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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment