, and the choices extended with care. Stored assets would obviously be faster to load. But how to expand the experience to be open-ended? Two ways: optional library downloads and linked dynamic objects. These would be akin to our visual XML. The former might even have conformance instructions, like DTDs or Schema. The latter would be self-describing. For this hypothesis, assume that all objects, standard or optional, library or dynamic, have a fixed reference number to call upon.

Optional library downloads would be like the initial library installed as part of the viewer, added to the local asset files to be potentially called upon by builders, using provided documentation indicating reference calls. Such stored assets could be based on themes or uses. They could be provided by the standards body as optional files to help extend the experience of the Virtizen, or could be offered as part of product promotions or activity vendors, such as game providers who want to ensure a specific graphical look or style to their activity zone. To keep file size down, the challenge for library extensions would be to not recreate objects and textures already installed as part of another library but only include those aspects different from the baseline, including ones that might be imagined to be better. For "open" extended libraries, anyone could use the assets in their building calls, and the call details would be provided in library documentation. But some vendors might also offer "closed" libraries, where the assets are provided for download for efficiency, but which could only be used in specific contexts - say on a specific server.

Much like current Web users are sometimes prompted to download a specific font, sound file, or browser plug-in, to optimize their Web surfing experience on a specific site, users entering into activity zones that required new library assets would be notified and asked if they cared to download them. Opting out would force the objects to render to a baseline texture provided in the default library, or render certain scripted objects inoperable. Breaking libraries into specific families of use or themes would help keep the initial browser download smaller and ensure that virtizens only downloaded files that they actively needed to by way of their own use activities. And the impact of exploration could be spread out over more time. Virtizens content with the experience in the main entry zone would never need download anything further except for those files provided as updates or extensions as part of browser upgrades based on new standards. And, as standards updated and older textures and scripts were replaced or embellished by newer offerings, one could see that the more useful and popular public domain open library assets might be added to the official libraries as part of standards maintenance. Optional library sets maintained by the standards body could include highly complex and useful common objects: vehicles, avatar hair, plants and rocks, scripted animals, or theme libraries, such as science fiction, Renaissance, Moghul India, etc. Where optional libraries included the same optional elements, including more than one library would only update the object or item in question if it was older.

Not all objects would recommend themselves as candidates for installation into the local library assets. This might be because the creator did not wish the item to be installed on someone else's computer. But most of the time, user creations would not suggest themselves for such because, not coming from a "trusted" source such as a standards body or activity zone vendor, or because they are limited to only a few files, they are just not candidates for such. And in those instances, objects would be rendered dynamically, based on instructions carried by the object itself when downloaded from the objects' or owners' servers. Such objects would render somewhat slower since the information for their construction, including all baseline textures and scripts, would need to be downloaded to memory and/or cache and then rendered, much like what is currently done in Second Life. The difference between this solution and Second Life's is hopefully that by sharing the load between stored and downloaded files, with the understanding that hopefully the most graphically intensive and complex are likely to be local, helps create a more efficient render and allow for richer objects than one currently has in Second Life.

Typical dynamic objects would likely relate to avatar embellishment: clothes, hair, skins, vehicles, etc. Probably avatar or other dynamic objects acquired would include a local download copy so one can see one's own avatar render as quickly as possible. The "browser" would first check to see if the dynamic object had a local copy kept in the asset library and if it did not find such, would then proceed to follow the rendering instructions. Dynamic objects would be self-describing, carrying their own scripts, textures, and rendering instructions as part of their object package. Dynamic object creators, for the most part, would probably like to see their objects added to local libraries, not to use per se, but at least to speed up viewing. With a hopefully good metadata system in place, users might be able to right-click/ctrl-click an appealing object and download its makeup to the local library so that it rendered faster, and as well find out how to secure their own copy, if such options were possible. (I suspect though that given the desire for unique appearance, that there should be a user option to not let others view avatar or owned-object details). The most popular objects might even make their way into asset libraries at some points.

World builders or virtual site builders would not be limited to using the static library elements, but rendering efficiency, like like in the current Web, would put pressure on builders to use methods that ensured a satisfactory visit or be willing, to put up with smaller crowds. But just like when creating complex scripting or heavy structuring in the current Web, the choice is always up to the user.

Of course, packaging efficiency, graphics processing power, and transmission speeds might someday soon render such methods obsolete, in which case all objects could be rendered dynamically, just as they are in Second Life. As equipment improves and bandwidth becomes less of an issue, asset libraries could be removed over time. But until that day, in the quest to serve as many users, the final trait inherited from the games parent for this mixed model would be a graceful de-evolution of graphics intensity, so that users not blessed with cutting-edge systems could still make use and function within the Virtual Web. Either textures could be provided in differing levels of quality, such as base, midline or high. Or the graphics processor could be set to have different levels of graphics rendering, allowing for the most pleasurable experience at the cost of processing power or functional pleasing use for most systems.

Protocols and growth

Finally, we're back to the Web ancestor. How to manage an interlinked distributed system of virtual sites like the Web? Though the application I'm sure is complex, the answer is simple: grow the Web. Virtual worlds would just be another type of access point and in the spirit of convergence, having a Virtual Web browser being the same application as a Web 2.0 browser makes sense, especially given tabbed browsing now available in nearly every Web browser. The Virtual World just becomes another layer of interaction in the existing Web, not a replacement as some have posed.

What would be needed is a protocol to take the stateless experience of HTTP to a new method of bidirectional stateful communication. One's browser isn't simply a passive recipient, it actively injects you - all right, the collection of dynamic objects that constitute your avatar - into a distant server and you are able to function and effect that space just as it and other visitors effects your alter-ego.

And yet, that same protocol might give you access to sensitive personal information retained in your browser, but not allow access to same by the owners of the server you are visiting until you actively choose to offer such to enable transactions.

I cannot speak to the state of stateful Web services, but essentially that is what is required. I know that WebSphere, among others, are working on stateful applications. One can see that one of the keen benefits of a Virtual Web, as opposed to the feudal baronies of closed competing virtual fiefs, is all the rampant growth in infrastructure that a Virtual Web would create were it to take off as projected. I suspect that existing protocols wouldn't allow for a lot of avatar/packet injection resulting in a somewhat low user ceiling, ala Second Life. But that would change in time and demands for more powerful servers and new software to host and manage traffic would ramp up. Businesses poised to sell servers, software, and routers could really see a long-term windfall that would spill over to other support industries as the means to populate this new endless Virtual Web created new job opportunities.

None of this would happen to anything like the same degree if the virtual world collective remains disjointed and disconnected. That I think is both the challenge and incentive to realizing a universal Virtual Web.

Druthers in 15 points

Combining the arguments for ego, asset management, standards and extendability, my ideal for the Virtual Web would address the following points in its construction:

1. It must be distributed, allowing one's avatar to move from server to server and yet retain basic visual and functional integrity. (a)

2. It should either allow for multiple avatars or an infinitely malleable avatar whose visible identity is distinct from an absolute verification identity. (b)

3. It must be platform independent.

4. It must be based on an open-sourced, scalable, and extendable language and asset library, such as a series of common media libraries (that are download with all viewers) and user-defined (optional download or linked) media libraries. (c)

5. It must allow users to upload their own content and define their own activities and own their own creations.

6. There must be a way for all activities and content to be typed with metadata to let search and indexing function properly. (d)

7. Though governed by standards designed to regulate its structure so that everyone has a common reference when building (like the W3 to HTML or ECMA to JavaScript) – it must be unregulated in terms of content – leaving regulation to the users and to governments to enforce.

8. It must be fully linkable with existing web-based content and existing technologies, being able to direct traffic and information to web sites and web services and vice versa; as well being able to embed web-based and media content where it makes sense to do so.

9. It must integrate high-quality multi-channel voice client, allowing people to communicate in teams or groups (useful for business and games).

