UXPA 2023 Poster: Are virtual spaces the future of video conferencing?

1. Virtual spaces are simulated
environments involving graphics,
navigation, and avatars. These can
range from VR-based environments
to amorphous blobs on a screen.
These have been touted as the
future of video conferencing, with
big players like Meta and Mozilla
advertising their own virtual spaces
for users to interact with each other.
They claim to enhance one's social
presence—how connected one feels
to other people.
However, these platforms can pose
significant problems in terms of
accessibility and inclusivity.
They may not be easy to use with
assistive technology, may require
additional software or hardware, may
present challenging learning curves,
or may not be preferred when
compared to non-spatial traditional
platforms like Zoom or Teams. So,
should virtual spaces really be the
future of video conferencing?
Based on the prototype and user testing, a single platform
combining the two interfaces is a feasible idea.
From the survey, it can be concluded that virtual spaces can be
more enjoyable to use, relieving the pressure of a stressful
work environment. I believe this could also be helpful for some
users with cognitive disabilities.
However, respondents also mentioned that virtual spaces
could be complicated, especially compared to non-spatial
platforms like Zoom or Teams. Virtual spaces are also not ideal
for users with visual, motor, or learning disabilities.
81% of the participants said that they would continue to use
such a system. They appreciated the reasoning behind the
platform and were able to identify the relations between the
two interfaces. However, some of the cross-platform testers
(Groups 1 and 3) needed more time and prompts to identify
these relationships.
63% of the participants, mostly from Groups 2 and 3 said that
they would not feel the need to alter their behaviour to
accommodate users of the other interface.
Despite three participants not being very keen on proximity-
based features initially, they warmed up to the idea on seeing
the combined-platform prototype. However, one felt that it
could be a hassle for everyday meetings.
With the questionnaire, I looked for
correlations between factors which
might affect a person’s interface
preference, such as age, background,
and comfort with gaming.
However, hypothesis testing using
Pearson Correlation indicated that
there weren’t any direct causes
affecting a person’s choice. Thematic
analysis of the qualitative responses also
suggested that this experience tended
to be variable and subjective.
Based on these results, I tested the
prototype with 16 participants. The
participant (P) was asked to imagine
interacting with coworkers (C).
Snigdha Ramkumar
Accessibility Analyst - User Vision
snigdha@uservision.co.uk
AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS
ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
I aimed to explore the feasibility of a
platform that combined non-spatial
based platforms like Zoom and
Teams with virtual-space based
platforms such as GatherTown.
For this, I first aimed to explore
peoples’ perceptions of virtual
spaces and used these to ideate an
improved conferencing platform.
I sought to define links between the
two variables—non-spatial
platforms and virtual spaces—such
that changes in one interface are
reflected in the other. I examined
aspects such as the participants list,
private spaces, and spatial location.
I then aimed to understand people's
receptiveness to this type of
interface.
OBJECTIVES
Desk Research: Guerilla user
research, review of existing
literature and product reviews.
Formal Questionnaire: To study
how virtual spaces could impact a
person's sense of connectedness
and identify possible correlations.
Experimental Design: Low-fidelity
prototypes demonstrating the
combined platform interface.
User Testing: Think-aloud testing
using the combined platform
prototype. Users were assigned
one platform choice (non-spatial
or virtual space) and asked how
they would communicate with
users on another type of platform.
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
Virtual spaces—the chance to enjoy the camaraderie and endearing bustling from the comfort of one's own home. However,
with concerns about accessibility and inclusivity, can this emerging technology really be the future of remote working?
AREVIRTUALSPACESTHEFUTUREOF
VIDEOCONFERENCING?
Remote collaboration is here to stay.
However, video conferencing interfaces
still need to be improved to ensure a
good experience. In the spirit of
inclusive design, technology should
accommodate for different preferences.
Emerging technology could be
alienating a significant proportion of
users—accommodating different
expectations and preferences would
allow for an elevated user experience.
Thus, a single platform that allows users
to choose their preferred interface while
being able to interact normally with
others is an idea worth developing.
CONCLUSION
Future
Future
Future
or
or
or
Fad?
Fad?
Fad?
Future
Future
Future
or
or
or
Fad?
Fad?
Fad? This was conducted across four groups:
G1 - P: virtual space; C: non-spatial
G2 - P and C: non-spatial
G3 - P: non-spatial; C: virtual space
G4 - P and C: virtual space
Prototype showing proximity-based features
Seeing my boss as
an 8-bit character
makes them seem
less intimidating
It's not professional.
A waste of time,
especially if there's
work to be done.
Pre-meeting Space
Informal Discussion
Private Spaces and Breakout Rooms
Proximity Chat (chat with people within close
proximity)
Ability to switch between interfaces
Main meeting space without proximity features
Host-controlled restrictions
According to my research findings, the platform
integrating virtual spaces and non-spatial interfaces
should incorporate the following essential features and
functionalities:
Questionnaire results on respondents' opinions of virtual spaces
Number
of
participants
Clockwise from top left: Meta's Horizon Workrooms, Wonder Chat, Mozilla Hubs, Gather Town
Virtual-space based prototype
Non-spatial based prototype