10. The social space should act as an umbrella through which one enters into business, activity, and educational spaces. The social space must remain distinct but linked, so that avatars can move back and forth, from activity to activity, using the social space as the bridge. (e)

11. Activity spaces should be "zoned" or demarcated in some fashion to help indexing, search, and access (or avoidance, for areas inappropriate or offensive) to certain users of the social space (e.g. children). (f)

12. There should be social controls should that extend down to the user level. (g)

13. It must be secure.

14. It must persist.

15. It must be free of cost (h)

(a) This to allow for the full growth of the system and also the ability to host one's own offering and yet have it tied into the "grid." And in this way, market forces would come to bear, allowing for cheaper alternatives and richer experiences. Some systems might require avatar changes and restrictions based on themes, for example a fantasy game space like World of Warcraft, should it be linked – but the avatar should retain it's basic form preferences and revert upon leaving that kind of space back into the common social area. One should not discount the appeal of avatar persistence and embellishment as a form of ego extension.

(b) In the former case, I suggest an unlimited amount, but that there should be a fee (nominal but enough to discourage willy-nilly avatar escalation ($15 U.S?)). Validation, though sub-surface respective to appearance, allows anyone's avatar access to methods for payment or access confirmation when needed. Yes, people can just change their avatar at will but not always their avatar name. OR – make the exposed name itself malleable to allow for those people who want to disappear into the virtual throng without being recognized. Then no need for multiple avatars (again, "true" identity being linked to the hidden validation mechanisms). Any system really needs to account for somewhat diametrically opposed needs and function of avatars: ones that require anonymity and permutation, and ones that require authentication and fixed identity link. If we disconnect the displayed name and appearance from the latter, then we can have both. – I cannot overstate this strongly enough, part of the strength and appeal of these environments is the ability to level the social field of perception and allow everyone the ability to either appear as they wish to, regardless of social, ethnic, class, gender, wealth, religious, orientation, cultural or other conventions.

(c) Common libraries installed on system as part of the application viewer will help efficiency, reduce load times, reduce bandwidth usage, help offer high-quality graphical objects for free to help encourage building and use and help maintain the appeal of the space. This is basically taking the idea of common tagging and extending it to graphical and scripting elements. A common library lets users build say a brick edifice and have comfort in knowing that it will appear as intended. One possible use for this user-defined libraries would be to let vendors who are selling a certain "look" for avatars to use in their proprietary space have access to those textures and media files only within and while the avatar is in the vendor activity area. Avatars leaving that area, if they lack the vendor's permissions to retain the look or objects, would have such become inoperable and textures would render to a default common value or the avatar would need to "change clothes" so to speak. Like any media files, library elements could be linked for download to user system (faster loading) vs linked to load off of owners' servers (helping guard ownership and restrict unauthorized reuse). Activity vendors might also use avatar embellishment as a marketing tool to encourage subscription, such as the ability to show off a hard-won item used for the activity in the social space. ("were u git kewl rabit ears?") - Another option, is as stated, to use markup solely for rendering. But I think markup married to embedded graphical elements still allows for the best experience.

(d) Such typing should be encouraged, though users will learn this necessity themselves once better search methods come to being. This is key since objects and services are unlimited.

(e) Though social spaces are just their own activity zone, and though there should be an option to enter from a "homepage" like the Web, offering a one or more likely several communal entry points helps bring a focus and discovery point for new objects. I suspect that should such a proposed Virtual Web come about, one good way to think of this is to realize search sites like Google and Yahoo as social zones. There might be many and we'd each not have the same ones, but each would provide ready access to new features. Probably many spaces might try to attract people to "home" there and therefore be exposed to other host branded offerings on the way to doing whatever one does in virtual worlds. And I think one way to help this is to require that avatar's be "homed" somewhere - be it communal social spaces hosted by the standards body or search engines (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft), private offers that include advertising and access to fun activites (Games for Windows, Sony Home, AWOMO, Gamespot), personal worlds hosted on a home server, or even corporate or information sites (Apple, IBM, Guardian Unlimited, NY Times).

Keeping social space and its economy in real dollars distinct from activity spaces insulates the social/business space from the effects of "gold farming" and other manipulative techniques already affecting game economies. It also protects vendors doing business from dealing with inflation or devaluation of the game currency when trying to convert back to real dollars. IF game vendors want to link their game economies directly with the overall space, they will have to be the ones who pay for money taken from game to social space and account for such in their subscription fees. A good working example of games sitting within or under the social framework can be found in Second Life's Dark Life game – where "gold pieces" the game currency are tracked by the HUD given to control the game and in no way are translatable to objects or services outside the game. In other words, one cannot take gold and purchase anything outside of the game. Gold remains strictly to buy items in the game. Conversely, one cannot take Linden dollars and buy game objects – one needs gold for that. However, there is nothing to prevent people from making side deals to sell game items for minimal gold in return for a side transaction of Linden dollars, or to just sell gold themselves, all to help elevate one's game avatar abilities faster than the game designers probably would wish. But this is just the same as the issue of real money being used to purchase game items in online games, like World of Warcraft, which his the basis of the "gold farming" service industry. I suggest that game designers either decide to get into that business, as Sony did for EverQuest, make items non-transferable, instill a game tax for in-game transactions, or some other such controls.

(f) A way to enforce this "zoning" through a common media library (point 11) is to always require a "safe" baseline texture for any object so that moving back into the social space, certain types of media textures or objects would simply not render in the transition but would be replaced by a default unless the avatar user remembered to adjust. That way, there would be no way for a character to leave a game space (say a Star Wars franchise) wearing their game kit if the game vendors did not want that stuff used outside the space (or perhaps required for a separate purchase) or say, if an avatar left an adult-zoned area, there would be no danger of offensive avatar embellishments being exposed after the avatar reset to baseline (Again, all custom or user-defined textures would require or come with a default common texture, certain objects would just disappear). Also, zoning, in combination with some sort of verification, could be used to keep children out of adult-only areas and vice versa.

(g) And by inference to any and all avatar permutations. I think, borrowing from game conventions, the ability to self-edit one's own experience is key to keeping enjoyment level high. Unlike the real world, we do have the ability to filter out unwanted intrusions into our experience and I think an intelligent system should account for such. Say for example, typical of many games, if I see someone spouting nonsense that I find offensive I can simply ignore them. But is that enough? How far should it go? Let's extend that further to be more informative. Say a given decision to ignore someone is temporary and times out but a warning e-mail/IM is fired off to the person letting them know that they had some sort of social filter applied against them. That person can then decide if the action or dialogue that precipitated this is worth the cost of alienation or that the person(s) was just too thin-skinned. Or, a person can even make that ignorance of the other person permanent (reversible of course but only through the application interface). "Property" owners could use such controls to ban or warn persons abusing (in their opinion) their offerings or spaces; such is already is done in Second Life. Such social controls should permeate all the way down to the user level so that a person simply can't fashion a new avatar and then go back to the same venue or activity as if nothing had happened. I think even more powerful would be to turn off collision-detection and visibility for the mutually offended parties, and have any aspect of an unwanted user's avatars made invisible and unable to interact with the banning person or location – basically as if they weren't there. – Though I think there is a highly questionable issue of social sterility to such a solution, it would be a very powerful and appealing tool. The amount of trouble and effort it could save might justify social stagnation. Though my gut-feeling is that maybe to allow for some "in your face" "griefing" as a necessary part of any life, real or virtual. People who do not face such at some point fail to learn to the tools to maturely handle such situations. One of the strengths of virtual worlds, imho, is to be able to interact in a safer environment.

(h) ...for end users.

In the concluding third part to the original post, I will examine a number of current and future virtual worlds, organize them into types, pose them against my arguments, and conjecture what sorts of perceived strengths and weaknesses they offer.